2021 had its problems. But from a fisheries management standpoint, it was not a bad year. While some things could have gone better, and some issues, yet to be resolved, might still create some problems, progress was made on a number of fronts.
Amendment 7 won’t
harm, and may benefit, the striped bass stock
As 2021 began, striped bass anglers were very concerned that
the proposed Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic
Striped Bass would weaken the conservation provisions of the Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission’s striped bass management plan.
Concepts such as rebuilding the overfished striped bass stock,
and maintaining it at sustainable levels in the long term, were notable only
for their absence.
The Public Information Document asked stakeholders whether
they’d like to change the current management goals and objectives, which
emphasize long-term sustainability and promote a well-structured spawning stock
that includes a significant number of older, larger females.
It asked whether the fishing mortality target should be
increased, to allow higher harvests, while the female spawning stock biomass
target was lowered to accommodate the reduced abundance that would inevitably result from removing more bass from the population.
It asked whether the “management triggers” that require the
Management Board to act when certain events take place should be weakened, to
provide the Management Board with further opportunity to sit on their hands and
do nothing when threats to the stock arise.
It asked whether the management plan should still require an
overfished stock to rebuilt within 10 years, or whether the rebuilding period ought
to be drawn out to some longer time, thus
“mitigating impacts to fisheries.”
It asked whether catch-and-release striped bass fishermen, who inflict a 9% release mortality rate on the stock, should be restricted in some way, so that there would be more fish available to catch-and-kill striped bass fishermen, who inflict a 100% mortality rate on every fish tossed in their coolers.
Although the Public Information
Document clearly admitted that
“The source of mortality does not matter to the health of the
stock, as long as the overall fishing mortality is below the threshold,”
some
members of the Management Board’s work group,
ignoring that truth,
“indicated that recreational dead discards might be the
single most important issue at this time, and addressing (or reducing discards)
is the most important action that can be taken going forward.”
The Public Information Document asked some other things,
too, but some of the things that it never asked were whether new measures were needed
in order to rebuild the spawning stock to its biomass target, or what sort of
measures might be employed to reach that target within 10 years.
The need to rebuild the stock by 2029, as the management plan required, was not really
mentioned at all.
Thus, conservation-minded stakeholders seemed to be facing
long odds when a series of webinar/hearings were held last March. Judging from the recommendations in the work
group’s report, along with some of the language in the Public Information Document,
it seemed that momentum at the Management Board was running against the striped
bass, and that those representing the long-term interests of the fish, rather
than the short-term interests of the fishing industry, were taking on another
lost cause.
But things didn’t turn out that way.
It looked like such hope would be rewarded when, at
the beginning of the May Management Board meeting, Patrick Keliher, the Maine
fishery manager who also chaired the ASMFC at the time, rose to say
“While we are not at the point we were in 1984, the downward
trend of this stock is evident in the assessment. For many of the Commission’s species, we are
no longer in a position to hold hope that things will revert to what they have
previously been if we just hold static. The
change is happening too fast and action needs to be taken…[The Management Board
needs to consider] what is best for this species, and also what is best for the
future of the Commission.”
And, over all, the Management Board seemed to listen, both
to the comments of the stakeholders and to those of Mr. Keliher.
There
were, of course, some dissenters, who tried to undercut stakeholders’ clear
demands for conservative management.
Both Martin Gary, of the Potomac River Fisheries Commission, and Tom Fote,
New Jersey’s Governor’s Appointee, tried to suggest that the webinar format
skewed stakeholder response. The former
claimed that there were “folks that struggled” with the webinar format and, as
a result, “there are some underrepresented sectors” in the comments, while the latter alleged
that speakers on the webinars tended to be younger than those who typically
spoke at in-person hearings, and suggested that some might not have been comfortable
commenting on line. Neither person
could explain why such tech-unsavvy folks didn’t just pick up a pencil and send in written
comments, as 3,000 pro-conservation stakeholders did.
Michael Luisi, the Maryland fishery manager who was one of
the strongest proponents for beginning the new amendment, tried to frustrate the
thousands of stakeholders who provided comment, and salvage his hopes
for Amendment 7, saying,
“I would prefer at this time, based on the comment, that we
think more about the consequences to the commercial, recreational, and for-hire
fisheries,”
and asking that none of the issues be removed from the
initial draft of the amendment.
But such pro-harvest voices were in the distinct minority. The Management Board left the plan’s goals and objectives, its biomass and fishing mortality targets, and its 10-year rebuilding timeframe intact. In a move that surprised most observers, Megan Ware, another Maine fishery manager, even added a proposal to protect the 2015 year class to the draft amendment.
With Ms. Ware's action, the amendment began to change shape. Instead of being a
document that would threaten the long-term health of the striped bass stock, it
was slowly morphing into an amendment that might benefit the bass, instead.
That change continued at the August Management Board meeting,
when Ms. Ware rose to speak again, and successfully argued that a provision to
rebuild the striped bass stock by 2029, its 10-year deadline, be included in the
draft amendment, which will be presented to the Management Board for its
meeting late in January 2021.
In the past year, Amendment 7 has come a long way. It’s not yet finished, and the final version
could still include weakened management triggers that insert additional years
of delay into the management process. So
it’s far too early to declare a victory.
Still, at this point, it is clear that Amendment 7 will not represent a loss. The worst provisions have already been stripped out.
Right
now, the Plan Development Team that is preparing the next draft of the amendment seems
committed to the 2029 rebuilding deadline.
Other provisions could limit the use of conservation equivalency, which
currently allows states to escape some of their responsibilities to conserve
and rebuild the stock. A revised
management trigger that will compel the Management Board to respond to
below-average spawning success is likely to be included among the options sent
out for public comment.
Even if the Management Board strips out those good things, the final version of Amendment 7 shouldn’t have a net negative impact on the striped bass management program.
Given
where we started a year ago, that is, in itself, a win.
7-year rebuilding plan
for bluefish
On
November 12, 2019, the National Marine Fisheries Service formally notified the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council that the bluefish stock had become
overfished. The
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act dictates that, after such
notice was made, NMFS and the Council had no more than two years to implement a
bluefish rebuilding plan.
What happened next demonstrated why Magnuson-Stevens is such
an effective fishery management law.
By the December meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Council, which
was held jointly with the ASMFC’s Bluefish Management Board, a
draft scoping document, which updated a previous scoping document that focused
solely on allocation, but would now also solicit public comment on the
rebuilding process, was already prepared for review and release to the
public.
But the public didn’t have the last word on the rebuilding
process. Magnuson-Stevens requires that
“For a fishery that is overfished, any fishery management
plan, amendment, or proposed regulations…for such fishery shall specify a
time period for rebuilding that shall be as short as possible, taking
into account the status and biology of any overfished stocks of fish, the needs
of fishing communities…and the interaction of the overfished stock of fish
within the marine ecosystem; and not exceed 10 years… [emphasis added, internal formatting omitted]”
Thus, not only did a plan to rebuild the overfished bluefish
stock have to be put in place, but that plan must contain measures to rebuild
the stock in no more than 10 years, and in a shorter time if doing so would be reasonably
possible.
In many such situations, regional fishery management councils
have defaulted to the 10-year maximum rebuilding period without giving thought
to a shorter rebuilding timeline, but when the Mid-Atlantic Council
contemplated that possibility in the case of bluefish, Michael Pentony, the
National Marine Fisheries Service’s Regional Director for the Greater Atlantic
Regional Fisheries Office, took that option off the table. He noted that bluefish weren’t badly
overfished, that recovery should be possible in less than 10 years, and that
dragging out the rebuilding process over a 10-year period would thus violate
Magnuson-Stevens’ requirement that the rebuilding period be as short as
possible,
Eventually, the Council and Management Board considered options
to rebuild the stock in either 5 or 7 years, and while the 7-year plan wasn’t
perfect, in that it violated the Council’s risk policy in the early years of
rebuilding by allowing too great a probability of overfishing, it still kept
that probability low enough to comply with all legal standards, and was
ultimately the one adopted by both management bodies.
As with striped bass, we see bluefish management
measures that fall short of perfection.
But, to an even greater degree than is the case, so far, with bass, we also
see bluefish management measures that will
provide clear benefits to the stock, which were quickly put in place once
bluefish became overfished, and which will hopefully rebuild the stock in less
than the 10 years permitted by Magnuson-Stevens.
Thus, thanks to actions taken in 2021, bluefish management
is headed in the right direction.
ICCAT bans shortfin
mako landings
That occurred after scientists at the International
Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas determined that shortfin makos
were badly overfished, and that fishing mortality would have to be slashed to
nearly nothing in order to stop the decline in abundance and give the North Atlantic
mako stock a reasonable chance to rebuild by 2070. Such scientists advised that ICCAT adopt a
no-retention policy for the stock, but such recommendation
was rejected by both the United States and the European Union, which
together represented the nations with the first-, second-, and fourth-highest
mako landings.
A
number of excuses were made to justify the U.S. opposition: The United States had already imposed
measures to reduce dead discards of makos in its pelagic longline fishery,
while other nations did not. The United
States reported its mako bycatch, while other nations did not. The United States accurately reports where its
makos are caught, but (if the South Atlantic remained open to harvest), other nations
might not. Such excuses were presented as a need to “level
the playing field,” but were largely an exercise in finger-pointing. If the end result is a ban on mako landings,
it didn’t really matter if the U.S. had started its trip down the conservation
road a little earlier than others; once a ban was adopted, everyone, including
the United States, would end up in the same place.
Given that the
United States had earlier opposed listing the shortfin mako on Appendix II to
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and
Flora, a listing that would only require that the U.S. document international commerce
in the species, and certify that such commerce involved legally-captured fish
and did not threaten the makos’ survival, its resistance to a retention ban
seemed to be less rooted in any considerations of fairness and level playing
fields than in a desire to monetize the mako shark resource to the greatest
degree possible, regardless of how that impacted the shark.
However, when the presidential administration changed in
2021, bringing leadership changes to the Department of Commerce, the National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration, and to the National Marine Fisheries Service,
it appears that the United States position on makos changed as well.
At
the November 2021 ICCAT meeting, the United States agreed to a resoltion that
would limit total mako fishing mortality to 250 metric tons. Such
proposal would completely ban mako retention in 2022 and 2023, although if the
level of dead discards falls below 250 mt after that, could allow for very
limited harvest.
It was a big step forward.
Speaking personally, although I will never, under any
possible circumstances, live long enough to see makos recover in 2070, I can
rest a little easier knowing that the fish that I have admired, pursued, and enjoyed
for so long now has a decent shot at survival.
NMFS stands up to
Mid-Atlantic Council
The National Marine Fisheries Service had, for a while, gone
along with the Council, deeming its status quo measures a temporary accommodation
to recent changes to the Marine Recreational Information Program, which
estimates recreational catch, effort, and landings, and to a dearth of 2020
recreational fishing data due to the COVID pandemic.
In the case of black sea bass, anglers were projected to
exceed the recreational harvest limit by a substantial amount, resulting in
Council staff recommending a 28% cutback to prevent more excess harvest in
2022. Overharvest in the three previous
years, 2018-2020, was high enough to require that accountability measures be
imposed. Yet many Council members only
wanted to adopt a 14% cut.
While that was better than status quo, it was not good enough. NMFS had decided that temporary measures, designed
to address unexpected and transient events, would not be allowed to continue.
Regional Administrator Michael Pentony made that position clear. He noted that with respect to the inadequate
scup cutback
“To paint this as a compromise, that may be so, but the
regulations don’t allow us to make a compromise.”
If the Council ignored his advice, as it ultimately did, and
approved the 33% reduction, he made it clear that he would be legally obligated to impose additional restrictions,
including a possible closure of federal waters, to better ensure that the
recreational harvest limit would not be exceeded again.
A similar discussion occurred with respect to black sea
bass, although in that case, enough states feared a federal waters closure that
they approved the full 28% cut.
It was nice to see NMFS finally take a stand against chronic recreational overharvest, and in favor of regulations designed to keep the affected
fisheries healthy in the long term.
On balance, it was
a good year
When dealing with fisheries issues, the big, spectacular
wins, such as passage of the Sustainable
Fisheries Act of 1996 or adoption of Amendment
3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, don’t
happen often. The fact that I had to go
back to the previous century to find those two examples certainly demonstrates that.
In the day-to-day fight to protect the nation’s fisheries,
victories are usually very small, incremental gains that make it a little more
likely that a stock will be sustainably managed, or that an overfished stock
will begin to rebuild.
Sometimes, merely not losing a fight can feel like a major
win, as was the case a
few years ago when the so-called “Modern
Fish Act,” which could have seriously undercut federal fishery management, was
reduced to something resembling an inconsequential red snapper bill.
Viewed in that context, 2021 was a pretty good year.
ICCAT’s decision to ban the retention of shortfin makos was
a major step toward reversing that species’ decline and hopefully rebuilding
the stock in the next 50 years. While
the mako’s future is still cloudy, and may depend upon the 250 metric ton
fishing mortality limit being achieved, that future looks far brighter than it
did just two months ago.
The future of the striped bass, although still quite
uncertain, is looking much brighter, too.
The fact that thousands of stakeholders turned out to comment on the
pending amendment, and convinced the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board to
strip most of the bad ideas out of the current draft of Amendment 7, holds out hope that a
similar turnout in 2022, when the final draft is released for public comment,
will convince the Management Board to strip the rest of the bad proposals out of
Amendment 7, and instead produce a document that will improve the management
plan and better assure a sustainable striped bass fishery in upcoming
decades.
Bluefish rebuilding was mandated by law, so the mere fact of
a rebuilding plan provides little cause to rejoice. However, the fact that the rebuilding period was
compressed into 7 years, rather than the 10 arguably allowed by law, was a
welcome development, and hopefully an example that can be followed in other
plans impacting other fisheries.
NMFS standing up to the Mid-Atlantic Council was another example
of NMFS only doing what the law required.
However, in an environment where not doing what the law required
was tolerated before, the mere fact that NMFS has finally lost its patience
with recreational overharvest becomes a good sign.
That doesn’t mean that all is well in the fisheries world. There will be plenty of challenges to keep
advocates busy in the new year (and we’ll
look at some of them on Sunday). But in
an arena where wins can often feel frustratingly few and far between, it is
good to look back on a year, to find that nothing went terribly wrong, while a
few things turned out pretty well.
No comments:
Post a Comment