Undermining Fisheries Science, Claiming the Opposite
Posted July 19, 2012 in Reviving the World's Oceans, U.S. Law and Policy
Imagine if your state legislature passed a law, called the “Academic Performance Improvement Act,” that exempted students from having to meet reading standards because they hadn’t had a certain type of academic assessment test, even though their teachers could otherwise determine these students’ proficiencies by evaluating classroom performance. The U.S. Senate is right now considering doing essentially the same thing with fisheries management. Under the unobjectionably-named “Fisheries Science Improvement Act” (FSIA), Congress would exempt many marine fish species from the new requirement for science-based catch limits designed to end and prevent overfishing because these fish species haven’t had recent stock assessments, even though other science-based methods are already being used to set limits that can effectively prevent overfishing and maintain yield over the long run for these species. (See my earlier blog on the companion bill that’s been introduced in the House of Representatives.)
Exemptions from performance standards – whether academic or fisheries based – do not generally lead to improvements in methods for gauging performance, as the proponents of the FSIA would have members of Congress and the public believe. Just as most parents and teachers would cry foul in the example above, we should reject similar efforts with regard to how our fisheries resources are managed.
Here’s some background in how we got here: In 2006, after decades of overfishing and the continual depletion of fish populations, Congress took decisive, bipartisan action to require that fisheries managers set annual catch limits for all federally managed saltwater fish species. The limits are designed to prevent overfishing and must be accompanied by measures to ensure accountability so the limits aren’t exceeded, or are paid back the following fishing season if they are. After five years of hard work, tens of millions of dollars, and the active input of fishermen and other stakeholders, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has now successfully adopted catch limits for all stocks (with some minor exceptions for statutorily-exempted species like some squid and shrimp that have lifespans of less than one year). This is a major accomplishment.
Here’s what the current head of NMFS, Sam Rauch, said recently about the success of catch limits:
"With annual catch limits in place this year for all domestic fish populations and the continued commitment of fishermen to rebuild the stocks they rely on, we’re making even greater progress in ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks around the nation. Healthy and abundant fish populations and marine ecosystems support seafood for Americans, create lasting jobs, and enhance saltwater recreational fishing opportunities."
Strong conservation standards enacted over the past two decades are changing the course of America’s fisheries, making them more robust and sustainable. According to NMFS, more than 27 different fish species have recovered from depletion since 2000, including fluke, bluefish, haddock, and sea scallop. Now, after all this progress toward more resilient fisheries, Congress is contemplating dismantling the system that has gotten us here.
Catch limits are set based on scientific determinations of each stock’s maximum sustainable fishing level – the maximum amount of fish that can be harvested each year without depleting the population in the future. Some fish species are assessed using complex models that analyze series of historic and current data on catch and independent surveys of population status. These “data rich” stock assessments are expensive and time-consuming and therefore typically reserved for the most commercially and recreationally valuable fish species. For other species, fisheries managers typically use data on historic and current catch along with expert knowledge of the behavior, life history, and ecological roles of different fish species to identify appropriate catch limits that will prevent overfishing and maintain healthy yields.
Such “data-limited” methods provide efficient and cost-effective means of setting appropriate catch limits for each species. The new legal requirement for catch limits has led to a flurry of scientific innovation in this area, with new methods being developed for different fisheries and individual species. Contrary to what some supporters of the FSIA claim, implementation of these methods on the water over the past six months is not shutting down fisheries. In fact, fishery closures to prevent overfishing have occurred almost entirely in cases with quite recent traditional “data rich” stock assessments.
Instead of pulling the rug out from under the scientists and managers who have moved the ball forward in this vitally important aspect of fisheries management, as the FSIA would do, Congress should support strong fisheries science by maintaining the incentives they’ve recently established and by increasing funding for data collection, analysis, and the innovation of new scientific approaches to managing old fisheries challenges.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
mark phillips — Jul 20 2012 04:04 PM
It must be nice to sit outside an industry an tell everyone what is going on. I am a commercial fisherman and have been for 40+ years. I have seen stocks go up and down and I am not against regulations in fact I have lobbied nmfs (now noaa fisheries) for higher size limits and lower TACs when I see things. I was against raising the fluke TAC and told them so. I also spent 9 or 10 years trying to get a federal size limit on scup while I watched noaa drag its feet. That said there are a lot of reasons for not having a hard and fast 10 year rebuilding plan. 1) You can not have all stocks at MSY at the same time, 2) noaa changes their models at will and that affects where a stock is 3) some stocks are managed jointly between 2 countries and it doesn't work very well when one is doing it 1 way the other doing it differently 4) the ups and downs in fisheries science are terrible for any business take atlantic pollack for example we were told to increase fishing on this stock for many years andf then all of a sudden the stock was on the brink of collapse and became a choke species under the new catch share program, then miraculously in 2 months the stock rebounded without even doing another survey, it increased 600% just by changing 1 number in the model. Spiny dogfish another example thier was never number set as what the stock should be set at so because of that it was listed as severely over fished and people wanted to list it as endangered even though on noaa's surveys it would say left the area could not complete survey because there were to many dogfish.
It is easy to cry and misrepresent the facts as you will say I am doing but I don't get donations for crying overfished and that fishermen are raping the oceans. The enviromental groups thrive on misrepresenting the truth just as you are.
Does it matter if a stock rebuilds in 5 years or 15 years as long as it is on an upward path? Again I am not against regulations but I am against environmental groups misleading the public
David Newman — Jul 20 2012 06:10 PM
It seems you may have misunderstood the point of my blog. I'm writing about the requirement to end overfishing, not the requirement to rebuild populations once they've been depleted (usually following a period of continuous overfishing). The issues are certainly related, but have distinct programs under the law to deal with them. My blog pertains to a bill that would weaken the requirements to end overfishing, while your response is focused on the separate rebuilding requirements, also under attack in Congress right now. Because I wasn't discussing the issues you raise in your comments above, I'll respond here.
The requirement to rebuild overfished populations within 10 years has proven instrumental at restoring many of our most important fisheries since being implemented over 15 years ago. As noted above, according to NMFS, more than 27 different fish species have recovered from depletion since 2000, including fluke, bluefish, haddock, and sea scallop. In the Mid-Atlantic alone, six of the most important species have rebuilt and overfishing has ended for all managed species. As you can see from this chart (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dnewman/midatlanticstocks.png), all six of these fish stocks were at or near all-time low population levels around 1996, when the MSA’s rebuilding mandate went into effect, and today all are at or above healthy population levels, according to official stock assessments.
This success, which serves as a model of effective fisheries management throughout the world, would not have been possible without the hard and fast requirements in the fisheries law. See my earlier blog on this - http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dnewman/americas_world-best_fishing_mo.html.
Regarding your suggestion that the rebuilding time period lack flexibility, a few important points.
First, scientists have calculated that the majority of fish species can rebuild within half that time – five years or less. See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5735/707.full.
Second, for those species that cannot do so, the law already permits exceeding the 10-year limit under three broadly applied exceptions: when the biology of the stock, environmental conditions, or the requirements of an international agreement will not permit rebuilding that quickly. In fact, the international exception to the 10 year rebuilding requirement was recently extended to Georges Bank yellowtail flounder, a stock that is not even subject to a formal agreement with Canada.
Finally, the existing flexibility in the law means that more than half of current rebuilding plans are allowed to exceed 10 years, some by decades (see this graphical representation showing the length of 40 current rebuilding plans - http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedImages/PEG/Publications/Fact_Sheet/fed-fish-graph-770-RC.jpg).
The MSA has a clear track record of success and has become a model legal framework throughout the world. Nonetheless, dozens of major fish stocks remain depleted and are still subject to overfishing (in some regions, like New England, the majority of managed stocks are still overfished). Weakening the law might allow for a few years of boom fishing, but the bust that follows would set us back decades and jeopardize the livelihoods of a generation of fishermen and the communities that depend on them. I don't think that's in anyone's interest.