GOVERNEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE WEIGHS IN ON BYCATCH

 

Bycatch, defined in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as

“fish which are harvested in a fishery, but which are not sold or kept for personal use, and includes economic discards and regulatory discards,”

has long been a problem in commercial and a handful of recreational fisheries. 

Although one of the National Standards for Fishery Conservation and Management created by Magnuson-Stevens states that

“Conservation and management measures shall, to the extent practicable, (A) minimize bycatch and (B) to the extent that bycatch cannot be avoided, minimize the mortality of such bycatch,”

meaningful efforts to reduce bycatch have been few and far between; efforts to do so are generally stymied by the lobbying efforts of industrial-scale fishing industries, which wield significant political influence.

Today, the epicenter of the debate is Alaska, where large trawlers targeting pollock or other groundfish have been accused of killing large numbers of salmon and halibut, at the same time that restrictions on those intentionally targeting such fishes have become more and more onerous.

For the most part, the bycatch debate has flown under the radar of the popular press; it is an issue largely championed by conservation groups and by smaller-scale fishermen who feel victimized by an industrial fleet that is permitted to incidentally kill species of fish now denied, in whole or in part, to fishermen who once directly targeted them and depend on them for their livelihoods.

However, that may be changing.Last month, the United States Government Accountability Office, which was created to be

“an independent, non-partisan agency that works for Congress [and] examines how taxpayer dollars are spent and provides Congress and federal agencies with objective, non-partisan, fact-based information to help the government save money and work more efficiently,”

issued a report titled FEDERAL FISHERIES MANAGEMENT Efforts to Reduce and Monitor Unintentional Catch and Harm Need Better Tracking, and so turned the government spotlight onto the bycatch issue.

The GAO found that

“[The National Marine Fisheries Service’s] efforts to track its performance in reducing and monitoring bycatch do not align with key elements of evidence-based policymaking related to performance management.  Specifically, the agency’s bycatch reduction implementation plan lacks measurable performance goals.  Having an updated plan with measurable goals and a tracking process could help inform agency decision-making.

“Additionally, NMFS has enhanced its database to compile bycatch estimates but does not have a comprehensive written plan for how it will report the estimates.  Developing such a plan could help the agency better monitor bycatch levels, trends, and information gaps, and demonstrate progress over time to internal and external stakeholders.”

To develop the report, the GAO focused on five specific fisheries, selected to include a diversity of fishing areas and fishing gear.  Those fisheries were the Bering Sea pollock trawl fishery, the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery, the Hawaii deep-set tuna longline fishery, the New England scallop dredge fishery, and the West Coast groundfish fixed-gear fishery.  No fisheries within the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, or Caribbean regions were examined.

In compiling the report, the GAO noted that bycatch, and bycatch reduction measures, were very specific to a fishery and to the species sought, as well as to the composition of the bycatch that the measures seek to reduce.  Overall, modifications to fishing gear, which allow fishermen to continue to operate while reducing encounters with bycatch species, are preferred over measures that close fishing areas either permanently or for defined periods of time, and so seriously impair fishing operations.  Similarly, the GAO found that measures developed independently of the fishing community, which have or are perceived to have a significant impact on the harvest of target species, will be less acceptable to fishermen, who may not comply with gear modification requirements.

Another issue is the availability of observers, who NMFS considers “essential” if the bycatch issue is to be properly addressed.  Such observers confirm the existence and level of bycatch caught in existing gear, and can monitor the effectiveness of bycatch reduction efforts.  However, observer levels vary from fishery to fishery, and coverage can be anywhere between 0% to 100% of trips made.  The level of funding can depend on a number of factors, including the availability of federal or industry funding, whether protected (i.e. Endangered Species Act-listed or protected under the Marine Mammals Act) species are involved, and the size and geographic scope of the fishery.

The low level of observers present in many fisheries (out of the five fisheries examined by the GAO, there was 100% coverage in the Bering Sea pollock trawl fishery, while coverage in the other four ranged between 2 and 41 percent) can lead to significant uncertainty in the bycatch data.

After speaking with NMFS administrators, scientists, members of regional fishery management councils, and stakeholders, the GAO included four recommendations in its report.  It advised that

“The Assistant Administrator for NMFS should gather information from across the regions to identify any additional resources needed to support fisheries observers, and communicate these needs to relevant stakeholders, including Congress.  (Recommendation 1)

“The Assistant Administrator for NMFS should develop an updated National Bycatch Reduction Strategy Implementation Plan with measurable performance goals tied to specific time frames.  (Recommendation 2)

“The Assistant Administrator for NMFS should develop a process for tracking progress toward the performance goals in the National Bycatch Reduction Strategy Implementation Plan and use the information to guide agency decision-making.  (Recommendation 3)

“The Assistant Administrator for NMFS should develop a comprehensive written plan for reporting on bycatch estimates from the enhanced Fisheries One Stop Shop database, including how the agency will communicate over time on bycatch levels, trends, and information gaps.  (Recommendation 4)”

In a letter dated June 3, 2024, a NMFS representative said that the agency agrees with the GAOs recommendations.

So do we have reason to believe that progress will soon be made on the bycatch issue?

Probably not.  Politics will get in the way.

First, we should note that the report was addressed to, and requested by,

“the Ranking Member Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives,”

Raul M. Grijalva.

The Ranking Member of a House committee is the highest-ranking member of the minority party sitting on such committee.  Given the high degree of partisanship in the House, along with the majority party’s general hostility to any legislation that promotes conservation and/or might place any restrictions on business, the likelihood of the report giving birth to changes in federal fisheries law is remote, at best, in 2024; future success would depend on a change in the party controlling the House, with no such change taking place in the Senate or, probably, in the White House. 

Given the current state of electoral politics, that’s not the most likely outcome of the November elections.

Politics will also continue to dominate the bycatch issue in the regional fishery management councils.  Nothing demonstrates that fact better than the delays in 2024 appointments to the Pacific and North Pacific fishery management councils, where conservation-minded nominees are being challenged by the bycatch-prone trawler fleet.  As noted in a recent article appearing in the National Fisherman,

“The State of Washington (WA) nominees by Governor Jay Inslee to both the North Pacific and Pacific Councils are  strong advocates of management policies that prioritize ecosystem protections over ‘optimum yields’ from fisheries extractions, as currently defined in fisheries laws.

“Many fishery stakeholders have long believed that the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (“NPFMC”) ‘family’ has become too top-heavy with large trawl interests who are vested directly or indirectly in the Bering Sea pollock and groundfish fisheries.

“WA holds two of eleven voting seats on the 15-member NPFMC, and both are up for grabs.

“How the Council votes directly impact the Seattle trawl companies’ bottom lines and Inslee’s ‘eco-candidate’ choices for the NPFMC, have prompted a full-court press by powerful Senate trawl lobbyists to sway opinions at US Commerce in Washington, DC…

“Governor Inslee’s choice of one seat on the Pacific Fishery Management Council (“PFMC”) has also raised the hackles of Seattle’s trawl sector…”

Having observed fisheries issues for many years, I suspect that the lobbyists may still prevail, and that the trawlers will get one—or more—of their own on the two regional fishery management councils, which will make effective bycatch reduction that much more difficult to achieve.

Still, it is good to see the issue get some attention.

Although, as we go into an election that will probably put an administration that was demonstrably hostile to fisheries conservation back in power, a little attention and no results may be all that we get for the next four—or more—years.