As part of the ongoing
red snapper debate, various “anglers’ rights” organizations frequently tout the
superiority of state fisheries managers, when compared to their counterparts at
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
One such organization, the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), has
frequently expressed its support for H.R. 3094, legislation
that would strip NMFS of all authority to manage red snapper in the Gulf of
Mexico, and transfer such authority over to a panel composed exclusively of
state fishery managers. In an effort to justify their position, CCA argued that, “Through
their highly successful management of species like red drum, speckled trout,
snook and numerous others, the states have demonstrated that they can
effectively manage fisheries for both sustainability and access.”
However, in the case
of speckled trout, saying that state management is “highly successful” is
patently untrue.
The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune recently reported that biologists employed by Mississippi’s
Department of Marine Fisheries have determined that the state’s speckled trout
(formally known as “spotted seatrout,” Cynoscion
nebulosus) are overfished.
The health of the speckled trout stock is determined by its
spawning potential ratio (SPR). SPR is calculated by dividing the number of eggs that an average
fish in the current population can produce by the number of eggs that an
average fish could produce if the population wasn’t subject to any fishing at
all. Thus, the SPR of an unfished population is 100%, while the SPR of a
population that is subject to fishing will be some smaller number, determined
by the rate of fishing mortality.
It is generally believed that, depending on the species, an SPR
between 20% and 35%, or perhaps a bit more, will maintain a stock at
sustainable levels, while anything less than 20% could lead to sharp
declines in abundance.
Mississippi regulations allow anglers to take home 15 speckled trout,
which must be at least 13 inches long, on each day that they choose to go
fishing. The 15-fish bag limit has remained
unchanged for the past 20 years, while the 13-inch minimum size was
actually reduced from 14 inches in 2007.
Such regulations remained unchanged even after the stock began to decline after 2009;
state managers made no effort to impose more restrictive regulations in an
attempt to stop the stock’s slide and begin its recovery.
Facing a depleted stock, Mississippi fisheries managers have
finally expressed a willingness to impose regulations that might allow the
speckled trout to recover. But now, instead of relatively mild restrictions
that might have been enough to halt the decline when it had first begun,managers will have to cut the
recreational harvest in half if they want to assure the stock’s recovery.
The decline of Mississippi’s speckled trout stock, and state
fisheries managers’ tardy efforts to begin its recovery, are troubling enough.
However, speckled trout in Louisiana seem to
be following a parallel course.
There, according to a Louisiana fisheries
biologist, the SPR of the state’s speckled trout stock has fallen to
10%, marginally lower than in Mississippi. But while Mississippi biologists
believe that their speckled trout are overfished, Louisiana biologists have no
such concerns.
Louisiana regulations are even more liberal than those in
Mississippi. Anglers may keep 25 speckled trout each day, and the minimum size
is a mere 12 inches (although somewhat more restrictive rules are imposed in
the southwestern corner of the state). Such regulations were adopted in 1987;
since 1981, the SPR of Louisiana’s speckled trout has never exceeded 20%, and
has fallen as low as 8%.
A biologist with the Louisiana
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries admits that, “The current limits, biologically
speaking, are designed to maximize angler yield while not putting the stock
into a condition where we may see recruitment overfishing.”
Managers never want to
see recruitment overfishing, for recruitment overfishing is a prologue to
crisis.
It is defined as “The rate of fishing above which the
recruitment to the exploitable biomass becomes significantly reduced. This is
characterized by a greatly reduced spawning stock, a decreasing proportion of
older fish in the catch, and generally very low recruitment year after year.
May lead to stock collapse if prolonged and combined with poor environmental conditions.”
Louisiana guides are already noting that larger, older speckled
trout are becoming scarce. One complained that “On an average day, we’re throwing back
between 50 and 150 fish” that fall below the 12-inch minimum size. “My theory
is that the fish aren’t getting a chance to grow up. The minute that they hit
12 inches, they’re getting killed.”
That guide went on to
say that, at one time, his clients occasionally caught speckled trout weighing
between 6 and 8 pounds, and that 5-pounders were relatively common, but “You
don’t see them anymore. You just don’t. The fish get killed before they have a
chance to grow up.”
So it appears that at least one element of recruitment
overfishing, a declining number of older fish in the catch, is already
occurring in Louisiana. Even so, state fishery managers don’t believe
that a “complete collapse”
will ever occur because speckled trout mature when still very young, and a
relatively small population can produce an adequate number of eggs.
State managers’
treatment of speckled trout in Mississippi and Louisiana provide key insights
into how Gulf of Mexico red snapper might fare, should management authority
ever be taken away from NMFS and given to the states.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens),
which currently governs red snapper management outside of state waters,
mandates that “management plans shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a
continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery.” “Optimum” yield, in
turn, “is prescribed as such on the basis of maximum sustainable yield from the
fishery, as reduced by any relevant economic, social or ecological factor; and
in the case of an overfished fishery, provides for a rebuilding to a level
consistent with producing the maximum sustainable yield…”
That certainly isn’t what’s going on in Louisiana, where
managers “walk a tightrope between getting full public use out of a
renewable resource and harming a fishery at least in the short term,” trying to
keep harvest just low enough to prevent recruitment overfishing, and avert a
stock collapse.
Unlike NMFS, state
managers are not legally required to “prevent overfishing” at all.
That’s particularly dangerous in the case of red snapper, which
mature late and don’t enter their most productive
egg-producing years until nearly 10 years old. Overfishing, which
reduces the number of older, larger fish in the population, would have a
serious adverse impact on the snapper’s spawning potential.
Furthermore,
Magnuson-Stevens requires that “management measures shall be based on the best
scientific information available.” States are bound by no such standard, a fact
that’s evident in the case of speckled trout.
The Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC) published a Gulf-wide speckled trout management
plan in 2001. The GSMFC
plan notes that
“evaluating the status of the spotted seatrout stock Gulf-wide
is problematic because different states have different conservation
standards…Louisiana has adopted a SPR value of 18% as their conservation
standard…[Florida’s] management objective is a transitional SPR value of 35%.
Florida’s conservation standard was chosen in an effort to increase both the
number of older, larger fish in the spawning stock and angler
satisfaction…Texas does not use a “conservation threshold” associated with any
one stock measure…Rather, a broad-based, more holistic approach is used.
Management objectives are: 1) to allow fish to spawn at least once before
entering the fishery, 2) to prevent growth overfishing, and 3) to provide for a
quality and/or trophy fishery…”
When three different
states take three very different approaches to managing the same species, it’s
clear that at least two of them can’t be adhering to “the best scientific
information available.” The fact that Louisiana apparently adopted an SPR of
18% as a conservation standard, and then does nothing when the SPR of the
speckled trout stock drops to half of that level, speaks volumes about the
importance of science to state management efforts.
Should red snapper
management ever be transferred to a panel of state fisheries managers, it’s not
hard to predict that the same sort of chaos will ensue. One or more states will
try to “maximize angler yield,” and push the stock to the verge of collapse, eliminating
most of the older, larger fish from the population as they do so. Others will
use subjective criteria to manage the stock, and avoid the discipline imposed
by hard data. And one, maybe two, will be like Florida, and try to use good
science and maintain a stock that is healthy and includes some older, larger
fish in the population.
Chaos would be bad for
red snapper. In the long run, it would be bad for red snapper fishermen, too.
Right now, NMFS’ approach to red snapper management has been
successful. The stock, which had an SPR of 4.2% in 2005, is rebuilding
nicely, and is now about halfway to the target SPR of 26%.
Red snapper anglers
have a choice.
They can let NMFS
continue its efforts, and expect to see the red snapper stock fully restored
around 2032. Or they can turn management over to the states, and let them fail
the red snapper as badly as they have failed speckled trout.
When you look at it
that way, there is really no choice at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment