I entered the meeting room with some trepidation.
For the past year, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission had been debating the implications of the most recent benchmark
assessment of the striped bass stock, and whether changes needed to be made to
management measures. And for the past year,
I and a host of other anglers who cared about the striped bass resource had
been speaking to whoever would listen, arguing for conservative, science-based
striped bass management.
For some of us, this was a new fight. For many others, it was the possible
culmination of a debate that began back in 1995, when ASMFC declared the bass
stock recovered and set annual catch limits that seemed far too high. For a few of us, gray-haired and long in the
tooth, it was one more vital battle in a war that began in the seeming mists of
time, when the bass collapsed in the late 1970s.
But whatever our experience, it was a battle we feared we
might lose.
It shouldn’t have been that way. The science, the management plan and even
ASMFC’s charter were all in our favor.
Public opinion was overwhelmingly on our side.
But this was ASMFC, where a few dozen commissioners, most
with no formal training in fisheries management and unbound by law or the
courts, could ignore all that and vote as their whim and their wallets desired.
An influential commissioner from Maryland had already put a
proposal on the table to overthrow a vital conservation provision in the
management plan, arguing that “socio-economic impacts” justified such a change.
Ahead of the meeting, I had a quick talk with a commissioner
I knew from New England, and he told me what I had suspected: From the talk at the dinner the night before,
the outcome was truly in doubt. One or
two votes could decide things.
A former commissioner caught me walking in the door, and
said that even the vote of my home state of New York was in doubt.
And so the battle was joined…
It was soon apparent that the Chesapeake Bay
jurisdictions—Maryland, the District of Columbia, Virginia and the Potomac
River Fisheries Commission—were hoping to frustrate the process. It was also apparent that a few commissioners
from a few other states wanted to see them succeed.
Their attack began well before the general debate, when they
began a close questioning of the folks presenting the science to the Striped
Bass Management Board. The facts were
clearly against them, but as an attorney, I recognized their tactic. Like defense counsel in a capital case, they
were trying to raise “reasonable doubt” about the stock assessment—just enough
doubt to convince the panel to let the bad guy go free.
Adam Nowalsky, a charter boat captain and the legislative
proxy from New Jersey, asked questions about retrospective bias in the
assessment which suggested that it underestimated biomass and overestimated
fishing mortality. His question was
later echoed by Emerson Hasbrouck, governor’s appointee from New York, and
Robert O’Reilly of the Potomac River Fisheries Commission. But a Technical Committee representative made
it clear that any biases that did exist were no worse than those in any other
management plan.
Hasbrouck then asked
whether the projections for stock recovery under the various options
presented—which showed that making all harvest cuts in a single year would lead
to the quickest recovery—were statistically similar when the uncertainty inherent
in each calculation was considered. A
Technical Committee representative conceded that they were, but Hasbrouck lost
the point after Jim Gilmore, New York’s marine fisheries director, pointed out
that the one-year option was the only one that might let managers know whether the
new management measures were working before the next stock assessment was done.
And the Chesapeake jurisdictions kept hammering at the fact
that a smaller population than we have today can still produce good year
classes every now and then, asking the tech folks to confirm that was not true.
By the time that the voting started, what should have been a
routine matter—accepting fishing mortality reference points from a
peer-reviewed stock assessment that clearly represented the best available
science—turned into a grudging, grinding retreat by the Chesapeake folks, that
took far longer than it should have.
O’Reilly opposed accepting the science, calling the reference
points “extremely conservative” and warning about the “ecological consequences”
of high striped bass abundance—most particularly his concern that the striped
bass will eat too many blue crabs (which got along with the stripers perfectly
well for thousands of years, until the watermen that O’Reilly represents
started to kill them).
Martin Gary of the Potomac River Fisheries Commission
questioned whether the spawning stock reference points in the assessment “are
even achievable,” while Kyle Schick, proxy for Virginia’s legislative
appointee, blamed declining striped bass catch not on a shrinking population,
but on a poor economy and the effects of Hurricane Sandy.
But Paul Diodati, the marine fisheries director for the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, called the assessment “one of the best I’ve
seen” and just about everyone agreed.
The reference points were adopted by a vote of 12 in favor and the four
Chesapeake votes against.
It was harder than it should have been, but the striped bass
won its first fight of the day.
After that, the Management Board addressed the core
issue—how long it should take to reduce fishing mortality to the new, lower
target.
The current management plan makes it clear that all
reductions must be made in one year, and Diodati of Massachusetts made a motion
to that effect. To no one’s surprise,
O’Reilly of the PRFC quickly moved to amend, replacing one year with three, and
thus began an hours-long grind.
In previous posts, I observed that the striped bass vote
would test the credibility and integrity of ASMFC. Thus, I was pleased to see that there were many
folks on the Management Board intent on honoring its commitment, including
Richie White, governor’s appointee from New Hampshire, who forthrightly stated
that the debate
“comes down to the credibility of the commission…I gave my
word to the public at this time [when Amendment
6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass
adopted the requirement to reduce harvest within one year]”
Pat Keliher, marine fisheries director of the State of
Maine, echoed those sentiments, saying that it was
“time to honor our commitment to the resource and to the
public.”
Dr. Louis Daniels, fisheries Director of the State of North
Carolina also stood on principle, saying
“We made a commitment in Amendment 6 and we need to stick
with that commitment.”
Representative Sarah Peake, the legislative appointee from
Massachusetts, opposed dragging the cuts out over three years, noting the
overwhelming public support for making them all in one year and saying
“The public has expressed that they have a sense of urgency
about this.”
Of course, the Chesapeake Bay states had no intention of
giving up their fight to delay stock rebuilding, and they pulled out all the
stops trying to make their case.
Schick of Virginia, perhaps remembering Richard Nixon’s
conjuring of a “silent majority,” argued that the anglers providing public
comment were just a small minority of the millions of people who fish for
striped bass and who—if they had spoken—would have supported a three-year
phase-in. A couple of dozen supporters
of the 1 @ 32” Pledge responded by holding up bright yellow “1 @ 32 inches”
signs, which clearly made Schick uneasy.
Dan Ryan, representing the District of Columbia, tried to
elicit sympathy by arguing that the fishermen he represented only caught bass
under 20 inches long, and did it from shore, claiming that if the harvest cuts
were taken in a single year
“We will effectively eliminate the fishery for our shorebound
anglers,”
who apparently need to pound on the 2011 year class before
it matures.
Thomas O’Connell, the Maryland marine fisheries director who
first put the three-year option into the draft addendum, began to realize that
the tide had turned against his position, and asked for sympathy of
another sort, saying that he knew that the Chesapeake states didn’t have the
votes to prevail, but that he hoped that the rest of the states would view the
three-year option as an “olive branch” offered up by the Bay states that he
hoped would be accepted.
And just in case the olive branch wasn’t accepted, another
Maryland commissioner, Russell Dize, proxy for the legislative appointee,
assured the Management Board that he’d been a waterman for 55 years, and that
the most striped bass that he’d ever seen in his life were swimming around out
in Chesapeake Bay right now.
And, of course, those bass were eating up all of the crabs…
Someone, I don’t remember who, also argued that if people
were required to release most of their fish, some of those released fish were
going to die. Massachusetts’ Paul
Deodati put the comment in perspective by noting that
“Eight or nine percent release mortality is a lot less than
the 100% mortality from keeping the fish.”
In the end, New Jersey and Delaware joined with the four Bay
jurisdictions, but the three-year proposal went the way of the dodo, with six
in favor and the other ten against.
Still, the other states weren’t completely unsympathetic to
those bordering Chesapeake Bay, and made it clear that a reasonable compromise
would be considered. However, when O’Connell
of Maryland proposed splitting the baby and taking two years to reduce harvest
to target levels, neither the Management Board nor the audience, which was
allowed to make limited comments, was particularly impressed, and the motion
was ultimately withdrawn.
So O’Connell tried again, making a motion that would require
coastal harvest to be reduced by 25% next season, but only require a 20.5% cut—calculated
to reduce harvest to target within those two years—in the Bay. The compromise was unlikely to reduce overall
harvest to target levels within one year, as the majority wanted, but the
coastal harvest was so much larger than that in the Bay that the technical
folks suggested that it probably wouldn’t take too much longer.
Still, there was plenty of wrangling, with Tom Fote,
governor’s appointee from New Jersey, strongly objecting to a proposal that
would allow the Bay jurisdictions to cut back less than the coast. There was some merit to that case, but in the
end, the motion was overwhelmingly accepted, with only New Jersey and Delaware
voting against.
The bass had won another round, although not as
decisively. And they won another when
every state but New York voted against allowing the transfer of commercial
quotas, a proposal that, if it had passed, made it very likely that the
commercial sector—which was already going to take a smaller real cut than the
anglers—would have maintained its current level of harvest.
After that, things grew a lot less exciting. The 28-inch size limit was retained for both recreational
and commercial fishermen, and the recreational bag limit was reduced to a
single fish. However, as is typical in
ASMFC management, states will be allowed to propose alternate measures deemed
to have “conservation equivalency” with the proposal adopted.
That debate took a strange turn. One fish at 28 inches or more would reduce
harvest about 31%, but the Management Board decided that states could achieve
conservation equivalency with measures that only achieved the 25% reduction
needed to reduce mortality to target within one year. Thus, the states who opt for conservation
equivalency will be able to take a smaller cut than those which actually adhere
to the measures that the Management Board approved.
So, in the end, ASMFC almost did the right thing, which is
a lot better than what usually happens.
Still, in requiring just a 20.5% cut in Chesapeake Bay, and
in making the 25% coastal commercial reduction from Amendment 6 quotas rather
than from the reported landings, the actual reduction will be somewhere below
25%. Since ASMFC started out with just a
50-50 chance of reducing fishing mortality to target within one year, even if
the full 25% reduction was achieved, we’re left with a management plan that
will probably fail to achieve its objective.
In addition, the decision to grant conservation equivalency
to management measures that only reduce a state’s harvest by 25% could tempt a
lot of jurisdictions to come up with ways to kill a second fish, which can
hardly be good for a stock that is almost certain to be overfished by next
year.
Given where a lot of us feared we’d end up going into the
meeting, we’re not in a bad place right now, but the outcome of ASMFC’s Striped
Bass Management Board meeting really highlights the reasons why the federal
fisheries management system, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act’s mandates, are far superior to those of ASMFC.
For if ASMFC had to abide by the Magnuson Act’s standards,
the striped bass’ recovery would have begun on January 1, 2014—if not
before. The fishing mortality reference
points from the benchmark stock assessment would have been adopted more than a
full year ago, and measures to reduce harvest to target, and to rebuild what
will soon be an overfished stock, would have been adopted soon after.
There would have been no opportunity for states to try to
game the system, using conservation equivalency, to kill more than one fish or
reduce the minimum size. One striped
bass of 28 inches or more would have been the law of the land in every state on
the striper coast, applicable whether the angler fished from a private boat, a
party or charter vessel, a bridge, the beach or a pier.
Striped bass would be governed by a single, uniform
standard, wherever they happened to swim.
We’re not going to get to that point for quite a few years,
if we ever do (and I think that we really should try).
In the meantime, striped bass anglers should be happy just
with the fact that, for once, ASMFC almost got it right, that striped bass will
have some real added protection next year, and that we’re now at a place where
we can put pressure on our own state managers to be true to the votes that they
cast at the meeting and give the striper a real chance to thrive.
Everyone who took part in this fight should feel proud.
No comments:
Post a Comment