FISHERIES ADVOCACY: CREDIBILITY IS CRUCIAL

 

When I look back at my earliest days advocating for fisheries conservation, in the late 1970s when the striped bass were collapsing and almost no one seemed to care, I get a little embarrassed at how little I knew and how much I was willing to believe.

I clung to one truth, that the Maryland juvenile abundance index was in the tank, and the stock was headed for trouble, but other than that I had no idea what was going on. 

Depending on who was talking, I was told that the bass’ problems stemmed from some chemical—maybe PCBs, maybe the insecticide kepone, maybe dioxins, no one was quite sure—depressing reproductive capacity, or I was told that the problem stemmed from an active sunspot cycle, or from too many pollutants of various sorts being washed into the spawning rivers. 

I was told that commercial fishermen were the problem, particularly the ocean haul seiners who operated from eastern Long Island beaches and could wipe out entire schools of bass with a single set of their nets.

I was told that larval and juvenile striped bass were being entrained in the cooling systems of power plants, or impinged by the screens that guarded such systems’ intakes, and were thus removed from the population nearly as soon as their lives had begun.

I was told a lot of things and, trusting the messenger not to bear a false message, naively believed them all and faithrully repeated them to fisheries managers who, to be completely honest, didn’t know much more about why the stock collapsed than I did.

But the striped bass collapse left a scar, and like a few other anglers, I got involved in fisheries management for the long term.  So through the 1980s and most of the ‘90s, I dutifully attended fisheries meetings that addressed everything from striped bass to sharks, winter flounder to bluefin tuna, and said the things that I thought to be true.

Looking back, the state and federal managers were probably amused, and probably a little annoyed, at the things that I said, because in those days, I was much like the other anglers who showed up.  We all repeated the things that just about all recreational fishermen took as gospel at the time:  Commercial fishermen caused most of the problems, anglers wanted to do the right thing, and “gamefish status,” which prohibited the sale of certain species of fish, was the panacea that cured all of a fishery’s ills.

As I said, looking back, it’s kind of embarrassing.

Fortunately, in the late 1990s, I got involved with the Coastal Conservation Association which, back then, was a legitimate conservation advocacy group that wasn’t ashamed to say that it put the fishes’ interests first, even ahead of those of the anglers.  While CCA still had a decidedly anti-commercial bent, and worked tirelessly to outlaw gill nets and other commercial gear while placing red drum, speckled trout and other species off-limits to commercial fishermen, the organization at least recognized (back then; times have since, regrettably, changed) that recreational fishing could also pose a threat to fish stocks and needed to be constrained by appropriately precautionary regulation.

Perhaps more importantly, the CCA of days gone by emphasized the importance of science-based management, regardless of what that science might say.  The first time that I attended a board meeting at the association's Houston headquarters, all Friday—morning and afternoon—was spent sitting in a big room listening to CCA leadership explain the details of fishery management, including its legalunderpinnings in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the need for sound science, and the elements of effective advocacy.

As activve members of CCA, we were never allowed to forget that an advocate’s most important asset was his or her credibility.

I still recall the late Walter Fondren, the organization’s founding Chairman, repeatedly emphasizing how important it was to get the scientific facts right when speaking with regulators or legislative staff.  Get the science wrong even once, he told us, when advocating for a particular action, and we could very easily lose whatever credibility we might have had with a particular regulator or legislative office.

And once credibility is lost, we were told, it would take us a very, very long time to get it back again—if we ever did.

Such advice amounted to little more than common sense, as no policymaker really has the time or the inclination to listen to someone who either misrepresents the relevant facts or never bothers to take the time to learn what such facts might be, yet when people are passionate about a particular issue or their particular point of view, common sense often falls by the wayside.

There is little doubt that the advocate who has a good working knowledge of both the science and the law is in a far better position than those who ignore the facts and make purely emotional pleas.

Yet when I peruse fisheries-related content on various websites, attend fisheries hearings, or read the comments submitted on various management issues, I’m still taken aback by the number of people who ignore the basic tenet that one should discern the facts before forming or advancing an opinion, and instead first form an opinion, and then advance only those facts that might provide support.

That is particularly true in fisheries that kindle either substantial passion or substantial controversy, and often ignite both.  Striped bass may be the best East Coast example.

The species supports both recreational and commercial fisheries, although the recreational fishery is, by far, the larger of the two.  The most recent benchmark stock assessment found that in 2017, the assessment’s terminal year, the recreational fishery was responsible for 90% of overall striped bass fishing mortality (42% taking the form of harvest, and 48% due to release mortality), while the commercial fishery was responsible for the remaining 10% (8% landings, 2% discards).  Yet when the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission solicited public comments on its proposed Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass in 2022, many anglers concerned about the health of the stock suggested that a prohibition on commercial harvest would be an important step toward sustainability, even though recreational fishing had a far greater impact on the striped bass population.

Such unfounded comments aren’t the sole province of recreational fishermen.

When New York hosted a hearing on the ASMFC’s Addendum II to Amendment 7 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass last December, the for-hire fleet was virtually united in arguing that the striped bass stock was healthy, that no further harvest restrictions were needed (and that the size limit, at least for anglers fishing from for-hire boats, could safely be increased from 28 to 31 inches to 28 to 33), and that managers need not be worried about recent poor recruitment in Maryland, because the bass were now merely spawning farther north, particularly in the Hudson and Housatonic rivers, even though the 2023 spawn in the Hudson was the worst since 1985, dams prevent any striped bass spawning in the Housatonic, and the science indicates that the production of other New England rivers, if it occurs at all, is trivial.

Such claims did little to promote the commenters’ credibility.

Pair a traditionally controversial fish like striped bass with a “political fish”—that is, a fish that has, for some reason, caught the popular imagination and has become a cause celebre for various organizations—and credibility slips further downhill.

Atlantic menhaden have become such a political fish.  Thus, in other comments submitted on Addendum II to the striped bass management plan, many commenters stated that one of—if not the—major cause of the striped bass’ current decline is a lack of menhaden, even though the reference points used to assess the Atlantic menhaden stock are directly related to the amount of menhaden needed to support the striped bass stock when spawning stock biomass is at its target level, and the most recent stock assessment clearly indicated that menhaden spawning stock biomass was over the biomass target, meaning that there was no menhaden shortage at all, and certainly enough fish available to support the currently depleted stock of striped bass.

Again, that can only hurt the commenters credibility.

But perhaps the worst credibility loss occurred at a recent meeting of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, which saw one organization,  the Chesapeake Legal Alliance, petition for additional restrictions on commercial menhaden harvest.  In response to some of the petitioners claims, Shanna Madsen, deputy chief of Virginia’s marine fisheries division, stated

“I do want to point out that there is very limited science to support the suggested regulatory changes, and only for some of the regulatory changes.  The petition lacks scientific validity.  It cherry-picks fragments from scientific papers to try to support subjective and often misleading statements.  Several statements in the petition made references to papers that my colleagues and myself have written.  I consulted with several of those authors cited in this petition and I can say with certainty that these are at best misrepresentations and at the worst purposeful deceptions.” 

Needless to say, after receiving such criticism, the petitioner’s credibility was completely shot, and the Virginia Marine Fisheries Commission, which was probably already disinclined to credit the petitioner’s claims, refused to take any action.

Because in the end, credibility matters.

Anyone who comes to the management table without understanding the relevant facts and applicable law is not only embarked on a fool’s errand, but will also face a forum prejudiced against them when they return again in the future. 

In any given fisheries debate, even a full command of the facts may not trump political considerations.  But in the long run, understanding the facts and presenting them honestly and without guile, is the surest way to prevail.