 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
(Quoted from the Meeting Summary as prepared by ASMFC)
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association December 2004 Newsletter)
The main purpose of this meeting was to review the recommendations from the Atlantic Menhaden Workshop held October 12-14, 2004.
The AP was concerned about the nutrient cycling abilities of menhaden. They would like to have some more background information on this issue. Menhaden as a filter feeder was discussed. The discussion also focused on sewage treatment plants and what was being done in different locations to help minimize the amount of pollution discharged into coastal waters.
There was also a lot of discussion about how we are going to determine ecologically based reference points and what research would be needed to quantify abundance of menhaden in the Bay. Matthew Cieri presented a list of research priorities that the Technical Committee had developed to determine if localized depletion was occurring in Chesapeake Bay.
While reviewing the consensus statements from the workshop, there was discussion on the following recommendations from the workshop: Need to quantify predation mortality and produce estimates of abundance of menhaden to develop ecologically-based reference points. An AP member felt that of all the consensus statements from the workshop, this one is paramount to understanding the needs of a healthy menhaden stock and will help focus future directions of management. This statement was generally agreed on by the members of the AP.
A recommendation was made to support the research priority list the TC has developed to examine localized depletion in the Chesapeake Bay and have the numbers put in historical context to develop historical levels of menhaden in the Bay. It was also recommended to urge the Menhaden Management Board to develop management goals to develop the reference points while this research is being conducted.
The recommendation was made by an AP member who represents the environmental community to use a precautionary approach for interim management measures. As a basis for interim measures, the list of possible management measures presented during the May 2004 Atlantic Menhaden Management Board Meeting by Bill Goldsborough offered for consideration. They were:
The recommendation was for the Management Board to evaluate these 5 options and others as interim action while research is underway, and while the board and TC are evaluating possible reference points. It was also suggested that while we are doing the research to cap the harvest of menhaden at the current levels. No consensus on this recommendation was reached. An industry representative stated that the Industry does not catch age zeros and ones in the Bay and if any management should be implemented, it should be to increase the amount of striped bass harvested. Other members of the AP felt this statement was inaccurate and disagreed.
The industry representatives on the AP said they would not agree to consideration of any recommendations about quotas or capping the harvest.
The members of the AP were asked to state how they felt about the recommendation for interim management options while research is underway. The group was evenly split. A number of the AP members felt that since there is not any conclusive data at this time, it would not be appropriate to take management actions until the research is done and more questions are answered. Others members, however, felt that the Management Board should consider the interim management options presented. Some members of the AP members also felt that the issue of striped bass predation should be researched and considered as a management tool. Others disagreed.
AP Consensus Points
·
The AP supports the TC’s recommendations for research priorities and agrees that this research should be conducted.· The AP supports the recommendation by the workshop participants for the Management Board and the TC to get together and finalize a plan on the reference points including what ecologically-based reference points mean.
