UPDATING MRIP IN 2026: IMPLICATIONS FOR SECTOR ALLOCATIONS

 

A few days ago, I happened upon an article in The Outdoor Wire which noted that the Gulf Fishery Management Council delayed fishery management actions for scamp and yellowmouth grouper

“based on uncertainty associated with private recreational landings estimates generated by the federal recreational data collection program, the Marine Resource [sic] Information Program’s Fishing Effort Survey (MRIP-FES).  The Council is hesitant to base sector allocation for the Scamp Complex (scamp and yellowmouth grouper) on MRIP-FES estimates before its Scientific and Statistical Committee can review the results of a pilot study being conducted to address MRIP-FES overestimation issues.”

For those not familiar with the “overestimation issues,” in 2023, the National Marine Fisheries Service discovered that it’s Marine Recreational Information Program was overestimating recreational fishing effort, which in turn inflated recreational catch and landings estimates.  Apparently, due to the order of questions presented in the Fishing Effort Survey, anglers were reporting that they took more fishing trips than they actually did, skewing the survey results.

In response, NMFS engaged in a multi-year process to revise the Fishing Effort Survey.  That process is now at, or very close to, completion, and revised recreational effort, catch, and landings data should be available this spring, although the rollout might be delayed by last year’s government shutdown.  The revised effort—and so catch and landings—estimates are expected to be lower than those developed prior to the survey revisions.  It appears that private-boat data will be impacted more than the data for shore-based anglers, and that data for the periods when fewer anglers fished (expressed in two-month “waves”) will face greater revisions than data from periods with higher angling activity.  The extent of the revisions will also vary from state to state.

Assuming that everything is rolled out on, or at least somewhat close to, schedule, the next question is how the new data will impact fishery management measures, possibly including the allocation of the allowable catch between the commercial and recreational sectors.

When the Marine Recreational Information Program was initially adopted, it indicated that recreational fishing effort was higher than previously believed.  NMFS stated that

“For stocks assessed to date, this increase in effort from the [Fishing Effort Survey] in historical catch estimates has generally resulted in a retrospective increase in estimates of fish stock abundance, especially for those fisheries with large recreational components.”

It almost certainly follows that, when stock assessments are conducted after the downward-revised effort data becomes available—the 2027 benchmark stock assessment for striped bass comes to mind—the estimate of stock abundance will be revised downward in response to that data.

In most fisheries, that might not have a direct effect on recreational management measures; while the spawning stock biomass of a given fish stock might be lower than previously believed, the recreational removals of fish from that stock will also be lower than previously estimated.  As long as both the estimate of biomass and the estimate of recreational removals decline by about the same percentage, the current management measures might well remain unchanged.

However, that won’t be the case in commercial fisheries, which fish on a hard-poundage quota that is based on fish abundance.  (To oversimplify the quota-setting process, managers go through a series of steps to determine how many fish, measured in pounds/metric tons, can be safely removed from a population each year.  That becomes the annual catch limit, which is divided between the commercial and recreational sectors based on predetermined allocation percentages.  The commercial allocation, as modified for management uncertainty, becomes the commercial quota.)

If the spawning stock biomass was overestimated, the commercial quota based on that overestimate was probably too large.  Some fish stocks might have been harmed as a result.  Should that prove to be the case, and a stock is found to be significantly below its biomass target, and perhaps even overfished, recreational management measures might be indirectly affected, as both commercial and recreational landings are reduced in order to rebuild that stock to its biomass target.

But it’s not only management measures—size limits, bag limits, and seasons—that might be affected by the revised estimates of recreational effort, catch, and landings.  Allocations between the commercial and recreational sectors might be revised as well.

In 2022, after the Marine Recreational Information Program showed that historical recreational landings for summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass were higher than previously believed, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board adopted the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Commercial/Recreational Allocation Amendment.

One of the stated reasons for the amendment was that

“The commercial and recreational allocations for all three species are currently based on historical proportions of landings (for summer flounder and black sea bass) or catch (for scup) from each sector.  These allocations were set in the mid-1990s and have not been revised since that time.  Recent changes in how catch is estimated has resulted in a discrepancy between the current levels of estimated sector-specific catch and harvest and these allocations.”

In response to that discrepancy,

“For all three species, the preferred alternatives would revise the allocations using the same base years as the current allocations, updated with recent data on catch and landings in those years.  For all three species, the revised allocations would be catch-based and there would be no phase-in period.”

Thus, the amendment shifted the summer flounder allocation from 60% (of landings) commercial/40% recreational to 55% (of catch) commercial/45% recreational, shifted the black sea bass allocation from 49% (of landings) commercial/51% recreational to 45% (of catch) commercial/55% recreational, and shifted the scup allocation from 78% (of catch) commercial/22% recreational to 65% commercial/35% recreational, all based on the then-new Marine Recreational Information Program data.

Summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass were not the only species affected.  For example, also in 2022, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council revised the red grouper allocation from 76% commercial/24% recreational to 59.3% commercial/40.7% recreational, doing so

“Because the recreational landings estimates are greater using the new survey than the previous estimates of recreational landings, the commercial-recreational allocation would shift from 76 percent and 24 percent, respectively, to 59.3% and 40.7% respectively.”

One year later, in 2023, the same council shifted the commercial/recreational allocation for greater amberjack from 27% commercial/73% recreational to 20% commercial/80% recreational, again because the new Marine Recreational Information Program Fishing Effort Survey data indicated that anglers made more trips, and caught and landed more amberjack, in the years used to determine the allocation than managers previously believed.

That leads to the obvious question:  If the revised Fishing Effort Survey data leads to estimates of anglers’ catch being reduced in the base years used to calculate allocations, will the regional fishery management councils, consistent with their actions when recreational landings were revised upward, now revisit allocations to reflect the new understanding of recreational removals during the designated base years?

While going through such an exercise might not seem worthwhile for some species, where the shift might only be a percentage point or two, in other cases, a reallocation based on lower recreational catch and harvest might bring a real benefit to the commercial sector, particularly if the estimate of spawning stock biomass, and so commercial quota under current allocations, is reduced in response to the new recreational estimates.  Under such circumstances, a reallocation based on the revised numbers might keep some commercial quotas closer to the status quo.

That doesn’t mean that reallocation will necessarily happen; regional fishery management councils aren’t required to tie allocation to historical landings, and are free to leave things as they are.

Thus, when I look at the article that gave rise to this post, I have to admit that I’m a little surprised that the Gulf Council delayed its decision on scamp and yellowmouth grouper allocation.  While waiting for the Science and Statistical Committee’s analysis was the right thing to do—fisheries decisions should always be based on the best scientific information available—the Gulf Council, at least in recent years, has demonstrated a definite slant toward the recreational sector, and it’s pretty likely that delaying action on allocation won’t benefit the recreational side at all.

So, it will be interesting to see whether the other regional fishery management councils will revisit allocations, once the revised recreational catch and landings data is released.