2022 is over, but many of the fisheries issues that first arose then have carried over into the new year.
Other management actions are scheduled to occur within the next 12 months and, as always, new issues will arise; some
of those will be expected while others will catch us by surprise, but all will
have to be dealt with.
The following are a few things that are already on the horizon.
STRIPED BASS: The
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
Addendum
I to Amendment 7 to the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management
Plan
Those of us in New England and the mid-Atlantic regions are
going to have to hit the ground running this year, as the comment period for Addendum
I ends at 11:59 p.m. on January 13.
As
I mentioned in a post last November, Addendum I would end the prohibition
on the interstate transfer of commercial striped bass quota, and has the
potential to increase commercial bass landings by 30 percent or more. That would clearly be a bad thing to happen at
a time when the overfished striped bass stock is struggling to rebuild by the
2029 deadline, and preliminary
indications suggest that 2022 recreational landings will more than double those
of 2021, raising the specter that the stock might again be experiencing
overfishing.
The proposed quota transfers might take one of four prossible forms, which range from unlimited transfers (subject to a 5% “conservation tax”
at times when the stock is overfished), to transfers made solely at the discretion
of the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board, subject to any conditions that the
Board might elect to impose, with no transfers permitted when the stock is
overfished. While such options differ in
the details, all threaten to increase the fishing mortality rate.
The ASMFC held hearings along much of the striper coast in
December; additional hearings are scheduled for Thursday,
January 5 (a webinar hearing targeting Maryland, Virginia, the District of
Columbia, and the Potomac River Fisheries Commission) and for Monday,
January 9 (a hybrid in-person/webinar hearing targeting Maine and New
Hampshire).
Comments at the hearings held to date have reportedly been
heavily weighted against the quota transfers.
The hearing that I attended in New York attracted between 20 and 25
attendees, who were unanimously opposed to such transfers; I was told that the
Massachusetts hearing saw approximately 70% of the attendees comment in opposition,
and also told that about 90% of the comments at the New Jersey hearing opposed the transfer proposals.
Delaware saw far stronger support, which was hardly
surprising, as the impetus behind Addendum I was Delaware’s claim that
current commercial quotas granted that state an unfairly small share of the landings.
Usually, it’s fairly easy to handicap ASMFC actions ahead of the vote, after listening to preliminary debates and considering what each state stands to gain or lose. The vote on Addendum I is more difficult to predict.
Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and the District of
Columbia have nothing to gain from commercial transfers, as they have prohibited
commercial striped bass harvest. The
Potomac River Fisheries Commission sees all of its
commercial quota come from the Chesapeake Bay, while Addendum I only addresses
quota assigned to the ocean fishery; North Carolina, which owns the largest
block of unused striped bass quota, has had no commercial striped bass landings in recent years. Neither has much motivation to support the addendum. Still, it is possible that some or all of those jurisdictions, which have nothing to gain, will nonetheless feel
sympathy or some sense of regional solidarity for Delaware’s plight, and
support some form of transfer.
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Maryland,
and Virginia all have active ocean fisheries for striped bass, and all have
come close to landing their entire quotas in recent years. They might, in theory, benefit from quota
transfers, but at least some of those states have been leaders in striped bass
conservation, and a commitment to rebuilding the overfished stock might lead them
to seek a continued prohibition on transfers.
This is one of those issues where managers
might be swayed by the weight of public comment, and it would be in the
interest of striped bass anglers to send an email in opposition to such quota
transfers to comments@asmfc.org, with
the subject line “Striped Bass Draft Addendum I” ahead of the January 13
deadline.
STRIPED BASS: Constraining
recreational fishing mortality
As noted above, striped bass landings spiked in 2022,
probably because of the large 2015 year class growing into the 28- to 35-inch
slot limit, more than doubling landings in 2021. Such increase undoubtedly increased the
fishing mortality rate above the 0.14 figure that underlies the Atlantic
Striped Bass Technical Committee’s advice that there is a 78.6% probability
that the stock will rebuild by 2029, and could easily have raised the
fishing mortality rate above the 0.17 target needed to make rebuilding by such
deadline even marginally likely.
While we won’t know whether, or how badly, 2022 landings
exceeded projections until next spring, we must be ready to insist not only
that such comparison take place, but that, if it is clear that fishing mortality
has risen too high, that the Management Board takes prompt action to bring it
back to or below target, in order to assure timely rebuilding.
BLUEFISH, SUMMER FLOUNDER,
SCUP, AND BLACK SEA BASS: Comment period
on the National Marine Fisheries Services Framework
Adjustment 17 to the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery
Management Plan, and Framework Adjustment 6 to the Bluefish Fishery Management
Plan, ends on January 17
I’ve written about the so-called Control Rule before (“so-called”
because, as members of the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee have
pointed out, from a scientific perspective, it really isn’t a control rule at
all), and will be coming out with a two-part essay on the topic in the next
week or so, which will describe its far too hasty adoption and the confusion
that surrounded the Control Rule's recent debut at a joint meeting of the Council and the
ASMFC’s Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board.
I’ve already written about how the
Control Rule did not receive a rousing endorsement from the Council’s Scientific
and Statistical Committee, nor from a subcommittee that was formed to review
it. One subcommittee member, Dr. Lee Anderson,
went so far as to make the damning comment that
“I’m very concerned that if this [Harvest Control Rule] goes
out, it is going to give the impression that there is science involved.”
I’ve
noted in earlier posts that Council staff advised against the Control Rule’s
adoption.
On December 13, at the aforementioned joint meeting of the
Council and Management Board, I heard for myself how something as simple as adding
additional data to a fishery management model could result in the Control Rule’s
advice changing from a 10% increase in summer flounder landings to a 10%
decrease, thus casting grave doubt on the claim that such Control Rule allows fishery
managers to get a better grasp on the uncertainty inherent in recreational
data.
There are thus a lot of red flags suggesting that the
so-called “Control Rule” is not yet ready for use. Those
who agree ought to submit comments to NMFS ahead of the January 17 deadline, to
help assure that mid-Atlantic fishery management measures really do prevent
overfishing and are based on the best available science.
BLUEFISH: New
research-track stock assessment to be released
A new research-track bluefish stock assessment has been completed and
peer-reviewed. It should be released
early this year.
I didn’t sit in on the peer-review meeting, so I’m not
completely sure what the assessment has found.
Because of their life history, that sees some fish chasing bait into
the brackish reaches of rivers while others hunt at the edge of the continental
shelf, bluefish are a difficult species to assess. The point of a research-track stock assessment is to bring new assessment
approaches to bear, analyze newly-available data, and investigate previously
under-researched aspects of a species’ life history.
Recent bluefish assessments passed peer review, but left many questions unanswered, so scientists
have been working since July 2021 to improve the bluefish assessment process. Bluefish are currently
considered overfished, but a rebuilding plan intended to restore the stock
within seven years has been put in place.
The new stock assessment will almost certainly affect
management measures in some way. If it finds the
stock in better condition than previously believed, measures could be liberalized;
on the other hand, if it finds that the stock is in worse condition, or not
responding to rebuilding, or that recreational fishing mortality--perhaps because
the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and ASMFC Bluefish Management Board
underestimated the number and size of fish that die after being released—is higher
than managers thought, measures might be made more restrictive.
Also, with research-track assessments, there is always the
risk that a new assessment approach, or the use of a particular set or sets of
data, will result in the assessment’s failure to pass peer review, although such failures are relatively uncommon.
Based on what I’m seeing, both inshore and offshore—I haven’t
had a bluefish invade my shark slicks since 2017, even though, in some of the
places I fish, they used to stack up behind the chum can like goldfish waiting
to be fed, and made it very difficult to keep baits in the water—I doubt that
the final assessment will bring good news. But I’ve been wrong on such things before.
Whatever the bluefish assessment reveals, we must just do
our best to assure that ensuing management measures are in accord with the best
available scientific advice, whatever that advice might be.
GULF OF MEXICO RED SNAPPER: New stock assessment scheduled for release in
July
Few fisheries anywhere on the coast have generated as much
recent controversy as the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico. While management measures adopted to regulate
the commercial sector, as well as the for-hire subsector of the recreational
fishery, have managed to both constrain landings to sustainable levels and
increase fishermen’s accountability, the
private-boat recreational sector has continued to exceed its quotas, at least
in certain states, all the while condemning the federal management system and demanding
to kill even more.
Various
organizations closely connected to the recreational fishing industry convinced legislators, a few years ago, to fund a research project they called “The Great
Red Snapper Count.” It found that the adult red snapper population in the
Gulf of Mexico is about three times as large as previously calculated, largely
because two-thirds of those fish are scattered over very broad expanses of
low-profile bottom, rather than being concentrated on hard, higher-profile
structure where previous surveys took place. However, the conclusions of that study
incorporated significant uncertainty, so red snapper quotas, for both the
recreational and commercial sectors, were not increased anywhere near as much
as the Count’s proponents expected.
The
upcoming stock assessment, designated “SEDAR [for SouthEast Data,
Assessment, and Review] 74,” is scheduled for peer review beginning
on June 1 and for release a month later, will be the first to fully analyze
and incorporate the findings of the Great Red Snapper Count. It’s not unreasonable to believe that the
Count’s proponents are expecting a big, if belated, increase in the Annual
Catch Limit, and more liberal recreational regulations, as a result.
However, there has also been a lot of buzz coming out of the
Gulf of Mexico commercial and recreational fishing communities that suggests
that Gulf red snapper, or at least snapper of any size, are getting harder to
find, particularly after the recreational fishing season has been open for a couple
of weeks. Boats are reportedly being forced to run ever farther offshore to find
larger fish. If those stories are true—and
I’ve heard from friends in the charter boat community, who fish both ends of
the Gulf, who they are—then folks expecting more permissive regulations might
be in for a big and unpleasant surprise.
However, as is also the case with bluefish, the most
important follow-up to the red snapper assessment is to work to assure that management
measures follow the science, and not political whims.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION:
The odds are against significant progress
There are a lot of things that Congress can do to improve
the fisheries management process and thus the long-term prospects of the nation’s
fish stocks. But the odds are fairly
good that such things won’t get done over the next two years.
For the first weeks—and maybe many months—of the 118th
Congress, we can expect a horror show in the House of Representatives, as a
handful of irrational legislators throw stinkbombs that, they hope, will derail
the process of naming a new Speaker and, whenever that farce may end, will do their best to push
the majority party into wasting its time and taxpayer’s money on attacking federal
law enforcement, harassing cabinet officials, and generally engaging in petty
revenge against the minority party, instead of doing the job that they’re
paid for. In fact, such nonproductive
House members even plan to include senators of their own party on the revenge
agenda, refusing to consider Senate bills sponsored by their supposedly
same-party colleagues because such senators dared to elevate the needs of their
country and fellow citizens above pure party politics.
In the Senate, things might look a little better, but it
will still be difficult for a conservation bill to gain the 60 votes that it
would require to avoid a filibuster, and there is every chance that, should
such a bill make it through the Senate, it would die in a House dominated by
people more interested in making political statements than in doing the nation’s
work.
So what sort of fisheries bills might we see in the 118th
Congress?
I suspect that we’ll see a forage fish bill, similar to the Forage
Fish Conservation Act, H.R. 5770, sponsored by
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI), and S. 1484, sponsored
by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), introduced in one or both houses fairly
early in the session. While it is easy
to argue that federal law doesn’t provide forage fish, a critical element of
the marine food web, with adequate protections, and while such legislation
would probably receive substantial popular and political support, it will be
vehemently opposed by the various industrial fishing fleets that profit from catching
low-value species in very large quantities, and selling much of their product
overseas. Such opposition will likely be
more than enough to kill the bill, particularly given the number of current legislators
who elevate short-term economic gains over long-term environmental health. Even so, a forage fish bill probably has a
better chance of passage than anything else that might be introduced.
We may also see one or more bills that are intended to
protect both fish and fishermen from the ongoing impact climate change and
warming waters. Again, while such
legislation is undoubtedly needed, when the catechism of one party effectively
eschews even uttering the phrase “climate change,” much less admitting that
such change is taking place, climate change legislation will be dead on arrival.
The good news, if there is any, is that bills that would undercut
marine fish conservation are equally unlikely to pass.
I would be shocked if we didn’t see some sort of legislation
attempting to overthrow the federal regime managing the recreational red
snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico.
The angling organizations opposing federal management are well-heeled
and politically sophisticated, have capable lobbyists, and contribute to the
right legislators, so I would be very surprised
if a Republican representative from a Gulf state doesn’t introduce such a bill,
and convince his House colleagues to pass it (that is, provided that such colleagues aren so busy doing things
like harassing retired federal health experts at bogus oversight hearings
that they never get around to considering legislation). But I would expect such bill to die in
the Senate, where it is unlikely to receive 60 votes, unless it can be attached
to some sort of must-pass legislation.
Similarly, a red snapper bill introduced in the Senate
would probably have a difficult time winning passage.
We may also see someone in the House introduce legislation
to reauthorize, and substantially weaken, the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which governs
fishing in the federal waters of the United States. Such a bill has been introduced in each
session of Congress for at least the past decade, and there is no reason to believe that critics of marine fish conservation are going to stop now. While it’s just
possible that such bill might pass in the House, it would likely die in the
Senate, in part because of its negative conservation impacts, and in part
because it has appeared, over the past few years, that the Senate is very happy
leaving Magnuson-Stevens alone.
Other bills could arise, particularly if a management
action somewhere along the coast offends a large enough constituency, and they
manage to convince a legislator to force a relevant change in the law. We might see bills that seek to either
authorize or prevent the removal of dams that block anadromous fish from
accessing upstream spawning grounds. We
might see bills seeking to outlaw particular types of fishing gear, or to close—or
not close—sections of ocean to extractive activities, including some or all types
of fishing.
But it won’t be easy for any such bills to pass.
It is likely that the fisheries fights of 2023 will largely be
fought on the usual terrain, at the ASMFC, the regional fishery management
council, and at the National Marine Fisheries Service. Congress will probably be a secondary
theater.
Which is fine, for there will still be plenty to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment