The Center for Coastal Conservation is again trying to sell
policymakers of the superior virtues of state fisheries management, and again
trying to use striped bass as a good example.
In its recently-issued report, A
Vision for Marine Fisheries Management in the 21st Century,
Priorities for a New Administration, it claims that
“States are the experts at managing—very successfully—numerous
fish species such as red drum, spotted sea trout, and striped bass.”
The Center is based down in Louisiana, far from the striper
coast, and maybe if you look at striped bass management through swampwater-blurred
eyes, it looks pretty good. But to those
of us who actually live close to the northern ocean, who remember what it used
to be like, when stripers chased herring into the wash beneath a late November
moon, the current state of the striped bass stock, and of striped bass
management, doesn’t look that good at all.
We saw another example of how it fell short last Monday,
when the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission took the first steps
toward increasing the striped bass kill, even though the spawning stock biomass
remains a long way below its rebuilding target.
Like most efforts to hinder striped bass conservation over
the past couple of years, this week’s effort was spearheaded by Maryland,
which fought hard, if unsuccessfully, to derail the harvest reductions
mandated by Addendum
IV to Amendment 6 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management
Plan two years ago.
Although Maryland, and the other Chesapeake Bay
jurisdictions, weren’t able to prevent ASMFC’s Striped Bass Management Board
from adopting Addendum IV, they did manage to convince the Management Board to
grant them one concession: Instead of
reducing landings in 2015 and beyond by 25%, compared to landings in 2013,
Maryland and its Chesapeake neighbors would only be required to reduce landings
by 20.5%, compared to a different base year, 2012.
Instead of being happy that they were granted a break not
afforded to states on the coast, Maryland
began whining a year ago about the “crisis” the cuts had caused, and how
their fishermen were “suffering” as a result.
Instead of staying the course until a new benchmark stock assessment
could be released in 2018, less than one year into the new management regime,
Maryland’s representatives on the Management Board were already fighting for a
bigger kill.
Of course, when the final numbers came in, it turned out
that far from “suffering” from a landings reduction, Maryland’s
recreational fishermen had actually increased their harvest by more than 50%,
compared to their 2012 landings.
That might have embarrassed some Management Board members
into silence, but Michael Luisi of Maryland’s Department of Natural Resources seemed to feel no shame.
Instead, he pointed out that Amendment IV apparently did its
work slightly too well, and that fishing mortality for 2015 was estimated to be
0.16, a bit lower than the 0.18 mortality target.
Apparently believing that it was his duty to
increase his state’s kill as much as possible, and minimize the number of
immature bass that might survive and possibly help to rebuild the spawning
stock, Mr.
Luisi made a motion
“to task the Striped Bass Technical Committee to 1) determine
the percent liberalization of harvest that would increase fishing mortality (F)
from the 2015 terminal year estimate of 0.16 to the [Fishery Management Plan]
target of 0.18…”
That motion was remarkable on a number of levels.
The first was the thin justification for making the motion
at all. The difference between the 2015
fishing mortality rate of 0.16 and the target rate of 0.18 is surpassingly
small—so small that the two rates aren’t really significantly different; there
is always some error inherent in such estimates, and that inherent error could
easily be large enough that the actual, rather than the estimated, 2015 fishing
mortality was 0.18, if not a bit more (although it could also have been
somewhat lower).
Then there is the question of whether regulations ought to
be changed every time actual landings diverge from the target. Try as they might, managers aren’t
perfect. It is almost certain that,
despite all of their efforts, the actual fishing mortality rate in any given
year will be a little higher or a little lower than the target figure.
But, of course, it’s safe to say that Maryland wouldn’t have
made a motion to determine how much to reduce harvest if the 2015 mortality
estimate had been 0.20, a bit higher than the target level. In fact, if we can go back a few years, we
can find instances where some members of the Management Board had wanted to
reduce harvest due to a clear drop in striped bass abundance, but never got
very far.
For example, a 2011
stock assessment update noted that abundance had fallen from 67.5 million fish
in 2004 to 42.3 million fish in 2010, and stated that
“Forecasts of age 8+ abundance from 2010 to 2017 and spawning
stock biomass from 2011 to 2013 at status quo F (0.23) and selectivity show an
increase in abundance through 2011, but a subsequent decline in abundance
through 2017. Spawning stock biomass
will increase slightly in 2011, but decline through 2013.”
After that information, which accurately predicted the state
of today’s stock, was presented at the November
2011 Striped Bass Management Board meeting, Paul Diodati, representing the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, asked
“…even if you add in future young-of-the-year indices that
might be better than the past ten years, is that projection of [spawning stock
biomass] going to change dramatically or not until after 2017? In other words, you have a trajectory that
the projections are suggesting that we’re approaching that threshold [which
defines an overfished stock] in 2017 under current conditions or average conditions…
“It seems to me that given that the past seven years of poor
or below average recruitment, it is inevitable that is going to translate into
lower [spawning stock biomass] over the next several years regardless of what
happens over the next three or four years relative to recruitment.”
Gary Nelson, who presented the stock assessment update and
contributed to its preparation, answered simply,
“Yes, that’s true.”
So there was little question that, regardless of the strong
2011 year class and regardless of what recruitment looked like in the near
future, there was a likelihood that the stock would be overfished, or nearly
so, by 2017. Yet when the time came to
consider a draft addendum that would have reduced harvest to prevent that from
occurring, a motion was made, which passed 9 to 6, to postpone further action on such addendum
until after a stock assessment was completed, something that would not occur
for another two years.
Because that’s how things work at ASMFC.
The concept of conserving a declining stock is viewed with
suspicion, and efforts to do so are seldom made until the population falls to a
point near, or below, the threshold for an overfished stock. On the other hand, any chance to increase the
kill is quickly exploited, and action to do so is quickly taken, even if the
population is far below the target that denotes a healthy and fully restored
stock.
And that perennial truth about ASMFC seems to be playing out
here once again.
To be fair, it’s far from certain that the Management Board
will increase striped bass harvest. The
Technical Committee was only asked to determine the percentage increase in harvest
that would, in theory, be needed to reach the target level.
Once the Technical Committee comes back with that number,
the Management Board may decide that the change is too small to be worth
worrying about.
It may recognize the
folly inherent in changing regulations based only on 2015 data, when there may
have been higher landings in 2016.
It
may consider the
poor 2016 spawn in Maryland, and decide that it makes sense to be cautious.
Or, it may move forward with measures that would increase the kill.
But the very fact that the Management Board would entertain
Maryland’s motion, and open the door to even the possibility of increasing the
striped bass harvest at this time, reveals the biggest flaw in striped bass
management.
ASMFC isn’t subject to any enforceable standards. There are no legal requirements that ASMFC’s
management plans rebuild and adequately conserve striped bass or any other
stock. ASMFC’s management boards may, at
any time, exercise their discretion free of legal restraints, and arbitrarily abandon
management measures adopted just a year or two before.
Despite what the Center for Coastal Conservation might say,
that sort of haphazard management just doesn’t work.
That’s why ASMFC hasn’t managed to rebuild a
single depleted stock in the past 20 years, although it has seen the health of
a number of stocks decline during that time.
Right now, striped bass are badly in need of rebuilding. The Maryland motion raises the question of whether ASMFC has the dedication and
the discipline needed to get that job done.
No comments:
Post a Comment