 |
 |
|
|
||
Fisheries Management & Legislative Report
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association April 2002 Newsletter)
Fisheries Management & Legislative Report
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association April 2002 Newsletter)
Missing: Big & Old Striped Bass
Why Fishermen Can't Attend Meetings Anymore
One Scary Season - The Drought
Two NY Times Articles
Second Thoughts on Mercury In Fish
Stream Tests Show Traces Of Array Of Contaminants
It seems at every meeting and in some articles I hear the same complaint, "Where are the older striped bass?" We are now discussing more restrictions on striped bass because the perception is that there are few large striped bass available. Were there more 50 pound striped bass in the early 70's? Most of us would say yes. But I think we need to review what has happened in the past 30 years in striped bass management to see why there are not a lot of bass over 20 years old now.
In the late 70's we recognized that the striped bass stocks were not as robust as in previous years and there was fear of a stock collapse. In 1982 we saw a healthy year class. In order to protect this class new regulations were implemented in 1984. These regulations were designed to protect the 1982-year class until it spawned at least once. Beginning in 1984 we raised the size limit routinely to protect those fish as they matured. All the striped bass harvested after 1984 were fish that had spawned before 1981. Remember, the young of the year index for years before 1981 were the ones that were very low. But because of management decisions those were the fish that we were harvesting. Some states put moratoriums in for a period of time while other states remained open. For example, Massachusetts sent about 100,000 pounds of striped bass to market each year until 1991 when the fishery was reopened. In 1989 we had a good young of the year index. That was the reason the fishery was opened in 1991. We allowed for the harvest of 18 inch fish in the bay and 28 inch fish along the coast. States with the largest amount of coastal harvest decided not to go to 28 inches and remained at the higher size limit thereby limiting the catch to older fish. This means that a majority of the coastal stocks harvested prior to 1995 were older fish. I estimate most of these fish were pre1981. Right now in Massachusetts the largest coastal commercial catch is still targeting older fish, 34 inch or larger.
Let's take a look at the years when we had good spawning in the Chesapeake Bay. The years in question are 1982, 1989 and 1993. The oldest fish from the good years in 2001 are currently 20 years old. The class of '89 is 12 years old and the class of '93 is 8 years old. The classes before 1981, which were small class years, have been fished heavily every year. That is why I am not surprised that we are finding few fish over 20 years old. Since we reopened the fishery in 1991, our main source of striped bass for consumption along the coast has been the 1982 class. It is no wonder we are not seeing a lot of fish from that class year anymore.
What further complicates the whole issue is what has happened in Virginia since 1997. At a recent ASMFC Striped Bass Board Meeting, we learned that Virginia was circumventing the process. Their quota is divided into two parts. The first, which is on pre-migratory fish, is part of the Chesapeake Bay total quota. A model that is designed to show how many pre-migratory Virginia, Maryland and Potomac River can harvest in any given year determines this quota. It is based on the mortality of these fish in Chesapeake Bay. The other quota is for the ocean. This quota has been at 95,000 pounds. This quota is on migratory fish, older fish and bigger fish. Virginia changed their tagging system for reporting commercial fish and allowed for the transfer of these tags. They did not discriminate between coastal stocks and the Chesapeake Bay. This has resulted in a commercial catch that has greatly overfished their quota in the ocean. Instead of 95,000 pounds, they may have caught up to 890,000 pounds along the coast. This catch is primarily 20 - 30 pound fish that are wintering over and are mixed stocks. That is larger than any commercial catch in any other state along the coast. One of the Virginia representatives was amazed that we were upset over the catch of approximately 50,000 fish over 20 pounds and from mixed stocks. This affects the coastal stocks. It also allows for a larger quota for the Chesapeake Bay harvest since the switch to a larger coast catch has an impact on the mortality figures in the bay. We have always had concerns about the models for the Chesapeake Bay. Now we need to be concerned not only about the models but also about the integrity of the information the models are based on.
I cannot imagine how many large striped bass were killed in the spiny dog fishery. This fishery used the right size mesh and were located where the big bass were. If you are wondering what has happened to the big fish, these are some of the reasons. It is not surprising that we find fewer big fish. Given these circumstances, it is surprising there are any big fish at all left from before 1981. We will not see any 25-year old from the 1982-year class until 2007. We will not see any 25-year old fish from the 1989-year class until 2014. And I am really looking forward to catching and releasing those 25-year old fish from the 1993 class year in 2018. God willing!
Management decisions can help produce larger, older year classes. But that takes time. When you are looking at the decisions we need to make, please consider all of this information. Rhetoric and emotion are not always productive when these kinds of decisions need to be made.
When I first started attending Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission meetings and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council meetings, I was concerned about the cost of accommodations. I felt the prices made it difficult, if not impossible, for the average fisherman to attend. In the early 90's I wrote letters to my legislators, ASMFC and MAFMC complaining about the cost and saw some positive results. The ASMFC and MAFMC tried to find accommodations that were reasonable and accessible. However, I fear we are back to the old overpriced, inaccessible locations.
I understand that it is difficult to find accommodations that can handle the requirements for meetings of this size. But sometimes it appears they are not considering the people they represent. The problems are different for each organization.
The MAFMC consists of 18 council members and an additional 8-10 staff members. The MAFMC tries to move their meetings to include all the states represented. In the process they hold some of the meetings at sites that are inaccessible for one day. You simply can't get there from here. An example is the March meeting that is scheduled for Gurney's Inn, 290 Old Montauk Highway, Montauk, NY. There is no airport within a reasonable distance and the drive time to Montauk is excessive. But the cost of a room at Gurney’s is even more excessive. In March, hardly the tourist season in Montauk, they charge $125 plus an 18% gratuity. A one night stay plus tax is easily $160. If you need to attend an 8:00 meeting, the travel time will require you to arrive the night before and probably stay a second night as well. With a room cost of $320 for two nights plus transportation you can easily spend more than $500. This is ridiculous. As another example, the December meeting, where ASMFC & MAFMC will finalize the size, bag limits and season for summer flounder, scup and seabass, is scheduled for Sanderling Resort, Duck, North Carolina. It is hard to find a spot more inaccessible, especially for anyone north of Virginia.
The ASMFC is not considering the cost of attending their meetings for the general public. Since they pay the costs incurred by the 45 commissioners and a large staff, their expenses are considerably larger than MAFMC. They cover 15 states and often look for a site near an airport to make meetings accessible. Recently, however, they have decided to move three of the meetings to Washington, DC, making them more expensive and less accessible to the average fisherman. I understand they signed a contract with the Watergate Swissotel for $119 or prevailing government rate. We were surprised when the actual cost was $150 per night plus $24 to park the car because the government rate went up. Again, this price is out of reach for many fishermen who would like to participate in the process. Washington, DC is also difficult to reach. If you want to attend a meeting that begins at 9:00 AM, traffic will require that you travel the day before, increasing you hotel bill significantly. It is particularly expensive to fly to Reagan Airport. Just check the latest ticket prices.
The Council and the Commission have failed to consider the impact September 11th has on flying. You can't catch a last minute flight anymore. Our airport easily adds 2 hours to our flight time. The number of flights have diminished making traveling less flexible and often requiring an overnight stay simply because there is no early flight available.
An important purpose of these meetings is to allow for public participation. If we make it impossible for people to attend due to distance or money, we are denying them a chance to participate. The lobbyists and the bureaucrats will always attend. I am concerned about the average fisherman, both commercial and recreational. If people believe they are not part of the process, they become disenchanted with the system and will not support the decisions made at the Council or the Commission.
I know we are all dissatisfied with the regulations for 2002. No matter what we do, we seem to be on the losing side. I believe, however, that our worries about the regulations will be eclipsed by our concerns about this year’s drought. JCAA has historically been actively involved in looking at water quality and water quantity problems. If you have read our newspaper for the past few years, you have seen articles about pumping New Jersey's coast dry. Because of the sewer systems developed in the late 70's, we are no longer recharging the aquifer but pumping outrageous amounts of water into the ocean. Ocean County alone pumps 100,000,000,000 gallons a year into the ocean. That is water that no longer flows into our streams, lakes and estuaries. We have significantly changed the ecology of the bay as the saltwater line moves inland.
If you think its bad now, wait until this summer. We are definitely in a drought and despite measures being taken at the state level, the impact on the streams, lakes and estuaries may well be disastrous. As an example, the bays and estuaries are the nurseries for many saltwater species. The young grow at an extraordinary rate in the wetlands and other areas of the estuary. In addition to the submerged aquatic vegetation they feed on or hide in, different species require certain salinity levels. Before the over development, species could move further inland to find the salinity level they needed. Those areas are gone because of development, dams and reservoirs. This drought will leave few options for the young and potentially have a negative impact on the young of the year for many species. This will have long-term consequences. I think we are only beginning to realize how devastating this can be to the whole ecology of the watersheds. For example, in the past an algae bloom may have seemed like an infrequent occurrence. With the lack of flow into the bays and estuaries and the increasing stagnation of the water, algae blooms may become more frequent and more severe. I read the notices in the Asbury Park Press about the drought regulations. As anglers, we need to do all we can to cut our water consumption and encourage others to do so as well. This is not just mindless government intrusion. This is a serious problem that requires our immediate attention and action. In addition to dealing with the immediate crisis, we need to focus on the long-term problems caused by over development and antiquated sewage treatment plants. We also need to address water usage by households, businesses, communities and recreational facilities. We are accustomed to taking water for granted. The days of unlimited water usage are over and this drought has simply been a wake-up call. We can change our habits now or we can pay the price later, not only financially but also in long-term damage to the watershed and the entire ecosystem.
Below are two articles that with information that becomes timelier with effects of the drought which means less water to dilute some of these problems. Sometimes we focus narrowly on the problem of overfishing, forgetting that some problems with the stocks have environmental causes. It is ironic that big environmental groups and the Pew Foundation are focused so obsessively on regulations rather than the environment. This is especially true for the inshore species.
by Marian Burrow NY Times March 13th, 2002
Was the Food and Drug Administration overly sensitive to the commercial interests of the tuna industry when it established guidelines on fish consumption and mercury contamination? Documents released this month by a watchdog group are raising that question as well as others about the decision-making that went into the agency’s warning to pregnant women about which fish to avoid to reduce the risk of harming their fetuses.
The documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Environmental Working Group, include 1,000 pages of transcripts and other reports related to meetings and discussions that led to the January 2001 advisory that pregnant women not eat fish like mackerel and swordfish. Among them were three meetings the F.D.A. had with the U.S. Tuna Foundation, Chicken of the Sea, Starkist, Bumble Bee and the National Food Processors Association.
The industry meetings in themselves were not unusual. However, the Environmental Working Group and at least one member of Congress are questioning whether undue weight was given to the industry’s position, while the opinions of others, including consumer focus groups, were discounted.
Earlier this month the F.D.A. itself acknowledged a need to revisit its own recommendations. In a rare move, just a year after its list was released, the agency announced a meeting of its Foods Advisory Committee to review mercury in seafood.
“We are going back because the Environmental Working Group report had some things in there that went to the process, and we wanted to be sure there isn’t any question about that,” said Joseph A. Levitt, director of the agency’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.
The F.D.A.’s advisory warned pregnant women not to eat swordfish, king mackerel, shark and tilefish because of high levels of mercury contamination that could cause neurological defects or delays in mental development in their children. Mysteriously absent from the list was one of the most significant sources of mercury in the American diet, tuna.
The F.D.A. said at the time it had identified those species of most concern to pregnant women, based on scientific evidence, the fact that Americans don’t eat dangerous levels of tuna and a desire not to confuse women.
“We feel we have evaluated the science in an appropriate way, and our advisory is right on target,” Michael Bolger, director of the division of risk assessment of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, said last May. Besides, Mr. Bolger added, if given too much information - like guidelines distinguishing between safe and unsafe fish and those to be eaten infrequently - women would stop eating all fish. He based this opinion, he said, on the responses of three focus groups to statements that included the following: “Tuna steaks can be eaten three times a month. You can eat one and a half six-ounce cans of tuna every week with no problems.”
In a document released at the time, the F.D.A. reiterated its reasoning: “The major points gleaned from the focus groups were to keep the message simple and direct,” the report said, adding that if pregnant women were told to limit consumption, they would interpret it to mean “do not consume.”
The documents obtained by the Environmental Working Group show, however, that women were far more savvy than that. After being presented with examples of detailed health advisories that included specific advice about tuna, 30 out of 37 comments indicated that the respondents would still eat fish but avoid those with high mercury levels, many specifically mentioning that they would continue to eat tuna but in limited amounts. Only seven individual remarks in the transcripts support the F.D.A. assertion that limiting consumption was equated with not eating any fish. More typical was this response from one participant: “My advice would be not to eat the mackerel, the shark and the swordfish. But I would also put in a note; you should limit your intake of the tuna and then, you know, eat the rest of the fish in moderation.” Mr. Levitt asserted: “We have different conclusions on what the focus groups said. When we said limit, they heard avoid.”
Meanwhile, the F.D.A. held three meetings with industry representatives, the documents show. The industry arguments included a claim that tuna consumption “is not as great as anecdotal observations would indicate” - a position that is at odds with the industry’s eagerness to keep canned tuna off the advisory list, as well as with tuna’s place as the best-selling fish, accounting for a third of all seafood sales in the United States. Nevertheless, the F.D.A. agreed. The two-page rationale, as they called it, released in February 2001, said that those who do eat canned tuna consume, at most, only about seven ounces a week, or not enough to pose a risk of mercury contamination.
Following that reasoning, why advise pregnant women not to eat tilefish or shark, which are consumed seldom, if at all?
“We’ll never know exactly how much influence industry had in the process,” said Jane Houlihan, vice president for research at the Environmental Working Group. “What we do know is that tuna was in the draft advisories and wasn’t in the final advisory. The F.D.A. ignored the advice from every other group they called in. And we know the F.D.A.’s public excuse for why they dropped tuna from the advisory is untrue. Their excuse is that people don’t eat enough canned tuna, so there is no need for an advisory.”
Randi Thomas, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Tuna Foundation, the trade association representing the domestic canned tuna industry, acknowledged her association’s influence. “I certainly hope we had an impact,” she said, “because we showed them the nutritional benefits of tuna.”
Critics of the advisory say the F.D.A. based its recommendations on outdated research about safe mercury levels in the blood, with the limit eight times higher than was deemed safe by both the National Academy of Sciences and the Environmental Protection Agency. If the F.D.A. followed the National Academy’s standard, it would tell pregnant women not to eat any tuna steaks at all, and canned tuna only once a month.
Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has data showing that 10 to 15 percent of American women of child-bearing age - 600,000 - have mercury in their blood at levels higher than the E.P.A.’s safe level, putting their children at risk of harm.
Scientists are still assessing the impact of mercury on fetuses. Some studies done in other countries have found that mothers who ate fish with high levels of mercury bore children with scores on intelligence tests 7 to 8 points lower on a 100-point scale. Two studies linked neurotoxic effects like delays in mental development to chronic fetal exposure to high levels of mercury from fish.
While the F.D.A. reviews its advisory, Congress also may take action. Representative Frank Pallone Jr., a New Jersey Democrat, questioned the agency’s motives last week and asked the inspector general of Health and Human Services to investigate. Mr. Pallone has introduced legislation that would require the F.D.A. to test mercury levels in fish, a program abandoned in 1998, and to set a safer threshold level for it in seafood.
by Andrew C. Revkin
March 13th, 2002 NY Times
Water downstream from many sewage treatment plants and livestock herds contains traces of dozens of drugs, disinfectants, hormones, chemicals excreted by smokers and other contaminants, according to the first nationwide survey for such compounds by government scientists.
The researchers, at the United States Geological Survey, said any impact on people and wildlife from tiny amounts of these substances, almost all of which are measured at concentrations of less than one part per billion, had yet to be determined.
But they found that when all the substances in some stream samples were tallied, levels were similar to those that in other studies appeared to harm fish and other aquatic life. This was particularly true for samples with traces of various hormones or hormone-like compounds used in birth control and hormone replacement therapy, the study said.
Federal food and drug officials said the study could lead to changes in the drug approval process. For example, the agency could require more drugs to undergo tests for hazards they might pose once they left the body.
The stream tests are described today in the online version of Environmental Science and Technology, a peer-reviewed journal published by the American Chemical Society.
"Hopefully, the study will help people understand that chemicals they use and consume on a daily basis and their behavior can affect our environment and water resources," said Herbert T. Buxton, coordinator of the geological survey's toxic substances hydrology program and an author of the study.
The survey is not the first to detect this range of substances in water. The earliest studies were done in Europe a decade ago and found similar widespread, low-level contamination.
But this is the first nationwide survey for such compounds by government scientists, examining levels in 139 streams in 30 states.
The researchers chose streams fed in part by wastewater from treatment plants or runoff from stockyards to see what kinds of contaminants were getting through the filters and other systems to prevent pollution.
About 80 percent of the sampled streams contained tiny amounts of at least one, often several, and in some cases up to 38 of the 95 chemicals for which the scientists ran tests.
Few of the streams showed pollution levels that violated clean-water laws, the researchers said, although they noted that most of the substances they were measuring were not the subject of existing pollution rules.
The survey detected more than two dozen human or veterinary antibiotics in stream waters, along with triclosan, the active ingredient in many antibacterial soaps and lotions.
Water supply experts yesterday said this finding added to their concerns that such contamination could be helping to breed resistant strains of bacteria. Robert Masters, a hydrologist with the National Ground Water Association, which represents managers of underground water supplies, said he was glad to see federal scientists focusing on the problem.
"One of the dominant concerns about these pharmaceuticals," he said, "is that the antibiotics are not being treated in the sewage effluent and therefore are going downstream, and someone's pumping it out and drinking it."
Among the most common compounds found were the insect repellant DEET and 4-nonylphenol, which is produced when detergents break down and has been shown to have some hormone-like effects in laboratory tests.
Some pollution experts minimized the findings, saying the study only revealed the power of new analytical tools to measure parts-per-trillion amounts of chemicals that are most likely far below concentrations that could harm health or wildlife.
"Just detecting these substances, whether in water, air or even in our bodies, at such minuscule levels doesn't mean they have a deleterious effect on humans or the environment," said Dr. Gilbert L. Ross, the medical director for the American Council on Science and Health, a private health education group.
But others said it revealed the persistence, reach and possible threat posed by common chemicals and drugs that increasingly pervade daily life.
The study clearly shows that many of these substances, excreted in urine and feces, are not removed by water treatment plants and end up — in trace amounts — in sensitive ecosystems or water supplies.
The study could have significant ramifications, if only by confirming that chemicals that elude conventional treatment systems have a long reach downstream, experts said.