Two decades ago, the future of the Southern New England
lobster stock, which ranges from Cape Cod south to Virginia or so, began to
look bleak. As early as 2006, a
stock assessment noted that “stock abundance is relatively low
compared to the 20-year time series and fishing mortality is relatively high;
further restrictions are warranted. The [stock assessment] Panel believes the
declining trend in population abundance is well established and warrants a
reduction in fishing mortality.”
The stock assessment went on to advise that “The Panel
recognizes that it would only take a sequence of two to three years of poor
recruitment to collapse any component of the lobster resource, and the
appearance of extremely low recruitment in recent times in some areas is a
cause for concern if not alarm.”
Lobster fishermen did not embrace the stock assessment’s
recommendations. Instead of acknowledging the need to reduce landings, the
fishermen sought to blame the decline in lobster numbers on natural mortality
rather than fishing. A
2006 report from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s
(ASMFC) American Lobster Advisory Panel (Advisory Panel) noted that Advisory
Panel members were “concerned that the stock assessment did not take into
account the increases in natural mortality…[Advisory Panel] members were also
concerned that the assessment does not take into account predation of lobsters
by striped bass, cod, and dogfish…”
In time, a pattern emerged. Stock assessments would make
ominous warnings. Fishermen would ignore them.
In 2009, a
benchmark stock assessment advised that “Current abundance of the
[Southern New England] stock is the lowest observed since the 1980s…Recruitment
has remained low in [Southern New England] since 1998. Given current low levels
of spawning stock biomass and poor recruitment further restrictions are
warranted.” Shortly thereafter, the ASMFC’s
American Lobster Technical Committee (Technical Committee) opined that
the Southern New England stock “will need a rebuilding strategy to attempt to
regain its former recruitment productivity.”
In 2010, the Technical Committee went a step further,
issuing a report titled, “Recruitment
Failure in The Southern New England Lobster Stock,” which asserted that the
stock was “critically depleted” and “experiencing recruitment failure,” and
that “it is this recruitment failure in the [the Southern New England stock]
that is preventing the stock from rebuilding.”
The report suggested “that the distribution of spawning
females has shifted away from inshore [Southern New England stock] areas into
deeper water in recent years. This shift may impact larval supply to inshore
nursery grounds.” It cited a warming ocean as the primary reason for the shift
of females to deeper waters, and noted that “continued fishing pressure reduces
the stock’s potential to rebuild, even though overfishing is currently not
occurring.” Because the problem was so severe, the Technical Committee
recommended that a 5-year moratorium be imposed on the Southern New England
lobster fishery.
In doing so, it acknowledged “the severity of this
recommendation and understands the catastrophic effects on the fishery
participants, support industries, and coastal communities.” But it also stated
that “This recommendation provides the maximum likelihood to rebuild the stock
in the foreseeable future to an abundance level that can support a sustainable
long-term fishery.”
As one might expect, the lobster fishermen rejected the
findings of the Technical Committee’s report.
At the May
2010 meeting of the ASMFC’s American Lobster Management Board
(Management Board), William McElroy, a lobster fisherman from Rhode Island,
argued that “if you chose a five-year fishery moratorium to keep the fishery
from collapsing, you’ve kind of jumped the shark and guaranteed that the
fishery collapses without ever giving the opportunity to collapse, because
there would be no fishery left after five years. There would be no
infrastructure.”
The Management Board, wanting to fully explore the issue,
called a
special meeting for July 2010, where Joseph Horvath, a lobster
fisherman from New Jersey, challenged the Technical Committee’s findings,
arguing that “I don’t know how we all got painted into this picture of doom and
gloom…I’ve been fishing for 40 years…I don’t see any crash of any fishery.
We’re doing well. We had a good recruitment…Our lobsters that we catch, we’re
doing fine. We have plenty of recruitment…”
Steven Smith, a Rhode Island lobster fisherman, also
disagreed with the Technical Committee, saying “The area I’m fishing right now,
there is a large recruitment of lobsters,” while Connecticut lobster fisherman
Bart Mansey asserted that “What we have now, there is no disaster. The board is
making a disaster…We’re witnessing and catch more lobsters…We’re actually
catching more and seeing more lobsters.”
In response to such sentiments, the Management Board delayed
taking any action that would reduce landings of Southern New England
lobster, much less impose a moratorium on the fishery. In the end, rather than
place any cap on lobster harvest, the
Management Board decided to try to reduce fishing effort enough to
achieve a 10 percent reduction in landings. By that time, the Technical
Committee’s recommended moratorium had long been forgotten.
The most
recent stock assessment found that nothing had changed, advising that
“The [Southern New England] stock is in poor condition…The assessment
recommends significant management action to provide the best chance of
stabilizing or improving abundance and reproductive capacity of the [Southern
New England] stock.”
Whether such action will ever be taken remains to be seen
for, even though management inaction may have doomed the Southern New England
lobster stock, there is no assurance that fishery managers will change their
ways and finally act to address a lobster stock collapse, whether it occurs in
southern New England or elsewhere along the coast.
-----
This essay first appeared in “From the Waterfront,” the blog
of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, which can be found at
http://conservefish.org/blog/
No comments:
Post a Comment