EDITORIAL
JCAA RESPONSE TO MASSACHUSETTS AUDUBON LAW SUIT
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association December1997Newsletter)
JCAA has worked with numerous environmental and conservation organizations outside of the fishing community on important habitat and environmental issues. We have made it a point to try and keep these organizations out of allocation battles between recreational and commercial user groups. The overwhelming majority of these groups have stressed to us that their interest is in the overall health of the marine environment and/or the conservation of marine species regardless of whether they are commercially or recreationally important. For example, in the fight over the Striped Bass Gamefish issue, we have never approached one of these groups and asked for their support for our side of this struggle. It is not their place and, in most cases, not part of their charter to advocate for a user group in an allocation issue.
We also police our own groups within the recreational advocacy community. If groups take stands that we feel are questionable or outside of their stated mandates, we have no difficulty questioning their actions and working with them to reach an agreement. When JCAA has been questioned about our involvement with various environmental and conservation organizations, we have always defended our relationship with these groups and encouraged their participation in the process.
Recently, Massachusetts Audubon (not affiliated with the National Audubon Society) filed suit in federal court citing the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Department of Commerce as plaintiffs in a bid to stop the harvest of school Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (ABT) by Angling Category permit holders. If they win this suit, the recreational fishery would be shut down, so by their action, they have targeted the recreational sector. Their lawsuit states that recreational users should not harvest ABT until after they have had the opportunity to spawn at least once. On the surface, it would appear that they are taking a conservation stance with this suit, but let’s look a little deeper.
They are advocating a moratorium on the harvest of Angling Category school fish only. But, Mass. Audubon has no problem with the commercial harvest of ABT that are also prespawn in the large medium and even some that are classified as giants, but still have not reached sexual maturity. Mass. Audubon is in effect advocating for the General Category Permit holders and Purse Seine Permit holders since they would get an increased quota under current US regulations regarding ICCAT quotas. By their action, they are advocating for the very gear types that lead to the collapse of the ABT stocks starting as far back as the late 1960s.
In 1970, the harvest of small ABT in the 1 to 3 year old category in the Western Atlantic was 318,000 fish. A few years earlier, that number was over one million fish with the vast majority being harvested by an out of control purse seine fishery. In the same year, the total harvest of giant ABT was about 4,100 fish of "true" giant size in the
600 pound plus class. In 1990, NMFS was permitting the harvest of over 11,000 giants, most of which are not true giants and many of which are sexually immature, while the harvest of 1 through 3 year old school fish has been reduced to about 17,000 fish at a 30 pound average weight. In 1996, the harvest of school fish was further reduced to approximately 7,300 fish and the harvest of giants stands at about 5,500 fish.
For many years, JCAA has been calling for an across the boards 50% reduction in the total allowable harvest of ABT of all sizes to rebuild the stocks. Where was Mass Audubon then? For the last couple of years, JCAA has been discussing the total closure of the ABT fishery until the stocks are allowed to rebound, something that has yet to happen under current management regimes. Why hadn’t Mass. Audubon supported this action?
JCAA can understand if Mass. Audubon was to sue NMFS calling for the closure of the ABT fishery because of overfishing and the drastic reduction of the stocks. We can not envision any club associated with JCAA not supporting such a suit and we would, most likely come out in favor of it. But Mass. Audubon is not acting in a true conservation manner. They are taking sides in an allocation fight, coming out in support of the commercial users of the resource and pointing fingers at the recreational users claiming they are doing all the damage to the stocks. This is patently untrue and this stance is way off track for any "true" conservation organization. Mass. Audubon is behaving like a front organization for the commercial ABT users. It has been brought to our attention that more than a few commercial lobbyists and members of prominent commercial advocacy groups are members or contributors to this group. We also understand that some Mass. Audubon members are General Category and Purse Seine permit holders who have a vested financial interest in closing the Angling Category for their own benefit.
JCAA learned of this suit on the Marine Fisheries Conservation Network and purposely waited over a week to see if other conservation groups found fault enough with the premise and source of this suit to comment about its validity and true intent. We are very disappointed that, to date, no true conservation group has come out and called this suit by Mass. Audubon just what it really is "a commercial fishing sponsored attempt at usurping the remainder of the ABT harvest for their own financial gain." With this suit, Mass. Audubon has shown it is not a conservation group but and advocacy group lobbying for allocation. JCAA has always stood firm in our commitment to working with environmental and conservation groups despite concern in the recreational community that these groups would like to put us out of business. We have fought hard to reassure recreational anglers that these groups are only interested in conserving and maintaining the stocks and the marine environment. We have always depended on these groups to stay out of allocation battles and maintain their neutrality in this area. We call upon all responsible environmental and conservation organizations to condemn the action by Mass. Audubon in the strongest possible terms. If their suit goes forward while environmental and conservation groups remain silent, we can only infer their agreement. This would damage the long standing cooperation we have worked so hard to maintain and would have a negative impact on our future relationship.