Remember The X-Files?
It was a science fiction show from two decades ago (briefly
revived early last year), in which two FBI agents, from a special unit,
followed up on reports of alien abductions, UFOs and similar unexplained phenomena.
The tagline of the show was “The truth is out there.”
Sometimes, when you read pieces about fisheries management,
particularly in the local angling press, it often seems that truth is more
elusive there than it was in The X-Files’
world.
The current debate over summer flounder management provides
some good examples.
Such reductions will impose the lowest annual catch limitsin the history of summer flounder management, and will impose some real short-term
economic distress on commercial and recreational fishing businesses. People associated with such businesses are
naturally unhappy with NMFS’ decision.
However, the landings reductions are necessary because
recruitment—the number of young fish entering the population—has been well
below average for six consecutive years.
As a result, the population has been declining; currently, the spawning
stock biomass is at only 58% of the abundance needed to produce maximum
sustainable yield. The Mid-Atlantic
Fishery Management Council’s Science and Statistics Committee has noted that,
if such reductions are not imposed, the biomass is going to shrink further, and
might fall below 50% of the level needed to produce maximum sustainable yield—and
thus meet the definition of an “overfished” stock—by the end of this year.
All
of that information is readily available on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council’s website. However, it seems
to have escaped the notice of reporters in the popular press and of writers who
appear in various angling publications.
“Fishing advocates are seeking to head off what they
described as ‘devastating’ reductions in the New York State quota for fluke
next year are calling on regulators to forestall planned 2017 cuts until a more
current assessment of the fish population is completed.”
The article quotes United States Senator Charles Schumer, who criticized federal fisheries managers for using a benchmark stock assessment
completed in 2013 to manage the stock.
What the article doesn’t do is mention why
the harvest reductions are necessary.
There is no mention of the six consecutive years of poor recruitment, or
of the steady and steep decline in summer flounder abundance. There's also no discussion of what will happen to the fishery if overfishing continues and summer flounder become less and less abundant.
And while the article quotes Sen. Schumer’s
criticism of NMFS for using a stock assessment completed in 2013 to manage
summer flounder, it completely fails to mention the fact that such assessment
has been updated in every year since, and that the data underlying the harvestreductions came from an update to the assessment made in July 2016, only about
one month before the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s August meeting,when the decision to impose the reductions was made.
The public was left with the impression that the harvest
cuts were, to again quote Sen. Schumer, an “ideological” decision, rather than
one made on recent and compelling data that showed a clear problem with the
summer flounder stock.
Newsday, already having committed sins of omission by not
reporting on the biological basis for the harvest reductions, then compounded
their error with sins of commission, ending the article with a box that laid
out the supposed consequences of the reduced catch for anglers. According to Newsday
“Planned federal limits on fluke fishing next year include
·
Reducing the number of fluke that can be taken
from a current five per day to two.
·
Increasing the minimum size limit to 19 inches
from the current 18 inches.
·
Reducing the season to 80 days from the current
128, starting in June rather than May.”
The problem is that no one has proposed such a suite of
regulations.
No one at all…
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council decided that the
states should be free to select any regulations that they choose, so long as
such regulations reduce landings by a sufficient amount; all of the state
proposals would be evaluated by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. The
Council, in a press release, stated that it
“recommended continued use of conservation equivalency to
achieve, but not exceed, the 2017 summer flounder recreational harvest limit
(RHL) of 3.77 million pounds.
Conservation equivalency allows individual states or multi-state regions
to develop customized measures that, in combination, will achieve the coastwide
RHL. The combination of those measures
should be equivalent to the non-preferred coastwide alternative approved by the
Council and [ASMFC Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Management] Board
(i.e., a 4-fish possession limit, a 19-inch total length minimum size, and an
open season of June 1-September 15).”
Those are the real “planned federal limits.”
I don’t see any 2-fish bag limit or 80-day season.
Do you?
The Mid-Atlantic Council and ASMFC also adopted “precautionary
default measures,” to be imposed on states that do not adopt the required
conservation equivalent regulations. Such
default measures are intended to scare fish into compliance, and are in fact
scary—a 2-fish bag, 20-inch minimum size and a season comprised only of July
and August.
But while such default measures are harsh, they don’t look
much like the measures described by Newsday either…
To figure out what the conservation-equivalent measures
might look like, one would have to go to ASMFC’s website, and take a look at the
Draft
Addendum XXVIII to the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Fishery
Management Plan for Public Comment.
Dealing only with the possible management options for New
York (along with Connecticut and New Jersey, which share New York-s 3-state
region), since those are what Newsday addressed, there are five possibilities.
The worst would actually impose more severe regulations than
those cited by Newsday—a 2-fish bag, 18-inch minimum size, and 59-day
season. From there, depending on the
methodology used to distribute the summer flounder among the states, they range
from a 3-fish bag, 19-inch minimum size and 96-day season to the same size and
bag with either a 99-day or the current 128-day season.
Again, the combination of 2 fish, a 19-inch minimum size and
an 80-day season is nowhere to be found (although such combination was discussed at one point, it did not make it into the draft Addendum).
At this point, I should make it clear that I’m not trying to
single out Newsday for this sort of inaccuracy.
Similar
information was circulated by CBS News, which said that
“Fluke season could now be cut nearly in half, and each
person will only be allowed two fluke instead of five,”
while also failing to mention the six years of poor
recruitment or the steadily declining stock size.
A host of other newspaper articles, from a
number of states, contained similar, misleading information.
Even Sen. Schumer apparently hasn’t seen some of the most
current information on the state of the stock.
“The limits that are put in four or five years ago that have
produced more fish now—it’s not taken into account that we have more fish
now. So they can actually raise the
limits. Instead, they’ve lowered them
dramatically, and that’s very, very bad.”
But as we know from the 2016 stock assessment update, there
aren’t more summer flounder now than there were four or five years ago; because
of poor recruitment, the stock is in decline.
So where are reporters, and legislators such as Sen.
Schumer, getting such bad information about the summer flounder situation?
It’s clearly not from the Mid-Atlantic Council or ASMFC
websites, but perhaps an
article that recently ran in The
Fisherman magazine provides an answer.
It was supposedly a feature intended to inform anglers about current
summer flounder management, but it began
“I’m about to really tick you off,”
and soon after told readers
“I told you that you’d be pissed!”
so it’s fair to assume that the author never intended to
provide a balanced account of the process.
The Fisherman article contains the same misleading comments about a 2-fish bag
limit, and casts aspersions on the accuracy of the science used to manage the
fishery, although to be fair it, unlike the articles quoted above, at least
makes (very) brief reference to the declining spawning stock and below-par
recruitment.
But that’s not the telling language. The article also says
“Imagine of course when summer visitors see the ‘Two Fish at 19-Inch’ size limit on the
sign at the party boat dock—alongside the already anemic seasonal black sea
bass regulations which are also set to get cut back again in 2017. Makes you wonder if this 40% hit will
actually result in something more in line with a 70% to 80% reduction by way of
lost business stemming from decreased angler interest and effort.
“Not to mention the cost and expense to the private angler,
paying $50 for a tank of gas, bait, ice, and the tackle required for the
opportunity to bring home just two fish (three if you’re lucky enough to get
your weakfish bag limit too) –the American public is essentially being denied
access to a natural public resource based on trawl surveys, mesh sizes,
historic trends and sometimes arbitrary reference points.”
Now, I’m not sure what regulations should be based on if not
scientific surveys, etc., although perhaps the answer is industry whims and
short-term profits, for the article goes on a bit later to say
“The angler advocates at the American Sportfishing
Association [the fishing tackle industry’s trade association] and Recreational
Fishing Alliance say an act of Congress or response from
the incoming Trump administration will ultimately offer the only salvation…the
fact is the incoming administration and Secretary of Commerce are the only ones
who can make a final legal and regulatory decision to help stave off dire
socioeconomic impacts from these massive cuts to the fluke fishery. [emphasis added]”
And there we have it.
Elements of
the recreational fishing industry have long been trying to weaken federal
fisheries law, in order to permit larger harvests—and anticipated larger
economic returns—in the near term, despite long-term impacts on the health of
fish stocks.
They have long tried to recruit anglers to assist in their
efforts to weaken the law, even stooping to recruiting fresh-water bass anglers, who often
know little about salt-water fishery management and fishery issues, and have
little direct interest in the process, to help them influence legislators from
non-coastal states.
It’s easy to picture the same sort of folks providing
reporters and legislators—and, directly or indirectly, anglers and the general
public—with information that is more likely to ignite angler than provide enlightenment, in order to further their
anti-regulation, anti-management cause.
Anglers shouldn’t look for the truth in anything that passes
through their hands.
Instead, anyone concerned or curious about fisheries issues
should go to the source. In the case of
summer flounder, that’s the website of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council, http://www.mafmc.org and of the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, http://www.asmfc.org,
where accurate information—probably more than most people really want to read—is
readily available.
Because yes, when it comes to fisheries issues, the truth is
out there.
But like The X-Files
Agents Fox and Mulder, if you want to know that truth, you’ll have to hunt it down for yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment