One of the continuing themes in fisheries management this
year was the notion of a “Recreational Fishing Policy”.
It’s another one of those ideas given birth down in the Gulf
of Mexico, where anglers keep feeling picked on, that risks creating “collateral damage” among anglers everywhere else on the coast.
The basic premise of the push for a recreational policy is
that the National Marine Fisheries Service manages fish for the benefit of
commercial fishermen (I think we might find more than a couple of folks up in
New England who disagree with that, but…) and doesn’t understand how to manage
recreational fisheries.
As evidence, they point to the red snapper fishery in the
Gulf of Mexico where the big, bad federal government won’t allow anglers to
overfish the red snapper stock or, as an alternative, turn the entire fishery
over to the recreational anglers so that they can kill every red snapper that
the biologists will allow.
Bill Bird, Chairman of the Coastal Conservation
Association’s national Government Relations Committee, noted in public
comment to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council that
“…we question the timing of an effort that represents such a
significant shift in recreational fisheries management in the middle of NMFS’
attempt to craft the nation’s first Recreational Saltwater Fisheries
Policy. It is highly ironic that passage of Amendment 40 will
severely limit the ability of the Council or NMFS to meaningfully implement any
such policy for the Gulf recreational red snapper fishery, which is
virtually the sole impetus for the creation of the policy in the first place
[emphasis added].”
The fact that most of America’s anglers probably don’t catch
a single red snapper in any given year—and don’t particularly want to—doesn’t
matter to these folks. They’re using red
snapper to inform a policy that will impact all of us, whether we prefer to
fish for striped bass, scup, summer flounder, king mackerel, kelp bass or king
salmon.
Thus, it’s probably in our interest to take one last look at
what is being proposed and perhaps make some comments that might help to clean
up some of the rough spots.
Let’s start out with the fact that the policy includes good things which, if put into effect, will benefit both anglers and the
fish we pursue. However, we also have to
be cognizant of the fact that the recreational fishing industry has worked
pretty hard to get what it wants into the policy, and as a result, a few things
got in there that are based on a questionable premise.
The trick then, for anglers, is to separate those policy
elements that will benefit both fish and fishermen from the padding that the
industry put in there to benefit themselves.
For example, we should first insist on the truth.
That gets stretched quite a bit by a couple of statements,
one of which notes that
“Saltwater recreational fishing is a traditional, important
and expanding
thread in the social, cultural, and economic fabric of coastal communities in
the United States. [emphasis added]”
I’ll grant NMFS the “traditional” and “important” parts, but
as to “expanding”, well, that just isn’t so, no matter how many folks were
crawling over the rocks out at Montauk last fall, or how many stood shoulder to
shoulder down at Hatteras when the red drum came in.
That means that the statement that
“…an increasing number of people are pursuing recreational
opportunities afforded by this nation’s expansive coastal and ocean resources”
is equally untrue, if “recreational opportunities” is
defined to mean “recreational fishing.”
The data on recreational fishing effort over the last ten
years pretty much say it all.
Back in 2004, according to the National Marine Fisheries
Service, anglers throughout the United States made about 79 million individual
fishing trips (note that such number is actually low, as it does not include
trips made in Alaska, California, Oregon, Texas or Washington, which do not
participate in NMFS’ data collection program; however, since information from
those states will be consistently absent from this discussion, the trends
discussed remain valid).
By 2013, the number of annual trips had dropped to roughly
64 million, a reduction of 19%. The drop
was even sharper in many regions. For
ten years between 2004 and 2013, effort dropped by 29% in the North Atlantic, 24%
in the Mid-Atlantic, 22% in the South Atlantic, 48% in Hawaii and 51% in the
Caribbean.
In all of those places, angling effort has been steadily
trending down over the years.
Only the Gulf of Mexico seemed to buck the trend somewhat
(remember what I wrote about the Gulf fishermen trying to shape this policy to
reflect their reality, rather than that of the rest of us?). There, anglers made about 26 million trips in
2004 and 25 million trips in 2013, which also appears to reflect a small
decline, but this is one of those cases where two terminal years don’t really
tell the right story or reflect dominant trends.
Both 2004 and 2013 appear to be outliers, in which
Gulf effort was higher than the norm.
Over the entire 10-year period, anglers averaged about 23.67 million
trips, not very different from the 23.66 million trips that they averaged in
most recent three years, 2010-2013. So,
unless you believe that 2013 was the start of a new upward trend, angler effort
in the Gulf of Mexico over the past decade was flat.
Saying that angling is “expanding” or “increasing” is a
factual error that needs to be fixed, but there are true policy problems that
need fixing, too.
The first appears in the statement that
“the goals of this policy are to promote recreational
fishing for the cultural, social and economic benefit of the nation… [emphasis added]”
If it said, to “manage recreational fishing” for the
greatest national benefit, I’d be the first one on board, but “promote” is a
very different thing.
It’s just not NMFS’ job to spend taxpayer dollars to
“promote” any particular industry, including those that cater to saltwater
anglers. The American Sportfishing
Association does that job just fine.
It’s also dangerous to put NMFS in a position where it is
responsible for both regulating anglers and promoting angling.
It’s a no-win position for the agency, which
could easily get whipsawed between its obligation to prevent overfishing and
recover fish stocks (although we don’t like to admit it, anglers can overfish
and, at times, be an obstacle to recovery) and its proposed job of promoting
recreational fishing (even, presumably, when stocks are down).
We’ve seen that happen when NMFS tries to both promote and
regulate the commercial fishing folks, and there’s really no reason to go down
such a bad road again…
The policy reassures us that
“..the goals of this policy are to promote recreational
fishing…through science-based conservation and management…”
and includes a statement that
“NMFS will…support ecosystem conservation and enhancement…”
both of which are good.
But the Devil is always in the details, and as you read
through the policy, you realize that they guy in the red suit, with horns on
his head and pitchfork in hand, has authored some of the details here.
For example, the Policy describes recreational fishing as
fishing “for sport or pleasure,” with the anglers
“…retaining, consuming, sharing or releasing their catches… [emphasis added]”
Yet it’s hard to understand why the word “retaining” is
necessary, since “consuming” and “sharing” pretty well describe the only things
that one can do with a dead fish, outside of selling it (which recreational
fishermen, by definition, can’t do) or using it as fertilizer, which is
something that the Policy certainly shouldn’t encourage.
The Policy’s specific inclusion of “tournaments” within the
definition of recreational fishing just enhances that concern, because we all
know that there are still a lot of big-money “dumpster tournaments” out there,
in which fish—usually big apex predators such as sharks and marlin—are killed
and weighed in for prizes; after such events are over, the winners drive away
with their checks and the fish are driven away to a landfill, if they’re not
just dumped back at sea.
Such wasteful events are a relic of the last century, and have
no place in this one; no rational national recreational fishing policy should
even suggest that such waste is justified.
So, as far as I’m concerned, the references to “retaining”
and “tournaments” should both go away. “[C]onsuming,
sharing or releasing” pretty well cover the universe of acceptable use. If you can conduct a tournament within those parameters, fine. If you can't...
NMFS should also rethink the notion that the
“easing of regulatory fishery restrictions when conservation
goals are achieved”
is a worthwhile Policy goal.
Sure, it’s nice if it can be done, and the measures needed
to maintain a fishery at sustainable levels are usually not as strict as those needed to rebuild it, but that’s not
always the case.
The black sea bass fishery
in the Mid-Atlantic is a prime case in point.
The stock is fully rebuilt and the fish are very abundant; in fact,
they’re so abundant that anglers aren’t having any trouble catching them, and
as a result are overfishing badly. Next
year, it appears that regulations will actually have to be tightened…
And such overfishing leads to the next concern, the
promotion
“…of sustainable, safe aquaculture to support recreational
fisheries…”
In plain English, that means hatcheries, and that’s not a
good thing.
I touched on them in detail in an earlier blog, entitled “Seductive—but
not Satisfactory.”
The bottom line is that hatcheries are, for the most part, a
sign of failed fishery management policies.
They give managers an opportunity to let people overfish stocks with a
clear conscience, as they know that an endless supply of “rubber fish” produced
in a tank will be provided to replace what the anglers remove.
However, there is a good body of research
which suggests that hatchery fish are not as fit to survive as their naturally
spawned counterparts, and if enough such fish are dumped into the water, can harm
the genetic makeup of the natural population.
Reducing our fish’s fitness to survive isn’t something that
the Policy should support.
The final problems with the Policy lie in its call for
“innovative solutions to evolving science, management and
environmental challenges through partnerships by supporting investigation and
development of new …data collection techniques (e.g., electronic catch
reporting)…”
as well as
“public-private collaboration (e.g., cooperative research and
citizen science activities)…”
That’s just asking for trouble.
So far, NMFS’ efforts in the direction of “electronic catch
reporting” have been notably unimpressive.
For example, anglers
are supposed to report every Atlantic bluefin tuna that they land within 24
hours. However, when I spoke with an
employee of NMFS’ Highly Migratory Fisheries unit at the Recreational Fishing
Summit down in Alexandria, Virginia last April, he lamented that reporting
rates languished at around 20%--anglers who landed 4 out of 5 bluefin tuna
fail to comply with the law. That doesn’t
bode well for electronic reporting by anglers.
It’s not clear that for-hire vessels will do any better.
Right now, federally-permitted for-hire vessels in the
Mid-Atlantic summer flounder, scup and black sea bass fishery are required to
file vessel trip reports, but there is reason to question the information
provided.
For example, when passengers
of a New Jersey party boat landed over 800 out-of-season black sea bass a
few years ago, the captain told a reporter that
“I didn’t think it was that many. And I’m not getting paid by the State of New
Jersey to take fish out of people’s buckets.”
With comments such as those, it’s easy to guess that his
vessel trip reports might be lacking in accuracy.
And while those passengers were taking illegal fish, the
captain appears to have acted within the law.
When you consider the number of for-hire boats that don’t do everything
by the book, such as those
out in Montauk, New York who conducted “sushi cruises,” allowing their
fares to kill and eat undersized summer flounder right on the boat, or a
Sheepshead Bay boat that allows its passengers
(and please note that
these are only two examples of blatant violations; I could have bored you with
plenty more if I thought that it would have served any purpose), it’s a pretty fair
bet that many vessel trip reports don’t bear much resemblance to reality, and
will not improve the fisheries management process.
Similar concerns surround the concepts of “cooperative
research” and “citizen science”.
Any time that someone offers to “help” NMFS
conduct research, our first reaction should be to question why.
Maybe they are merely scientists, seeking to
further their professional reputations by conducting research that will expand
our knowledge about the fish stocks that swim off our shores.
But there is a good chance that they have more selfish
motives.
Perhaps they are state employees seeking to impeach NMFS’ data,
in order to get a few more fish for local residents, as we have seen happen in Alabama’s
red snapper fishery.
Maybe they will
be members of the fishing industry trying to find ways for their customers to
increase their kill, as we’ve seen with summer
flounder.
But we can be pretty sure that what we’ll be seeing is
agenda-driven research, and not the sort of objective research that should be
used to manage America’s fisheries.
That shouldn’t be part of the Policy, either.
So what should be a part of a recreational fishing policy?
In my view, recognition that salt water fish are a public
resource, which should be managed in a way that benefits the public as a whole,
and not just particular industries.
That
should be coupled with recognition of the fact that recreational fishing is
just that—recreation—and that the best recreational experiences occur when fish
are abundant and fishing is fun.
Recreational fishing is not and should never be a grim grind aimed at
filling the fish box—although eating some of one’s catch is a pleasure that
should never be denied.
The way to provide a quality recreational experience is
through good, objective science, using data that meets the highest scientific
and statistical standards, obtained through reliable and verifiable sources
rather than from folks with their own ax to grind. That science must then be used to craft
regulations that place the highest priority on the long-term health of fish
stocks, for everything else—all economic, social and recreational benefits—depend
on the fish being there.
Fishing in an empty ocean is not very much fun.
But that’s only my view.
I’m sure you have your own.
And if you do, you should let NMFS know what it is, by going
to http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/management/recreational/policy/,
clicking on the links and filling out the form.
You have until December 31 to do it.
This weekend would be a good time.
No comments:
Post a Comment