 |
 |
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
by Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association September 2004 Newsletter)
Study: Sportfishing Has Big Effect On Species Population (Published in Newsday By Dan Fagin, August 27, 2004)
Flawed Study Shows Recreation Industry In Need of Policing (John Geiser 8/28/04 Asbury Park Press)
The last few weeks have been interesting. At a joint meeting of the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Council we set the total allowable catch for bluefish, summer flounder, scup and seabass. The following week the ASMFC met. At management board meetings, we dealt with menhaden, lobster, winter flounder, tautog, summer flounder, scup, black seabass, Atlantic sturgeon, American eel, croaker, and red drum. There were also meetings of the Habitat Committee, Advisory Panel Oversight Committee and Policy Board. A summary of those meetings is posted at the ASMFC website and the MAFMC website. Last but not least is New Jersey was voted out of compliance and is facing a possible moratorium.
As of today, New Jersey is out of compliance on striped bass. ASMFC sent a letter to the Secretary of Commerce telling him that we are out of compliance and asking him to take the appropriate action. In June the New Jersey Senate went on vacation before passing appropriate legislation to bring us into compliance with Amendment 6. Even though we don’t agree with Amendment 6 and the management measures it requires, we all tried to get into compliance in June. The Senate will be back in session on September 20th and I have spoken with Commissioner Campbell, Marty McHugh, Director of Fish and Wildlife, and the Senate Majority Office. They all understand that it is crucial that legislation is a high priority. I have been assured that they will expedite the appropriate legislation. Our Federal Legislators will be in contact with the Secretary of Commerce and ask him to delay any action until the NJ Senate can finalize legislation.
JCAA is committed to work with the NJ Legislature and the Governor’s Office and do whatever is necessary to get the legislation passed and signed that will bring us into compliance. Here is the letter that was sent to the Governor.
United States Department of CommerceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East West Highway
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910The Honorable James E. McGreevey
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 0001
Trenton, New Jersey 08625Dear Governor McGreevey:
On August 19, 2004, the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior (Secretaries) received notification from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) that the State of New Jersey is not in compliance with Amendment 6 to the Commission’s Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan (Plan). The basis for the Commission action is its determination that the state failed to implement a recreational management program for 2004 by not implementing a minimum size limit of 28 inches and a bag limit of two fish or a recreational measure proven to be conservationally equivalent to the Amendment 6 requirements and approved by the Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board. A copy of the Commission’s letter is enclosed.
Under the provisions of the Atlantic Striped Bas Conservation Act (Act), 16 U.S.C. 5151, et seq., the Commission’s determination of non-compliance could lead to a federally-imposed moratorium on fishing for Atlantic striped bass in New Jersey waters. Section 5154 (a) of the Act required the Secretaries to determine jointly, within 30 days, whether that coastal State is in compliance with the Plan and, if the State is not in compliance, the Secretaries shall declare jointly a moratorium on fishing for Atlantic striped bass within the coastal waters of that coastal State. The Secretaries, in making a finding on non-compliance, are to carefully consider and review the comments of the Commission and that coastal State in question. The Act requires the moratorium to begin immediately after the Secretaries have jointly declared a moratorium under section 5154 (a). The Secretary of Commerce has delegated his portion of the responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Act to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries).
By this letter, I am notifying you that New Jersey may provide comments to and/or meet with the Secretaries’ delegates on this issue. Please contact Anne Lange at (301) 713-2334, if a New Jersey representative would like to meet. In addition, due to the tight statutory time line for this process to be completed, any comments to the Secretary of Commerce should be received by September 13, 2004, to ensure ample opportunity for those comments to b given full consideration before the Secretaries jointly make their determination of compliance. Any written comments should be submitted to Ms. Anne Lange, Chief, State/Federal Fisheries Division, 1315 East West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910. Our intention is to complete our evaluation by the statutory deadline of September 20, 2004. If we agree with the Commission that the State of New Jersey is out of compliance with the Plan, the Act requires that we immediately declare a moratorium.
In addition, Executive Order (E.O.) 13132 requires that a Federal agency considering preemption of state law consult, to the extent practicable, with state officials. Therefore, for the purposes of E.O. 13132, this letter also invites state officials to consult with NOAA Fisheries and to discuss the possibility of preempting New Jersey law through the imposition of a Federal moratorium on the New Jersey Atlantic striped bass fishery.
I am committed to maintaining a strong State-Federal partnership in marine fisheries management with all coastal states, and look forward to working with you to resolve this matter.
Sincerely,
William T. Hogarth, Ph.D.
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
I have been talking to a lot of the NJ congressional delegation asking for their help with the Secretary of Commerce and Interior. As we are going to press with our newspaper, I received these letters from Senator Corzine and Lautenberg to the Secretary of Commerce and Interior asking them to use some patience to allow NJ to come in compliance. The senators are asking the rest of NJ congressional delegation to sign on. Congressman Pallone has already sent a letter and other NJ congressmen have been in contact with us to sign on to this letter or write one of there own:
August 25, 2004
The Honorable Gale A. Norton
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20240Dear Secretary Norton:
We are writing concerning the recent finding that the State of New Jersey is out of compliance with federal rules concerning the harvest and management of striped bass. As your office reviews this matter, we urge you to work in good faith with New Jersey to help develop a responsible fisheries management plan that preserves this important resource without completely eliminating the ability of New Jerseyans to fish for striped bass.
As you know, on August 19th the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission determined that New Jersey has not sufficiently complied with the Commission’s mandate to cut its harvest of striped bass for the 2004 recreational fishing season. Under federal law, the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior are required to review these findings and jointly determine appropriate action, including consideration of closing the fishery.
There is real concern in the New Jersey sports fishing community about the possibility that NMFS could completely close the State’s fall striped bass fishery. This could have a significant impact on New Jersey’s economy. Striped bass is a trophy fish that is prized by many recreational fishermen. These fishermen help contribute more than $1 billion dollar a year to New Jersey’s economy through fishing and ancillary industries like boat building, charter boat rental, bait and equipment shops, and hotels.
We are aware that the State of New Jersey is already considering measures to comply with the Commission’s mandate, though additional time may be needed to complete action on a rule. We urge you to work cooperatively with the State and interested parties as they work to find an appropriate solution to this problem. If there is any way our offices can be of help in this matter, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Senator Jon Corzine
Senator Frank Lautenberg
August 25, 2004William T. Hogarth, Ph.D.
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Highway
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
Dear Dr. Hogarth:
We are writing concerning the recent finding that the State of New Jersey is out of compliance with federal rules concerning the harvest and management of striped bass. As your office reviews this matter, we urge you to work in good faith with New Jersey to help develop a responsible fisheries management plan that preserves this important resource without completely eliminating the ability of New Jerseyans to fish for striped bass.
As you know, on August 19th the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission determined that New Jersey has not sufficiently complied with the Commission’s mandate to cut its harvest of striped bass for the 2004 recreational fishing season. Under federal law, the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior are required to review these findings and jointly determine appropriate action, including consideration of closing the fishery. We are aware that the Secretary of Commerce has now delegated his responsibility in this matter to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
There is real concern in the New Jersey sports fishing community about the possibility that NMFS could completely close the State’s fall striped bass fishery. This could have a significant impact on New Jersey’s economy. Striped bass is a trophy fish that is prized by many recreational fishermen. These fishermen help contribute more than $1 billion dollar a year to New Jersey’s economy through fishing and ancillary industries like boat building, charter boat rental, bait and equipment shops, and hotels.
We are aware that the State of New Jersey is already considering measures to comply with the Commission’s mandate, though additional time may be needed to complete action on a rule. We urge you to work cooperatively with the State and interested parties as they work to find an appropriate solution to this problem. If there is any way our offices can be of help in this matter, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Senator Jon Corzine
Senator Frank Lautenberg
The bluefish meeting was interesting. We discussed the bluefish stock assessment, which was reviewed by SARC. SARC found the stock assessment unacceptable for the following reasons; the use of the NEFSC trawl survey is inappropriate in the biomass dynamic model because it is not representative of the bluefish population (because it only catches mostly juvenile bluefish); the calculation of the recreational CPUE contains severe bias given because live discards (B2’s) have increased significantly in recent years and potential time series correlation in the model may need to be corrected. The recreational sector is still releasing half of the fish caught and catching well below the total allowable catch. We are still transferring unused recreational total allowable catch to the commercial quota. The commercial quota without the transfer would be 5,245,108 pounds. We are transferring 5,254,892 pounds from the recreational total allowable catch to bring the commercial quota to 10,500,000 pounds. This transfer has been going on for the last few years. In all honesty, the commercial fishery has not been harvesting the total quota. But the fear in the recreational community is that eventually the National Marine Fisheries Service will change the stock assessment on bluefish and we will have the same situation we had in 1995 when there were threats of a 3 fish bag limit and a season on bluefish. The commissioners from New Jersey have continued to voice these concerns and find that our concerns are never really addressed. We will continue to follow this situation closely.
Summer flounder stocks are rebuilding. The stocks are at one of the highest levels since 1986. The latest assessment indicates that the stock is not overfished but overfishing is occurring relative to the biological reference points detailed in Amendment 12. The fishing mortality rate estimated for 2002 is 0.29, a significant decline from the 1.32 estimated for 1994 and slightly above the threshold F of 0.26. In addition, total stock biomass has increased substantially since 1991 to 149 million pounds in 2003, 27% above the biomass threshold (117 million pounds). Spawning stock biomass has increased each year since 1993 to 109 million pounds in 2003, the highest value in the time series. There has been some discussion at previous meetings about the exact appropriate reference points. We set 106,000 metric tons as the target that would show we were totally rebuilt by 2010. This affects the probability tables and determines the guidelines for the total allowable catch for each year. By using a .25 probability we would be at only 96,000 metric tons by 2010. By using .5 probability we would be at 99,000 metric tons by 2010. If we use .75 probability we would be at 106,000 metric tons by 2010. We used .25 until 1998 and the stocks were rebuilding. In 1998 we began using .5 and the results were terrific. Continuing to use .5 will get us close and may actually produce the target of 106,000 metric tons. Using .75 is a more conservative measure. Under .5 our total allowable catch for 2005 would have been 32.6 million pounds. Using .75 reduces our total allowable catch to 30.3 million pounds, a difference of 2.3 million pounds. If we used .5 we would have had 900,000 pounds more for the recreational sector. At this meeting, for the first time, the total allowable catch was decided for two years, 2005 and 2006. This extends the .75 probability for 2006 as well. In 2006 instead of a total allowable catch of 35.5 million pounds, the total allowable catch will be 33 million pounds. New Jersey argued that we should continue to check these reference points and rebuilding schedule. The council agreed for 2005. New Jersey also argued that we should not set a 2 year catch limit. The council declined to revisit the 2006 total allowable catch.
New Jersey has always been conservative on summer flounder. But the lag time of the stock assessment and the underestimation of the recruitment resulted in underestimating total stock and the recovery. The curves are going up dramatically every year. We have seen how difficult it is for states, including New York, to stay within the total allowable catch and the dramatic economic problems that occur when states exceed the total allowable catch. If we keep underestimating the stock available for harvest, more states will go over total allowable catch and pay drastic economic costs. The other problem when the total allowable catch is set so low and we set high size limits in the recreational fishery is that the recreational discard mortality continues to rise dramatically. It is a shame we are wasting a lot of fish and we need to address that problem.
There was a slight increase of the seabass total allowable catch and the total allowable catch for scup remained the same. It will be interesting to see what happens with the regulations when they are set in December. Even with these strong restrictions, some of the preliminary data shows that some states could exceed their recreational catch for 2004. Summer flounder, seabass and scup are caught in a “Catch 22” and I am not sure how we get out. We managed to make a change for striped bass because we promoted hook and release. Summer flounder, seabass and scup are harvested specifically for food. Historically, these species are not viewed as catch and release and I don’t see a change in this mindset. I think the most disturbing fact is that in 1994, with the stocks depressed and a 14 inch size limit, we were harvesting the same number of fish that we are harvesting in 2004. The angler lucky enough to take home a summer flounder to eat is getting a much bigger fish that has spawned many more times than the fish caught in 1994. But the number of anglers allowed to take fish home is unchanged.
For some time we at JCAA have known about an impending report that would allow the PEW Foundation to attack recreational anglers. The Sciencexpress Report is here and it is at sceincexpress.org and it is every bit as outrageous as I anticipated. This “study” was funded by the PEW Foundation for a specific purpose. We usually think of science as “agenda free” and believe scientists can take an unbiased look at the data they collect and place it within an historical context. It is disconcerting to learn that scientists and their research are often for sale to the highest bidder. It is also disconcerting to learn that scientists can begin with the premise they are paid to validate and then manipulate their data to prove their original point. This is not science. It reminds me of the science that was used to support the tobacco industry.
I believe the PEW Foundation deliberately commissioned a study to blame the recreational community for problems with fish stocks. Remember, this is the same PEW Foundation that is supporting the closure of large areas of the oceans currently used by recreational and commercial harvesters. This report is laying the groundwork for their agenda. I believe some of the powerful PEW members are opposed to all activities that lead to catching and consuming fish. This became even clearer when I met with many of their funded organizations at the Blue Visions Conference in Washington, DC. One speaker stated that we should not be harvesting or eating fish. A large round of applause from the audience followed that statement. I had hoped that one of the national organizations that I work with regularly would respond to this statement and make it clear that banning all fishing was not on the agenda. The only vocal opponent was a woman who makes her living as a commercial fisherman.
U. S. commercial fishing and not recreational anglers decimated the species discussed in this Sciencexpress Report. These species are being properly rebuilt with the cooperation of both commercial and recreational fishermen through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission and the council system. The report discusses redfish. Redfish were depleted when restaurants began selling blackened redfish. The report also discusses summer flounder and we all know that the summer flounder fishery had collapsed when the New England commercial fishing fleet could no longer fish for yellow tail flounder and discovered the spawning grounds for summer flounder. Within 4 years that stock was decimated. These stocks are being rebuilt while allowing some harvesting by the commercial and recreational sectors. The harvesting is tied to rebuilding schedules and this is done through unbiased science. This report gives an incorrect impression that the rebuilding process is being circumvented by the recreational sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. Unfortunately, since this report appears in Sciencexpress it will be quoted in many other publications as gospel truth.
This article disheartens me. I know some of the employees and commissioners from the PEW Foundation and they are dedicated to protecting the ocean and allowing for the sustainable harvest of fish stocks. I feel some of them are looking for other serious solutions to the serious problems we encounter in managing fisheries and protecting the oceans. We have discussed working together on important environmental issues that impact the health of the oceans, bays and estuaries. However, because of the emphasis on MPAs and their interpretation that this would mean No Fishing Zones, it is difficult to maintain our previous positive working relationship. This is a shame because I thought an alliance among the commercial and recreational communities and the environmental organizations could accomplish great things in protecting the oceans and its bounties. For the PEW Foundation to allow No Fishing Zones to drive a wedge between us when No Fishing Zones represent such a small part of the overall agenda is atrocious. Why negate all the good work we have done together and all the things we could accomplish in the future by focusing on the one issue that drives us apart?
As a young man, I was in awe of scientists and all they could accomplish. I took their word and accepted their conclusions without questioning their data or their politics or their pocketbooks. My own experience with the science that misled veterans about the impact of Agent Orange was a wake-up call for me and I now approach studies with more skepticism. Now, my first question is: “Who is paying for the report?” My experience with scientists who tried to support and justify ocean dumping of toxic materials, sand mining, managing stocks for their client’s benefit, the continued operation of power plants that are destroying millions of fish and non-compliance with rules requiring cleanup of toxic materials, has further convinced me to be skeptical. What I really learned is that science is driven by funding. Scientists will direct their research into areas where money is available. Creating No Fishing Zones will develop a cash cow for the researchers and their universities. They will use the No Fishing Zones not as a way to save the oceans but as a way to continue to fund their own careers. I have participated on enough panels and at enough Congressional hearings to know that every time you ask a scientist a direct question the response is: “We need money for more research.” I’m still waiting for the answers to the questions even though we have continued to fund their projects. There is never a response based on common sense and past experience unless it can also lead to more funding.
My experience suggests most scientists don’t set out to become fundraisers of the kind I just described. They really want to do valuable research to benefit humanity. But it is so difficult to get projects funded that they are often forced to design their projects to meet funding availability rather than pursuing what really needs to be done. There continue to be many within the scientific community who maintain their focus and commitment despite the funding problems. I have had the honor to work with many of them and have the greatest respect for their abilities and their commitment despite the pressures that surround them.
What can we do to get science that focuses on the important questions of fisheries management? The solutions to these issues include better stock assessments, more basic fish biology, ecosystem management, recreational and commercial catch data and bycatch reduction among other things. These are not the glamour issues but they are the issues that have the greatest long-term impact on the resource. The only solution I see is for the Federal and State Government to increase funding for more research in these areas. We also need for the groups protecting the oceans to develop a common agenda and stop focusing on issues that are so divisive and have no real long-term impact on improving the resource. In my mind there is no such thing as an isolated Marine Protected Area. Fish swim, pollution and its effects move with the changes in the ocean, the winds and the weather. We need to mend our fences, stop looking for the spotlight and focus on issues that are not glamorous or “the current hot topics” and put our efforts into developing long-term plans to protect our most valuable resources.
Published in Newsday By Dan Fagin
August 27, 2004
While regulations tend to be much tougher on
commercial fishermen, recreational fishermen are responsible for almost
one-fourth of the total catch of depleted fish species in U.S. waters, according
to a study published yesterday in the journal Science.
In some cases, such as red snapper in the Gulf Of Mexico and bluefish
and black sea bass in the Northeast, sport fishermen are catching more than
commercial fishermen, according to the study, which relied mostly on federal
fishing data.
"I can understand completely how people would have the impression that
only the commercial fishermen are to blame, but it's not the case," said the
study's chief author, Felicia Coleman, a fisheries scientist at Florida State
University in Tallahassee.
"What people need to realize is there are over 10 million recreational
salt-water fishermen in this country, and they are having a very significant
cumulative effect," she said.
The study is the first to add up fisheries data for dozens of fish
species and draw conclusions about the relative contributions of commercial and
recreational fishing. It was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, a foundation
which advocates tougher restrictions on fishing.
Overall, the study found, recreational fishing was responsible for 4
percent of the catch in U.S. marine waters in 2002, the last year complete data
was available. But the percentage rose to 10 percent when menhaden and pollock
-- two species that aren't depleted and have no recreational value -- are
excluded. And when the scientists included only species listed by the government
as "overfished," they found that recreational fishermen were responsible for 23
percent of the nationwide catch in 2002.
The new study seems certain to heat up long-simmering tensions between
sport and commercial fishermen. It also gives environmentalists new ammunition
in ongoing state-by-state campaigns to have some coastal waters declared
no-fishing zones, and to require recreational salt-water fishermen to buy yearly
licenses. In New York, freshwater fishing is licensed but salt-water isn't.
"This study is important because a lot of recreational fishermen are
still firmly convinced that recreational fishing is trivial across the board,"
said Carl Safina, president of the Blue Ocean Institute, a nonprofit
conservation group based in Cold Spring Harbor.
But a top government scientist and a leader of New York's sportfishing
community both said the study's conclusions are old news. They said recreational
fishermen already face an ever-stricter array of seasonal closures, minimum size
rules, and catch limits.
This year, new rules further curtailing fishing for summer flounder,
or fluke, are having a devastating impact on the charter boat industry, said Pat
Augustine, executive director of the New York Sportfishing Federation.
"I think that folks in the scientific community just are not aware of
the depth and breadth of the fishery management plans that are already in
place," said Augustine, a member of two interstate panels that set fishing rules
in the Northeast.
The federal government's chief fisheries scientist agreed. "This paper
gives the wrong impression that recreational fishing is somehow overlooked,"
said Michael Sissenwine, director of scientific programs at the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
A spokeswoman for local commercial fishermen, however, said the
regulatory burden hasn't been fairly shared. "It's unfortunate that the
regulatory onus has mostly been on us," said Bonnie Brady, executive director of
the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association.
"Commercial fishermen have been doing our part for the last 15 years,
but the sporties are just now beginning to be seriously regulated, and they're
completely up in arms over their limits," she said.
by John Geiser
Published in the Asbury Park Press 8/28/04
Science suffered another credibility blow this week with the announcement that research has revealed that recreational fishing is hurting fish populations and needs more regulation.
Felicia Coleman, a Florida State University researcher and co-author of the report, wrote in yesterday's issue of Science magazine that data show recreational fishermen are a real problem in managing fish populations. She claimed that scientists have urged the government to slow the decline of overfished species, and current regulations have done little to constrain recreational fisheries, which deplete some major fish populations even more than commercial fisheries.
Michael Doebley, deputy director of government affairs for the Recreational Fishing Alliance, said the report was a shallow look at a few aspects of recreational fishing, and a failure in assessing the true impact of the activity on marine fishes.
"This wasn't science; this was intentionally misleading," he said. "They left out data that did not fit the conclusions they wanted to reach."
The report said anglers caught 93 percent of the red drum in the South Atlantic, 59 percent of the red snappers landed in the Gulf of Mexico and 87 percent of the bocaccio caught on the West Coast. Nothing was included about striped bass, bluefin tuna, porgies, sea bass, bluefish and other species.
The report failed to point out that according to the Status of U.S. Fisheries for 2003 overfishing practices were reduced on spiny dogfish, fluke, and North Atlantic swordfish, and species that are no longer overfished include pollock, monkfish, red grouper, sandbar shark, Pacific whiting, blue king crab and tanner crab.
According to the researchers, 12 percent of declining fish species in the Northeast was caught by anglers. The National Marine Fisheries Service claims that 60 stocks are still experiencing overfishing, but there has been a reduction in the number of overfished stocks to 76.
NMFS manages these stocks for recovery, but allows limited fishing to continue to provide social and economic benefits to fishing communities and make domestic seafood available to consumers.
Fishery management plans are in place for 894 stocks in the U.S., and further plans are under development and will be soon implemented.
Doebley said the researchers revealed at the beginning of the report that their work was biased. They compared the combined landings of commercial and recreational fishing sectors, but left out 5 billion pounds of menhaden and pollock harvested by the commercial fishing fleet.
"This report is aimed at us for our Freedom to Fish legislation," Doebley said. "It was funded by those who want to set up arbitrary no-fishing zones. They deliberately left out facts and failed to investigate the management and regulation of the recreational sector.
"They should be embarrassed by some of their outlandish assumptions," he said. "They were looking for headlines and trying to grab cheap political points, and this paper will not be used by anyone seriously involved in fisheries management."
Thomas P. Fote, legislative chairman of the Jersey Coast Anglers Association, said the paper was not a surprise to him.
"They've been working on this for a long time," he said. "This wasn't independent science; this was a paper with ulterior motives. They oppose the Freedom to Fish Act legislation -- it's a direct response.
"They want to set up marine protected areas where no one can fish; so they manipulate the figures," he said. "They want to stop fishing. This is not pure fisheries science, this is their own agenda.
"This is what they do," he said. "Look at spiny dogfish. Management of spiny dogfish is one of the biggest jokes around."
Protectionists have been pressuring fisheries management officials for several years to increase the spiny dogfish stocks despite the fact that fishermen from New England to the Mid-Atlantic are complaining bitterly about the overabundance of dogfish.
The dogfish came earlier and stayed longer this year than they have in memory, and, at times, they could be caught from inshore waters to the offshore canyons. Their predation on juvenile fluke, herring, porgies, sea bass, butterfish and other species must have been enormous.
Fote said he urged fisheries management officials and the National Marine Fisheries Service to let commercial fishermen harvest at least eight million pounds, a small fraction of the biomass, this year, but they refused.
