‘CCA Atlantic States’ Articles
Atlantic menhaden management takes a familiar, disturbing turn
By Ted Venker
Coastal Conservation Association
Last week the Atlantic States Marines Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) Stock Assessment Committee and Technical Committee met to finalize the stock assessment update and advice they may give the Board for managing menhaden.
To reset the situation, according to the last benchmark assessment four years ago, the stock was undergoing overfishing, recruitment was at or near an all-time low, and abundance was at an all-time low. Not a good situation for a species whose primary ecological attribute is its historic, teeming abundance which has made it one of the primary forage species for gamefish like striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, bluefin, king mackerel and many others.
Menhaden has been allowed to decline to this low level using the reference points endorsed by the Technical Committee and the management advice based on those reference points by the Technical Committee. Simply put, the advice of the Stock Assessment Committee and the Technical Committee has failed the Board and the fishery.
At the last benchmark assessment, independent scientists reviewed the stock assessment and noted what the public has been saying for years: the stock is in a state of decline. Yet the management guideposts (reference points) did not signal any problems. The independent scientists suggested the Management Board adopt new reference points that took into account the historic abundance of menhaden.
So it was not surprising that the Board took the advice of the last peer review and adopted new, more conservative reference points. They adopted a 15 percent Maximum Spawning Potential (MSP) – which is a spawning stock that is 15 percent of an unfished stock – as the threshold and 30 percent MSP as the target, all perfectly reasonable, commonly used reference points. At the time it would have taken an estimated 10-15 percent reduction in harvest to meet the threshold of 15 percent MSP, and about twice that to meet the target reference point mortality rate.
The Board asked for a stock assessment update (which would add three more years of data to the last benchmark assessment to see where we are today), and that’s where the current problems start. The model started acting up when the last three years of data were added. The Stock Assessment Committee finally came to the conclusion that the results were so questionable that it was not useable for offering management advice. The two Stock Assessment Committee members who argued the hardest for not offering any management advice until the stock assessment was fixed were both employees of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Not to be forgotten in this new intrigue are the facts that this is a stock for which managers have a 55-plus-year time series of data, it is at a low level of abundance, there is evident age truncation, and the fishing mortality rate has been increasing in recent years.
And the Technical Committee can’t offer management advice? Really?
NMFS has been offering management advice for years on stocks without nearly the data stream we have for menhaden; indeed NMFS hasn’t hesitated to close entire fisheries on a fraction of the evidence we have for menhaden. One only has to look at species like snowy and warsaw grouper to see instances where NMFS has not hesitated to offer management advice on the skimpiest of data. Yet, in this case, with the obvious low level of abundance and 55 years worth of data, you can’t offer any advice for what to do with menhaden? That is just stunning.
It was just a couple of months ago that the single company that is responsible for the most intense harvest of menhaden hired two stock assessment scientists that quite inappropriately nearly led the discussion at the last Stock Assessment Committee meeting, participated freely in all the discussions, and even had its lawyer in the room at the last meeting. That same company has worked hand-in-glove with NMFS for 30 years. And now the primary vocal proponents insisting that the Technical Committee could not offer any management advice for menhaden were the two NMFS employees.
At the very least this does not pass the smell test. The public has a right to expect better. At some point, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flies like a duck and swims like a duck, it must be a duck.
Tags: ASMFC, menhaden, Omega Protein
Posted in CCA Atlantic States | No Comments »
By Richen Brame
Coastal Conservation Association
Atlantic Fisheries Director
The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Technical Committee (TC) and Stock Assessment Committee (SAC) process is supposed to be a simple one that allows the members, who come from state agencies, federal agencies and academia, to do the technical work necessary to manage marine fisheries. One primary object of this process is to allow only qualified, independent scientists to populate the committees, who can be expected to produce results that are not biased towards any one sector or another. Such scientists insulated from the grind of fishery politics are the very engine on which marine fisheries management runs.
The Commissioners may be the drivers, but the TC and SAC folks provide the horsepower. This process can quickly fall apart if it appears that someone with an agenda is sitting on the committee. Earlier this week, I witnessed just such an event, perhaps the most egregious I’ve seen in attending TC and SAC meetings for 13 years.
To set the scene, the Menhaden Stock Assessment Subcommittee and Technical Committee met to determine what information will go into an assessment update, essentially the data from 2009-2011 which was collected since the last benchmark assessment. As is well known, menhaden are undergoing overfishing and the Board recently set new fishing mortality reference points that are more conservative than the old reference points. To end overfishing, the Board is currently developing Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic menhaden, which will reduce menhaden harvest for all harvesters.
As is also well known, this will be the first time the menhaden reduction industry – Omega Protein in Reedville, Virginia – will have to operate under a quota and will have to limit its harvest to end overfishing.
It was no surprise, then, that Omega Protein hired two pre-eminent stock assessment scientists to represent them at the TC and SAC meeting. Many groups, including Coastal Conservation Association, had representatives there to observe the proceedings. But the Omega representatives went a step further and interacted freely with the Committee. One of them spoke more than any member of the stock assessment committee. At one point, he essentially led the discussion on what sensitivity analyses were appropriate for the assessment.
This type of interaction is out of bounds, and it casts doubt on the validity of these proceedings. It threatens to make a mockery of the process and transport it back to the dark days when reduction industry representatives controlled both the Menhaden Management Board and the Technical Committee.
The two scientists hired by Omega are some of the best-known stock assessment experts in the world, and their opinions should be available to the SAC and TC, but in a controlled fashion that is fair to all. What the Omega representatives contributed at that meeting may very well have been useful or valuable, but the manner in which they presented it was entirely inappropriate, and tainted the legitimacy of the meeting. Regardless of what they said, the appearance of impropriety cannot be avoided. As paid representatives of Omega Protein, they are at that meeting for one purpose and one purpose only – to represent Omega’s interests. Would they bother to attend such a meeting if the stock was not undergoing overfishing and Omega was not faced with reductions in harvest for the first time in its history?
I think not.
The ASMFC currently has guidelines on public participation under development, but those will not be approved until October. The Committee Chair and staff person are there to facilitate discussion, not referee who gets to speak and who doesn’t. In the meantime, conservationists are left to wonder about a process that appears tainted. As has happened in the past with this highly political fishery, it appears that the ASMFC is allowing the fox to guard the henhouse. Again.
Conservationists and recreational anglers have come too far in our efforts to protect a critical forage base to let these machinations go unchallenged. The ASMFC must rein in Omega Protein and not allow it to gain control of the menhaden management process. Its failure to do so risks destroying any trust the public has in its ability to manage our marine resources.
Tags: Amendment 2, ASMFC, menhaden
Posted in CCA Atlantic States | No Comments »
Commission vote reduces menhaden harvest for first time ever
BOSTON, MA - For the first time in history, there will be reductions in the harvest of Atlantic menhaden after a vote today by the Menhaden Management Board of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). Menhaden, which serve as the primary forage base for most predatory fish, have declined to the lowest level ever recorded, sparking alarm in the recreational angling community which has long expressed concern over the impact of industrial menhaden harvest on sportfish stocks.
“This is a long-anticipated decision and it is a great relief for anglers to know that managers have finally begun the process of rebuilding this critical species,” said Charles A. Witek III, chairman of the Atlantic Fisheries Committee for Coastal Conservation Association. “The turning point was finally having science in hand that showed what many of us have been saying for a long time. We still have work to do to ensure that menhaden are properly managed to fulfill its role as a forage base, but we are finally out of the starting blocks.”
Anglers and conservationists have chafed for years under management standards that indicated the spawning stock of menhaden was perfectly healthy and the fishing mortality rate was fine or only “slightly” over the overfishing threshold. As menhaden began to disappear from parts of the coast, it became clear that something was wrong with the way menhaden were being evaluated. Ultimately, outside scientists recommended changing reference points to better reflect the status of the stock and in a landmark decision, the Board agreed. With today’s vote, the reference points change from the current 8 percent Maximum Spawning Potential (MSP), which means 8 percent of an unfished stock, to 15 percent MSP as the overfishing threshold. They then adopted a target, the point for which management measures are intended, of 30 percent MSP, which will require a 37 percent reduction in harvest when implemented.
“The most critical thing that happened today is that the debate over whether or not to manage menhaden at all, is over,” said Richen Brame, CCA Atlantic Fisheries director. “Clearly these fish do indeed need to be managed, and managed conservatively. The debate now becomes about how conservatively should they be managed, and that is a much better scenario for menhaden, for sportfish and for anglers. It took a very long time and a lot of work by many, many groups, but the ASMFC did the right thing today.”
During the public comment period leading up to this vote, the ASMFC received almost 92,000 comments, the overwhelming majority of which were in favor of reductions in menhaden harvest by the greatest amount available. With today’s decision, the focus will now turn to the next management action that will determine exactly how to implement those reductions.
###
CCA is the largest marine resource conservation group of its kind in the nation. With almost 100,000 members in 17 state chapters, CCA has been active in state, national and international fisheries management issues since 1977. For more information visit the CCA Newsroom at www.JoinCCA.org.
Tags: ASMFC, forage fish, menhaden
Posted in CCA Atlantic States | No Comments »
ASMFC votes to give public its say on menhaden
ALEXANDRIA, VA – Tangible management of menhaden in the Atlantic moved another step closer to reality this week when the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) voted to send a series of management options for this critical forage species out to public hearings.
Menhaden management has long been a sore point among conservationists as intense commercial harvest of the species in the Chesapeake Bay has added to factors believed to be negatively impacting striped bass and other gamefish all along the East Coast. The primary industrial harvester of Atlantic menhaden, Omega Protein, has never had its harvest effectively restricted and stands as one of the very few commercial fishing operations in the country to successfully avoid management measures that might impact its bottom line.
There is also a completely unregulated bait fishery that targets menhaden throughout its East Coast range. Comprised of boats of all sizes, from large mid-water trawlers to small skiffs, it supplies bait to both the commercial and recreational fishery. The quantity of menhaden harvested by that industry has never been comprehensively assessed, but it is undoubtedly significant. In addition, the fishery is believed to be expanding as northeastern lobstermen seek a substitute for the more strictly regulated, Atlantic herring, which is decreasing in abundance.
The most current menhaden stock assessment showed the stock was undergoing overfishing and abundance estimates were at the lowest level ever recorded. Current science indicates that the menhaden spawning stock biomass is at about 9 percent of a stock that is not subjected to any fishing pressure. With the vote this week, the ASMFC has put into play management options that could increase the spawning stock biomass to15 percent or more.
“This is the grinding process of management,” said Richen Brame, CCA Atlantic States Fisheries Director. “The science is finally catching up with the problems anglers and conservationists have been talking about for a long time, and now the process can move forward. The fact that these options are going out for public hearing is significant, but it is a slow grind to get where we want to be with this stock. You can bet the harvesters think this is a significant development.”
Whatever regulations are ultimately adopted will be interim measures that will likely be in place for three to five years until ecological reference points, generated from a Multi-Species Virtual Population Analysis can be produced, which will require stock assessment updates on bluefish, striped bass, weakfish and menhaden stock. When that analysis is conducted, it is very possible managers will have a much better idea of the population of menhaden needed to fully serve as the critical forage base for those popular sport fish.
“Almost everyone who has spent time fishing in the Chesapeake has seen how the industrial boats, aided by spotter planes, can wipe out whole schools of menhaden, removing them completely from the food chain,” said Frank Kearney, chairman of CCA Virginia’s Government Affairs Committee. “For a long time, anglers have felt powerless to impact the menhaden management process against a very well-connected and financially powerful company. Now that these measures are going out for public hearing, it feels like we have a chance to inject some sanity into this fishery and begin to manage it for the greater good, not just for the good of one company.”
###
Tags: ASMFC, Atlantic menhaden, menhaden, Omega Protein
Posted in CCA Atlantic States | No Comments »
Recreational sector generates six times the jobs, 12 times the sales
of commercial industry
RALEIGH, NC - North Carolina has the opportunity to increase the economic impact of fishery management to the entire state with a single bill – H.B. 353, a bill to make striped bass, red drum and speckled trout gamefish.
According to a study released this week by Coastal Conservation Association of North Carolina, the economic impacts of recreational angling for those three species dwarf those of the commercial sector and make a compelling case for legislative measures that enhance recreational fisheries.
“For the first time ever, we have an opportunity in this state to take an objective look at how we can best use our marine resources, and economics should be a key factor in that determination,” said CCA NC President, Jim Hardin. “Using an extremely conservative evaluation of the state’s own economic data, this assessment shows clearly that recreational angling is a far greater economic engine for North Carolina than commercial fishing. And that engine will rev even higher with the passage of H.B. 353.”
Even though the study by Gentner Consulting Group used the most optimistic commercial figures from the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries against the most conservative numbers for recreational fishing, the report nonetheless shows the overwhelming economic power of recreational angling. Recreational spending across all three species totals $81 million in the state, and supports $120.8 million in total sales, $38.5 million in income and 1,536 jobs. Recreational fishing for striped bass alone generates more economic activity ($12.1 million in expenditures) than commercial fishing does for all three species combined.
“From a commercial fisheries standpoint, these species do not appear to be very important to the viability of commercial fishing communities in North Carolina,” says Gentner, who ran the recreational economics data collection program for the National Marine Fisheries Service for eight years before starting his own company. “Even including the commercial processing, wholesaling and retail sectors, recreational fishing generates 6.5 times more jobs and 12.5 times more sales than the entire commercial industry from the harvester to the plate.”
H.B. 353 was introduced last month and has been unfairly attacked by some commercial fishermen as a threat to their communities. Gentner’s analysis clearly demonstrates that the upside for striped bass, red drum and speckled trout as gamefish far outweighs the status quo management of these species for a few individuals.
“When you filter out the emotion and rhetoric, this debate comes down to a decision of what is best for the people of North Carolina. That has not always been a priority in the management of our marine resources in the past, but we believe it is now time for a fresh look at the facts surrounding these fisheries,” said Greg Hurt, CCA NC Legislative Committee Chairman. “Do we just want to keep repeating history, or do we want to create new pathways for economic growth? We believe the gamefish bill is the path to a better future for North Carolina.”
Click HERE for the complete economic analysis.
###
Tags: gamefish economics, North Carolina gamefish
Posted in CCA Atlantic States | 2 Comments »
ASMFC takes first steps to rebuild menhaden forage base
ALEXANDRIA, VA – For the first time ever, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission took steps to rein in the industrial harvest of menhaden and begin the process of managing the menhaden fishery. If adopted, the measures proposed today by the Menhaden Management Board would lead to a reduction of menhaden harvest in both the reduction and bait fisheries.
“After years of inaction, this is an excellent first step toward recovering a critical forage base,” said Richen Brame, CCA Atlantic States Fisheries director. “This action is significant, simply because the science on menhaden as a vital forage base is improving, and it is the science that is now driving this process. Some folks will feel that the proposals today do not go far enough, but it is imperative to point out that although this does not get us across the plate, it does get us in scoring position.”
The latest menhaden stock assessment showed the stock was undergoing overfishing and abundance estimates were at the lowest level ever recorded. Current science indicates that the menhaden spawning stock biomass is at about 9 percent of a stock that is not subjected to any fishing pressure. The Menhaden Management Board voted to start an addendum that would increase the spawning stock biomass to15 percent.
“That would end overfishing, cause about a 10 percent reduction in landings, and potentially increase spawning stock by more than 50 percent,” said Brame.
These are interim measures that will likely be in place for three to five years until a Multi-Species Virtual Population Analysis can be conducted, which will require stock assessment updates on bluefish, striped bass, weakfish and menhaden stock.
“When that analysis is conducted, it is very possible we will have a much better idea of the population of menhaden needed to fully serve as the critical forage base for those popular sport fish,” said Brame. “The picture is constantly evolving, and we appreciate that the Menhaden Management Board worked to develop a suite of management options to use in the interim that will begin rebuilding menhaden.”
The draft addendum will be developed over the summer to be approved for public comment at the ASMFC’s August meeting. Public hearings will be held along the entire Atlantic seaboard this fall, with final action at the ASMFC’s November Annual Meeting in Massachusetts. If adopted, management restrictions could be in place for the 2012 fishing season.
###
CCA is the largest marine resource conservation group of its kind in the nation. With almost 100,000 members in 17 state chapters, CCA has been active in state, national and international fisheries management issues since 1977. For more information visit the CCA Newsroom at www.JoinCCA.org.
Tags: ASMFC, menhaden
Posted in CCA Atlantic States | No Comments »
Anglers frustrated with unrealistic implementation of Magnuson-Stevens Act
SILVER SPRINGS, MD – A three-day workshop on annual catch limits (ACLs) sponsored by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) that concludes this week leaves very little hope that the recreational sector will find a way to mitigate the negative impacts of ACLs without a legislative fix to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the overarching federal law governing the nation’s fisheries. Rather than addressing problems with the ACL provision, NMFS staff, Council members and stock assessment scientists at the workshop were focused solely on how to more fully implement the ACL requirement in the future.
“This was not an adversarial gathering, but it is clear that NMFS is moving ahead with ACLs with very little concern for the vast differences between commercial fisheries and recreational ones,” said Richen Brame, CCA’s Atlantic States Fisheries director. “Not all fisheries are the same, but clearly the agency does not see any need to modify what has become a one-size-fits-all implementation of annual catch limits, no matter how irrational the results may be.”
The ACL provision was inserted into the 2006 reauthorization of the MSA almost exclusively to put an end to serial commercial overfishing allowed in some fisheries, most notably the New England groundfish fishery. Based on that provision, however, NMFS is putting in place strict measures to end overfishing for all fisheries in all regions, despite overwhelming evidence that they are not compatible or even defensible given the lack of information the agency has for recreational fisheries.
“No one would argue that ending overfishing is necessary, but the agency is closing down fisheries like black sea bass where an update assessment was last done in 2005 and the last full assessment was done in 2001. There has never even been a modern assessment on cobia, dolphin or wahoo in the South Atlantic, nor are there indications of trouble, but there are ultra-conservative options in play to prevent overfishing on those stocks that would slash recreational catch limits,” said Brame. “This is a system that is designed to fail, and NMFS will likely find it very difficult to rebuild any sense of trust or cooperation with the recreational fishing community if it continues down this path.”
Marine industry leaders will have another chance to engage federal managers on implementation problems the Magnuson-Stevens Act when Dr. Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and senior NMFS officials meet with boat manufacturers and tackle companies at the Miami International Boat Show this weekend.
“The agency does not have to implement this provision in this manner, and that is something we continue to convey to NOAA’s leadership,” said Chester Brewer, chairman of CCA’s National Government Relations Committee. “The agency should make a deeper commitment to more frequent stock assessments using fishery independent data and improved recreational catch data. That is certainly a better use for the $36 million that is currently set aside for catch share programs in the NMFS budget. Barring that, a legislative fix is likely the only realistic option to inject some sanity into fisheries management.”
###
Tags: ACLs, Annual catch limits, Magnuson-Stevens Act, MSA, NOAA Fisheries
Posted in CCA Atlantic States, CCA Federal Fisheries, CCA Gulf of Mexico, CCA South Atlantic, Magnuson-Stevens Act | No Comments »
Much has been made about the catch share issue in recent months. Catch shares are a poorly understood issue that has been made more complicated by an absolute avalanche of mistruths, half-truths, and outright lies swirling about it in fishing chatrooms and blogs across the country.
Almost every facet of the past, present and future of catch shares has been grossly distorted. A glance at the average chatroom would lead casual readers to believe that there is a vast, strange conspiracy linking all-powerful environmental groups with oil companies with “double-agents” posing as anglers to rid the world of fishermen. One recurring theme is that the goal is to empty the oceans of all people so the oil companies can pillage at will. Another, green theme says the goal is to empty the oceans of all people so that the fish and whales are left alone to prosper. There are long, fantastical charts linking this group to that group, to prove the conspiracy of anti-fishers exists. Everyone is on Pew’s payroll, or Environmental Defense’s or Exxon’s.
The only thing missing is a good 007 character to save the day.
None of it is true, but it makes good reading. And nothing spoils a good tale like a few cold facts, but in the interest of setting at least some of the record straight, this column attempts to splash a little reality on the catch share mystery.
- Catch share programs have been used sporadically in commercial fisheries for decades. They were created to address a fundamental problem in some commercial fisheries – too many boats chasing too few fish, resulting in dangerous, wasteful derbies. If you have ever watched the early seasons of Deadliest Catch on The Discovery Channel, that was a derby fishery. The whistle blew, all the boats went to catch king crab no matter what the weather was, no one slept and they fished until someone, somewhere, calculated the quota had been caught and then the season ended. Some made a fortune, some went broke, and everyone fished in a manner to catch as much as possible as fast as possible regardless of the danger or bycatch involved. The fact that no one sleeps for 4 or 5 days at a time is the reason it’s called Deadliest Catch.
- Staying with the Deadliest Catch theme, catch shares took the whole quota for king crab and divided it up among boats based on their past catch history. Each boat’s percentage effectively became “theirs” to harvest, however and whenever they liked during the season. The Northwestern, the Cornelia Marie, the Wizard, the Time Bandit and others all now “own” shares of the king crab fishery.
- The goal of catch shares in that scenario is to eliminate the derbies and reduce bycatch. A by-product of catch shares is that inevitably, some boats will sell out or lease their share to other boats. The overall number of boats drops, until a relatively few big boats are left fishing. Ideally, the dangerous derbies are eliminated, bycatch is reduced and the economics improve. That is the goal of a catch share system in a purely commercial fishery.
- Some environmental groups, Environmental Defense Fund foremost among them, became enamored, somewhat naively, with the prospects of applying catch shares to all fisheries, including recreational ones, based on their use, implementation and success in purely commercial fisheries. The critical disconnect is that no one at EDF understood or appreciated the vast differences between recreational fisheries and commercial fisheries. In EDF’s mind, catch shares were a solution to all fisheries problems.
Now, in order to set the stage for what comes next, you have to understand a separate but connected issue, and that is how allocations are set in mixed-use fisheries – fisheries that have both commercial and recreational participation. Allocations between recreational and commercial sectors have historically been based on catch history, often using time frames as short as selected three-year segments. Given federal managers’ history of promoting commercial fisheries, the time frames were often not favorable to the recreational sector.
Those allocations are essentially frozen, despite the growth of recreational angling and the growing economic contribution of the recreational sector. They are frozen because the reallocation process is a political nightmare for a Fishery Management Council. It is long, convoluted and tortuous, with lots of emotion thrown in for good measure. No Council member or staffer willingly endures it if he or she can possibly avoid it.
As a result, allocations that were set 20 or 30 years ago are completely out of whack with the demographics, population and public demand that exists today. When a stagnant recreational allocation combines with the constant migration to the nation’s coasts, the end result is that more and more recreational anglers are trapped chasing a fixed allotment of fish, resulting in shorter seasons and greater restrictions for everyone. The red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is a prime example. About 300 commercial boats currently chase 51 percent of the entire harvest of red snapper in the Gulf under a catch share system. Hundreds of thousands of recreational anglers get the other 49 percent.
And no one in NOAA Fisheries has been interested in cracking the egg on reallocation.
- Jumping back to catch shares, Dr. Jane Lubchenco was appointed to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2008. Dr. Lubchenco is a marine scientist with deep ties to EDF, including a stint on its board.
- Not long after that appointment, the Obama Administration created the Catch Share Policy Task Force, signaling a new focus to broadly impose catch share systems on federal fisheries, including those enjoyed by recreational anglers. Compounding the complexity of this issue is the fact that the Obama Administration is filled with people from places like San Francisco and Chicago who do not exactly understand or appreciate saltwater recreational angling.
- Promoted by a former board member of EDF – which doesn’t understand or appreciate recreational angling – in an Administration that doesn’t understand or appreciate recreational angling, the danger of a Catch Shares Policy Task Force was immediately clear. There was NOTHING to prevent catch shares from proceeding as a one-size-fits-all solution for the commercial and recreational sectors in every fishery.
- A coalition of marine industry and fishery conservation groups, recognizing the need to become involved in the process of shaping the new policy, engaged the Administration on the issue of catch shares. At the same time, the coalition engaged with environmental groups that were heavily promoting catch share systems, including Environmental Defense Fund. The goal of that engagement was to educate them on the problems catch shares present for recreational anglers and shape the policy so that at the very least it was not detrimental to recreational angling.
- That engagement is the source of a lot of confusion on the Internet. In the eyes of some conspiracy-theorist bloggers, by engaging the Administration and the environmental community on catch shares, the angling groups involved (CCA, CCC, TBF, IGFA, ASA, NMMA) were somehow “negotiating with the Devil,” “selling anglers out,” “getting on the EDF payroll,” etc. That line of thinking completely ignores the consequences of non-engagement. An outcome driven by an EDF-driven Catch Share Policy Task Force, in an Administration that has no interest in recreational angling, could only be bad for sport fishermen. The belief that anyone can achieve a favorable outcome merely by turning their back on this issue and “just saying No” is pure political fantasy.
- The coalition created a list of points to pursue in discussions with the administration, most of which are now included in the NOAA Catch Share Policy released in late 2010, such as:
- The coalition is and always has been firmly against catch shares for recreational anglers. The coalition does not believe they are an appropriate tool to manage recreational anglers under any circumstances.
- The coalition is firmly against separating the recreational sector into for-hire/charter and private boat designations.
- In mixed-use fisheries, those that have a quota for both recreational and commercial fishers, it may be determined that catch shares are an appropriate tool for the commercial sector. However, before implementing a commercial catch share system, the allocation must be redefined and updated using economic, social and conservation criteria.
- Once set, the new allocation must be reviewed periodically using those same criteria.
- In mixed-use fisheries that employ a catch share system for the commercial sector, the commercial shares must be made available for transfer to the recreational sector to allow for the growth of the recreational sector. The mechanism for transferring commercial shares could include state agencies, but is as yet undefined.
- The coalition’s engagement effectively changed the Catch Share Policy from one that was initially poised to work against recreational anglers, to a tool that may be used to address the persistent allocation problems that have short-changed anglers for decades. Would this be the case if the coalition had not engaged? Absolutely not. We would certainly have a catch share policy, but there would be very little in it that might work FOR anglers.
- Ideally, applying the current catch share policy in the Gulf of Mexico for red snapper, for example, could result in a 70% or 80% recreational share, with the potential to shift more commercial quota to the recreational side if economic, conservation and social factors determine it is warranted. Unfortunately, the policy does not apply to Gulf red snapper since a catch share system was implemented for that fishery in 2006. The outdated allocation for Gulf red snapper remains a stubborn problem seeking a solution. However, CCA is currently pursuing reallocation and transferability of commercial red snapper shares at the Gulf Council.
The coalition of groups that engaged with the Administration and the environmental community on catch shares stepped in to prevent a disaster for recreational anglers. Perhaps that is not as interesting as a good spy novel, full of intrigue, deception and betrayal, but this is not some daytime soap opera. This is a real-life fisheries debate, with real political consequences that must be confronted and dealt with.
When it comes to the Internet, it is good to remember that often the simplest explanation is correct. If it starts to sound like something Ian Fleming wrote, then maybe it has been written for entertainment purposes only. In fact, you should be suspicious of everything you read in chatrooms and online forums, which means you should even take this article with a grain of salt. At the very least, go see the complete text of CCA’s documents and testimony before Congress and letters to the Administration, and check out information about our lawsuit against the federal government and Environmental Defense Fund over the Gulf grouper catch share program. It’s all on the Catch Shares page in the Newsroom section of www.JoinCCA.org. Do some research and, by all means, decide for yourself.
Tags: Catch Shares, EDF, NOAA Catch Share Policy
Posted in CCA Atlantic States, CCA Blogs, CCA Gulf of Mexico, CCA South Atlantic, Catch Shares | 8 Comments »
Striped bass kills highlight need to end destructive fishing practices
PINE KNOLLS SHORES, NC – In response to a rash of massive striped bass kills along the coast, CCA North Carolina will request the NC Marine Fisheries Commission (MFC) to eliminate trawling of any kind as a permissible fishing gear for striped bass. The incidents, photographed and videotaped by recreational anglers in the area, were the result of commercial trawling operations in state waters and have prompted outrage up and down the East Coast. CCA North Carolina will request decisive action at the MFC meeting in Pine Knolls, Feb. 10-11.
“The MFC has an obligation to responsibly manage these resources,” said Jay Dail, Chairman of the CCA NC. “Allowing a fishery to dump thousands of dead stripers over the side as a regular course of doing business is not responsible management. At the very least, the Commission should immediately outlaw the use of indiscriminate, highly destructive trawls in state waters in favor of more selective gear.”
In response to the first of the striped bass kills on Jan. 21, the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries implemented regulatory changes to address discards of striped bass in the commercial trawl fishery. The Division replaced the previous 50-fish-per-day commercial trip limit with a 2,000-pound-per-day trip limit. The action was intended to allow the commercial industry to keep fishing while avoiding regulatory discards. The plan failed as another fish kill event, complete with trails of dead, floating bass, were again witnessed and recorded.
CCA North Carolina will request the MFC to establish a commercial hook-and-line only fishery for striped bass, a far more selective gear that will prevent the tragic waste of striped bass common to trawls.
Sadly, the NC Fisheries Association’s response to the recent fish kills wasn’t about the unwanted loss of striped bass, but one of location, “The federal government obstinately refuses to allow an increase on commercial quota or any percentage rollover, and the EEZ is still closed. These boats wouldn’t be anywhere near these recreational boats who were taking all the videos if they didn’t have to stay within three miles.” stated its director.
“This isn’t a question of ‘getting away with it.’ It’s about a flagrant waste of a public resource. On top of that, the economic hit of denying those fish to recreational anglers should be a significant concern to the state,” said Jim Hardin, President of CCA NC. In 2000, a study by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science indicated Virginia stood to generate about $181 million if the state allocated 100 percent of the striped bass to the recreational sector. Allocating 100 percent of that state’s stripers to the commercial industry would generate about $24 million. “Allowing this kind of destructive fishing practice to continue off our coast does not make sense at any level. It has to stop and we expect the MFC to take appropriate, effective action.”
###
Tags: MFC, North Carolina, striped bass, trawling
Posted in CCA Atlantic States | No Comments »
By Ted Venker
Conservation Director
Coastal Conservation Association
They say that fishing is the world’s second oldest occupation, so it is likely there have been more ironic events in its long, storied history, but the recent letter from Massachusetts’s Governor Deval Patrick to President Obama must rank near the top of the list.
For those of you who missed it, Gov. Patrick expressed his “extraordinary frustration” with the lack of responsiveness the Commonwealth has experienced with the U.S. Department of Commerce and its agencies on the challenges facing commercial fishermen in Massachusetts. The Governor is upset with the severe regulations that have been placed on his hard-working commercial fishing community and the effect it is having on the state’s economy.
To back up his arguments, Gov. Patrick cited economic statistics to demonstrate commercial fishing’s vital role in Massachusetts’s history and economy. The industry, he said, employs approximately 80,000 people in fisheries and related shore side businesses, and generates $4.4 billion in sales. Those figures are slightly suspect – using the federal economic impact model puts the commercial fishery economic impact of Massachusetts at $416.9 million in landed value, producing $1.9 billion in total sales and 35,609 jobs. The additional jobs and dollars come from the retail sector involved with importing seafood that is not even from the State of Massachusetts. But let’s play along.
There is no doubt that commercial fishing is a huge part of Massachusetts’s culture. Anyone who has read “Cod” by Mark Kurlansky will appreciate how fishermen essentially built the state. There is a reason a wooden replica of a cod has hung in the Massachusetts’s statehouse.
Conversely, anyone who has read “Cod” will also be familiar with the ironic part of this story. In “building” the state of Massachusetts, commercial fishing also proceeded to essentially destroy what was once some of the most prolific, profitable fishing grounds in the world. Serial, rampant commercial overfishing reduced stocks to mere shadows of their former productivity, and there are doubts whether cod will ever return to its former abundance. Among other hurdles, many of the nooks and crannies in the rocks of the ocean bottom that served as cod habitat have been smashed flat by decades of rock-hopper trawls, creating the possibility that cod simply can’t come back.
The signs that groundfish stocks were in serious trouble have been apparent for decades, but every time anyone attempted to rein in commercial fishing, the howl and cry from the fishing industry was enough to beat it back. Management plans that had no real chance of success were adopted again and again in response to enormous political pressure. Pressure not unlike the current letter from Gov. Patrick to President Obama.
It became apparent to powerful groups in the environmental community that managers were in an impossible situation when it came to Northeast fisheries. There was no way to effectively manage those stocks if it meant impinging on such a vital and revered cog in the region’s economy. So in 2006, those groups acted. In an effort to directly address the chronic problems in the Northeast, certain provisions were incorporated into the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the overarching federal law that manages the nation’s fisheries.
Those provisions required Annual Catch Limits (ACLs), Accountability Measures (AMs), and an end to all overfishing by a date certain (2010). They were heavily promoted by environmental groups, some of which are expending enormous amounts of time and resources on oceans programs. Those provisions were directly aimed at installing some backbone to manage New England’s disastrous commercial groundfish fisheries.
Any attempt to end overfishing is generally appealing to a conservationist, but the ramifications of those provisions on the recreational sector were not truly appreciated or even understood at the time. Over the past few years, it has become painfully apparent to anyone associated with marine recreational fisheries that the federal agency in charge of managing those fisheries – NOAA Fisheries (formerly the National Marine Fisheries Service, formerly the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries) – has not the science or data or even the interest to properly manage recreational fisheries to the requirements of those provisions. The terrestrial model of wildlife management that has been applied so successfully to ducks, geese, turkey, deer, elk, bass, etc, is nowhere to be found in the nation’s oceans.
Because NOAA Fisheries has failed to collect the required data and science, it has a very limited ability to properly manage recreational fisheries. Nonetheless, the provisions that were aimed directly at New England’s commercial groundfish disaster are now being applied to ALL fisheries in ALL other regions, including highly valuable recreational fisheries. The most dramatic examples can be found in the South Atlantic where fishery after fishery is being impacted to comply with the letter of the law. In one case, black sea bass, which hasn’t had a full assessment in 10 years, is being closed down. Dolphin, wahoo and cobia have never even had an assessment and there are no indications of trouble, but dramatic reductions are on the table as an ultra-conservative way to comply with the provision to end overfishing.
The painfully ironic part to this whole sordid tale is that while Gov. Patrick tries to roll back the New England provisions to preserve New England commercial fishermen, those same provisions are wreaking havoc in Florida, for example, where recreational fishing expenditures dwarf the vaunted economic might of the Massachusetts commercial sector. In Florida, recreational expenditures are calculated at $17.6 billion and support $15.1 billion in sales and 138,754 jobs. Even in Massachusetts, recreational anglers are not an insignificant part of the economic picture, spending $817.6 million dollars on trip and annual expenditures, supporting $850.5 million in sales and supporting 6,446 jobs.
There is a chance that Gov. Patrick, in order to preserve the commercial sector that decimated the stocks in the first place, will find some success. Like so many before him, he may actually be able to apply the same political pressure that provoked those provisions in Magnuson so that his fishing industry can keep fishing. That would be truly ironic, since recreational fisheries that are far more valuable to the country are being penalized and discouraged by the laws that were created to correct the sins of the commercial sector.
Sadly, there are not many indications that anyone in federal fisheries management is serious about changing the way this country elects to manage its marine resources either.
Gov. Patrick is right to express his “extraordinary frustration” with federal fisheries management. Ironically enough, I’m frustrated, too.
###
Tags: Magnuson-Stevens Act, MSA
Posted in CCA Atlantic States, CCA Blogs, CCA Federal Fisheries, CCA Gulf of Mexico, CCA Pacific Northwest, CCA South Atlantic, Magnuson-Stevens Act | No Comments »
