We Can Restore River Herring!

posted in:

August 26, 2013

But the Mid Atlantic Council and NOAA Fisheries need to step up

If you’ve been lucky enough to be there when river herring (bluebacks or alewives) clash with striped bass you know why we call them, “striper candy”. It’s a big bait that attracts big fish, and makes them act really stupid. Of course not only striped bass, but bluefin, yellowfin, cod, bluefish, weakfish and dozens of other predators go nuts over river herring… At least they used to.

Unfortunately, river herring numbers have declined precipitously. While in 2006 NOAA Fisheries listed them as a “Species of Concern”, a 2012 stock assessment recently confirmed river herring are in dire straits. Alewife and bluebacks are anadromous species – spending most of their lives at sea, then ascending unique rivers to spawn. Out of 24 assessed river runs 92% were determined to be badly depleted. A number of runs have dwindled so far that fewer than 100 adults return each spring to spawn. Last year, the National Resources Defense Council submitted a petition to list river herring under the Endangered Species Act, and while NOAA did a full review, they recently issued a statement declining to list, not because they didn’t believe river herring were in trouble, but because they just didn’t have enough data to support it. Which I still don’t understand given the ASMFC assessment and the well-known fact that these fish spend most of their lives at sea. But moving on….

The cause of the decline is heavily debated. There are still those who want to blame a resurgence “ravenous” striped bass, which frankly is silly given the two species’ historical abundance and coexistence, and, well, there aren’t really that many stripers around anymore anyway. No one really argues that pollution and impediments to upriver migrations haven’t played a large part in the decline. Yet despite greatly improving water quality, dam removal, fish passages, and other efforts to restore habitat, not to mention state-imposed moratoria, river herring numbers, at least in the Mid-Atlantic, continue to tank. (Note: there are indeed some runs in New England that appear to be recovering, more on this later).

River herring are managed inshore by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). That body has required most state fisheries to shut down; a few continue, subject to very small quotas, under state sustainable management plans. Yet, at sea, industrial fisheries for sea herring and mackerel are still allowed to kill unlimited amounts of river herring, usually taken as bycatch, and most of that is simply unaccounted for. The building consensus is that a lot, perhaps most, of the mortality is happening at sea.

River herring’s demise has been concurrent with the proliferation of mid-water small-mesh-net trawlers. Since the late ‘70s, there has been a significant motivation for US fishermen to capitalize on fisheries for such low-trophic level species, in the form of federal subsidies among other things. As a result, such fisheries grew in size and scope in a relatively short amount of time.

Operating mostly out of New England ports, such trawlers are quite large, with holds that can store over 1 million pounds of fish. They employ an array of electronics to pinpoint and scoop up entire schools by dragging nets the size of a football field with mesh so small little escapes. Apparently, one tow can put 50 tons of fish in the hold. It’s not unreasonable to speculate that a single tow, in the wrong place at the wrong time, could wipe out an entire river’s run, particularly if it’s already depleted.

So, incidental catch is likely a big factor in river herring’s depletion and failure to recover. There is some data to back this assertion up, but not enough to be definitive, and therein lies the problem. Observer coverage of the small-mesh-net fleet is very low. Such observers, 3rd party contractors that sample and observe catch at sea so as to evaluate the composition of a fishery, are vital if managers are to know what goes on on those boats.

Both the Mid Atlantic and New England Councils, to their credit, sought to address this in their Mackerel, Squid, Butterfish and Sea Herring Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) respectively. Last year, despite significant pushback from the industry, the Councils voted to recommend that NOAA Fisheries impose 100% at-sea observer coverage on industrial herring and mackerel trawlers, having industry share the cost with NOAA.

A few weeks ago, however, NOAA Fisheries disapproved the 100-percent observer coverage requirement, rationalizing the decision by claiming the agency had not yet developed a legal way share observer coverage costs. What’s incredibly odd about this is that NOAA fisheries is already doing such observer cost-sharing in Alaska. Upon further clarification, it appears that there is a mechanism for doing this in Alaska that was, many years ago, written into the Magnuson Stevenson Act, but only for Alaska? Frankly, I don’t really understand it. Public/private cost-sharing partnerships are pretty common as far as I know. But I don’t venture to understand the complicated workings of such federal bureaucracies. Regardless, even if they could implement a cost sharing program, the agency claimed it didn’t have the funds even for their part of the additional observer coverage. Honestly, while it certainly isn’t a popular opinion in some circles, I believe that if any industry is granted the privilege of utilizing such large-scale gear to harvest a public resource in such large volumes for profit, then they absolutely should be required to fully fund whatever monitoring is necessary to insure that what they are doing is sustainable, not just in a maximum-sustainable-yield context, but an ecosystem context as well. But moving on…

herr-fs-by-the-numbers-lw

NOAA fisheries also rejected a requirement that all catch brought to shore in the fishery be weighed, and a limit on “slippage” events where bycatch is dumped at sea before it can be counted. The latter is important, because NOAA Fisheries did uphold the Mid Atlantic Council’s requirement for an annual catch limit/cap for river herring and shad in the mackerel fishery, beginning in 2014. In other words the mackerel fishery would close if it’s determined that such a cap is met or exceeded. Yet the fact that large tows dominated by river herring can be dumped overboard dead before anyone can determine what was killed, seriously diminishes the enforceability of such catch cap. Not to mention, without a significant number of observers for the fleet, it’s pretty difficult to determine if that catch cap is met even without slippage events.

So where does all this leave us? Unfortunately not in a really good place. And it’s more than a little frustrating. The Councils worked hard on both amendments for years. The provisions were fully vetted by the Councils and included carefully considered compromises. In the end they had broad public support. Really, we all thought we had the monitoring/accountability problem solved. NOAA fisheries says they will work with the Councils to develop a solution to the monitoring issue, but I’m not holding my breath. Even if they did figure out a legal way to cost share with the industry, if the money for observers isn’t there, it’s not there.

But there is hope. The Mid Atlantic Council is currently developing an amendment that could add river herring and shad as directly managed “stocks in a fishery” (SIF) to their Mackerel, Squid and Butterfish FMP. Doing so would force NOAA Fisheries to manage and conserve river herring when they are at sea, through the adoption of measures such as Annual Catch Limits, identifying Essential Fish Habitat, and establishing joint management plans in conjunction with bodies such as the New England Fishery Management Council and/or the ASMFC. Whether it moves forward, however, is indeed in question as certainly there is opposition. Making river herring a stock in the fishery (SIF) would require resources, and NOAA Fisheries is already indicating a reluctance to take this on. But there’s a legal mandate here. Federal FMPs must describe the species involved in a fishery, and NMFS and the Councils are required to manage those stocks in need of conservation and management.

That said, there will likely be those who will argue that river herring are not in need of conservation management in federal waters, or that we just don’t know enough about the status of the overall stock to proceed. I think that’s BS! We do know that 92% of the individual river runs are in bad shape. Given all the recent evidence of the species’ decline and the building body of science indicating mortality at sea, I don’t know how that argument could fly. NOAA Fisheries appears to support the catch cap, so that in itself would tell us that they do believe river herring are in need of such conservation and management. Some will argue that the catch-cap is enough, but as mentioned, without observers it is virtually unenforceable.

There will also be those folks who argue that river herring simply don’t need federal management because they are already managed in state waters. That is complete BS also. It seems pretty darn obvious at this point that they are falling through the cracks in federal waters where they spend most of their lives, and where the bulk of the fishing mortality is probably occurring. Again, NOAA Fisheries did support the annual river herring catch cap we passed a couple of meetings ago, so I think it would be strange for them to say they don’t need federal management.

There are those who argue that in-state/in-river barriers to migration are the cause of the problem, and the populations won’t come back no matter what we do in the ocean. That may be true to some extent, assuming such barriers weren’t being removed or mitigated across the coast. Regardless, what SIF designation would do is enable NOAA Fisheries and the Council to identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) inshore. When state and federal projects require federal licenses (energy projects, dams, etc.) those agencies would have to consult with NOAA Fisheries, which could stop or require mitigation of potentially habitat-damaging projects. That would indeed be a good thing.

Lastly, industry has been arguing that volunteer bycatch avoidance projects are and will be sufficient. Certainly industry should be commended for such efforts, and they may be working to some extent. However, they are strictly volunteer, and managers should acknowledge that they are not a substitute for binding federal action to reduce river herring bycatch.

There is evidence that river herring can come back if given the opportunity. There have been recent reports of recovering runs in New England as dams and other impediments to upriver migration patterns are removed. There are those who argue that such recovering runs are evidence that river herring are not in trouble and that as long as we deal with inshore habitat issues they will come back. But such anecdotal reports of a recovery are generally restricted to some very specific areas up north, and there’s some speculation that herring from such northern regions don’t spend their lives at sea in the areas small-mesh-net trawlers frequent. And such recoveries are not happening in the Mid Atlantic’s rivers. Regardless of whether the above is true, what the recovery of such local runs shows me is that they can recover. We should be trying to facilitate that recovery, not allowing large bycatch events to set them back again.

As we move forward with the stocks-in-a-fishery amendment, we should acknowledge and stress that we can rebuild this culturally and economically important fish that has historically been a critical part of the marine food chain. And that we can, at least to some extent, control mortality both inshore and offshore. A stocks-in-the-fishery designation would give us the tools to do that. It won’t be easy for NOAA Fisheries, or Council staff, to make it happen, but it’s their/our obligation. This is not entirely new ground. Such stocks-in-a-fishery management models do exist (e.g. salmon in the Pacific Northwest). I would really like to hear more from NOAA Fisheries about how we can do it, instead of reasons why we can’t.

The public has made it more than clear that they want us to restore river herring, and as a key part of the problem becomes clear (bycatch mortality in the sea-herring and mackerel fisheries) the public has put it in no uncertain terms that they want it addressed. States have invested and continue to invest resources while imposing draconian fishing restrictions including moratoria. The Council and NOAA Fisheries have an obligation to their part in federal waters to make sure those efforts aren’t in vain.

If we can restore river herring runs to the Mid Atlantic, in my lifetime, that would be huge, and I think that we can. The Mid Atlantic Council leads. We have successfully rebuilt or are rebuilding every species under our jurisdiction. No other Council can make that claim. Making river herring and shad a stock in one of our FMPs would allow us to do the same with alewives and blueback. And those once epic river herring bass-blitzes will once again come back. We can successfully restore these historical and culturally important species and we will!

What we need now is the strong support of the public, particularly anglers, as we move forward. Stay tuned, and we’ll let you know when and how you can provide such support.

Do you have any thoughts on this post?

Click here to cancel reply.

by: Guest

posted in:

TRCP Heads West, Putting Conservation Issues in Focus

North Dakota, with all of the attention it has been getting because of the energy boom, low unemployment rate and the resulting financial boon, will be getting national coverage of a different kind.

During Sept. 9-12, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is hosting a Western media summit in Bismarck.

The summit will be headquartered at the Ducks Unlimited Great Plains regional offices.

The TRCP group has been around about 10 years, with offices in Missoula, Mont., and Washington, D.C.

Katie McKalip, director of media relations for the group, said one of the missions of the TRCP is to provide a voice for sportsmen and sportswomen in policy making decisions that affect the outdoors — and to ensure they have a place to hunt and fish in the future.

McKalip said the summit will bring writers and reporters from publications such as the Washington Post, Sports Afield, Field and Stream, Outdoor Life and others.

She said the idea is to give an up-close look at the changing landscape that is much of North Dakota, and the resulting challenges not just for outdoor enthusiasts, but for farmers and ranchers.

“Their (sportsmen and women) voice has been historically underrepresented in the law and policy-making process,” McKalip said.

Read the full story on The Bismarck Tribune website.

by: Peter Hamma

posted in:

August 23, 2013

TR Quote Friday

by: John McMurray

posted in:

Striped Bass Gamefish Rationale

A case can be made, but it’s not the one we’re making

In my Aug 8th blog The Straight Dope on Striped Bass I mentioned “Assuming striped bass continues to decline, there is a rationale for gamefish, but thus far the angling community hasn’t picked up on it. I don’t really have the space to fully explain this here but will certainly do so in a future blog.” So… Let me do that now. If you haven’t read the above referenced blog, stop right here! Read it, then continue.

Let me be clear that on its face, gamefish doesn’t appear to be about conservation. It’s about a reallocation of a public resource. Again, on its face, it’s a policy decision, not a conservation one.

There was a comment following the blog along the lines that, according to my rationale, we should reopen market hunting for terrestrial game. Sounds silly, and it would be. But it is true that as long as total mortality is controlled, such populations would remain healthy. A dead duck is a dead-duck, likewise, a dead fish is a dead fish, regardless of who killed it. It matters little where the mortality comes from, it’s still mortality. As Charlie Witek pointed out in the comments section, wildlife managers simply chose broad public access over commercialization. It’s important to point out that this was not a decision mandated by biological imperatives. It was a policy decision on how to allocate limited resources. They chose the greater public rather than a few guys still trying to make a buck off of it.

striped bass gamefish rationale — A nice May striped bass – photo by Capt. John McMurray

If the true motivation is conservation, and I believe that at least with most gamefish advocates that’s the case, they could avoid a lot of grief by being very clear in their “conservation” goals. In other words, stop talking about killing small fish, either by reducing the minimum size or creating a slot limit, and shift the conversation toward reducing fishing mortality. Decommercializing the fishery may actually be a good way to do that but no one is taking that track, and frankly, I’m not sure they should be right now. I’ll explain this later.Managers obviously haven’t done that with striped bass, and I don’t disagree that they should. I think decommercialization could achieve a number of objectives, yet I also feel like the entire striped bass gamefish issue has blinded people to the total fishing mortality issue, often to the extent that people can talk about killing smaller slot fish for dinner and then promote conservation in the same breath, while few notice that they’re talking out of both sides of their mouth.

I do believe that once we get the 2013 Benchmark assessment, reducing mortality, particularly on older fish, will quickly become a management goal. And, while the “fairness” issue still exists, decommercialization of striped bass is a realistic means to achieve it, particularly since decreasing recreational harvest is likely to lead to increased catch-and-release mortality. (Again I want to note here that in 2006, when the recreational fishery peaked, the number of fish killed as recreational discard mortality was double the total commercial catch).

However, such action would only be justifiable if the former commercial harvest is used as a buffer of sorts, to increase the population, and not merely transferred to recreational landings, as was the case in New Jersey when they went the gamefish route. I’m certainly not bashing Jersey. The fact is that, given the amount of fish they took from commercials and gave to anglers, only a small portion are actually killed pursuant to their 3^rd “bonus program” fish, which I believe was suspended anyway last summer. So in reality, there is indeed a conservation benefit there. Of course that doesn’t translate to decision-makers who see only an unfair reallocation, perpetuated by a movement that, instead of promoting the conservation buffer idea, talks about killing a smaller fish. Certainly they get an earful about it from commercial striped bass fishermen in their states.

Getting back on point, decommercialization could indeed eliminate some bycatch-prone commercial gear such as gillnets and would stop the practice of discarding smaller, dead fish in favor of larger ones (“highgrading”) in order to maximize profit. (While I hate to say it, that sort of thing happens on charter/party boats as well.) Regardless, making striped bass a gamefish would likely quell the rampant illegal harvest along the coast. Sure there would still be some poaching, but certainly not to the extent that it has existed in the last two decades, since the profit motive would be eliminated.

That said, one could certainly argue that decommercialization is valuable not because it will permit a bigger recreational kill, but because it is a reasonable way to reduce overall striped bass mortality, increase the spawning stock, better assure the long-term health of the striped bass fishery and better represent the long term interests of the general public. However, simply reallocating the resource without reducing overall mortality fails to achieve any of those goals. The fact that the gamefish advocates haven’t tried to quell the “more fish for me” impression has really harmed anglers’ credibility with fishery managers and it has dealt commercial interests a winning handAnd then there is the economic argument. It’s pretty well established that anglers create quite a bit more economic activity than commercial striped bass fishermen. That’s been demonstrated in more than one academic study, and the argument that we deserve more fish, if not a total allocation, as a result has certainly been made. Yet, having spent the last five years on one of the regional fisheries management bodies, I can say with certainly that managers simply don’t do allocation based on economic value of the fishery. If that were the case, just about every dual-component fishery would have had all the fishery resources, except perhaps mackerel, tilefish and bluefin tuna, over to the recreational side. The economic value of those fisheries are heavily weighted to the commercial side; thus we probably would lose them all together if NMFS were to base allocation on economic impact. Several years ago, Stripers Forever retained Southwick Associates to prepare an economic study of the fishery, which unsurprisingly determined that economic activity generated by striped bass anglers was, I think, 26 times greater than that produced by the commercial fishery. But it mattered little. The ASMFC Committee on Economics and Social Sciences reviewed the study, then rejected it in its entirety. About a decade ago, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science also produced a study which concluded that allocating the entire striped bass harvest to anglers would yield the best economic result. It, too, was ignored.

Several years ago, Stripers Forever President Brad Burns told me “If the striped bass were a personal-use-only species, the values of recreational fisherman would control its fate… Sure, a few would be eaten, but a healthy stock and high-quality fishing experience would be the primary values.” I think he’s right about that when we talk about fly fishermen and even a lot of the surfcasting community, but when you start to look at the party boats and the six-pack charters, along with a significant segment of the private boat community, a lot of bass are being killed. In those venues, conservation-minded sportsmen can be pretty thin on the ground.

First, Striped bass must be managed in a way that makes biological sense. Once that is achieved, like terrestrial game, bass should be managed in a way that brings the greatest overall benefit to the general public. Permitting the continued commercial exploitation of striped bass doesn’t really appear to achieve that objective. But, we have to keep in mind that this is a historical and culturally significant commercial fishery. We can’t expect it to just go away.

A nice striper from Capt. Dave Bitters at Baymen Charters

Unfortunately, a lot of anglers do think we can just make commercial fishermen disappear. Such people are still living in the “us vs. them” age. As I indicated in my Straight Dope column, I get it. It’s irritating to see one guy kill lots of fish 20 or so yards away from where you are releasing them all. But at a point in time so critical to the striped bass population, when we have a chance to convince managers to do the right thing, we’ve got to realize that it’s not about what is best for me, it’s about what’s best for the resource (although in the long run that’s usually the same thing).

So, while I do believe gamefish could have benefits for the stock, assuming the fish that had been harvested commercially were all maintained as a conservation buffer and not reallocated to anglers, I also believe that decommercializing striped bass is politically impossible at this time. Yet, since chasing that impossible goal tends to blind people to the total mortality issue, I can’t say I’m a big advocate anymore. There are other more important things on the table.

I’ll say it one more time, then I’ll shut up about bass, at least until we get the results of the benchmark: as a community greatly concerned with the future of this precious natural resource, we need to put the blinders on and focus solely on reducing fishing mortality. Clamoring about gamefish, slot limits etc., isn’t doing us any favors. There may be a time when there is an opportunity to achieve decommercialization, but that time is not now. Distracting ourselves from the most important goal of reducing mortality is likely to hurt the bass—and us—in the end.

by: Catherine Thagard

posted in:

August 20, 2013

Redefining the Hero Shot

My husband Neil and I take a lot of vacation photos. Most of them are pretty typical: a smiling couple, breathtaking scenery, a group of friends around a campfire. Less typically, some feature one or both of us with a dead animal.

You see, we are hunters. While other couples are taking the kids to Disneyland or relaxing on a beach, we spend the summer eagerly anticipating September, that magical month when hunting seasons are open in the Rocky Mountain West. It is no exaggeration to say that as an archer who does not participate in rifle seasons later in the year, Neil lives for September.

Often referred to as “hero shots”, sportsmen commonly take pictures of themselves and their quarry at the conclusion of a successful hunt. The concept is not new; people have been taking hero shots since photography was invented. What has changed is how we share these pictures. Until recently, the people most likely to see a hunter’s photos were those close to him who, for the most part, understood why the picture was taken.

However with the emergence of digital technology and social networking sites that allow anyone to instantly email or post pictures on the internet, today’s hunters are facing new ethical questions regarding the images they share. The reaction of a non-hunter to having one of these pictures show up unexpectedly on their computer screen is often as predictable as it is inaccurate – that the pictures are gruesome, perhaps even disgusting, and that the hunter is an insensitive braggart flaunting his or her bloodlust.

Neil and I take these so-called “deadhead” or “grip & grin” pictures because they are an important part of our vacation memories. As the image of someone’s toddler with Mickey Mouse reminds them of a day spent at the magical kingdom, so our pictures remind us of our time spent in the great outdoors, and the many wonderful experiences we shared before, during and after the hunt.

And while this may seem like a contradiction, we take pictures out of respect for the animal. They illustrate the brief moment in time when we experience both gratitude for the sustenance it will provide, and humility at the magnitude of the decision we made when we chose to end its life. We take a picture of every animal, whether it’s an antelope doe, spike bull elk or giant bighorn ram. One is no more or less deserving of respect than another according to the presence or size of antlers, horns, or any other trophy quality. The smiles you see in our pictures reflect many things – from pride at successfully putting hunting skills developed and honed over many years to use, to the knowledge that we have provided food for our own table. But never, ever, do they imply a joy in death.

When we have spent days or weeks on a hunt, capturing the memory is well worth a few extra minutes to thoughtfully compose a photo. We take the time to position the animal in its natural setting and clean up any excess blood before pulling out a camera. Nothing is more cringe-inducing to me as a hunter than seeing a picture of a dead deer laying in the back of a pickup, legs splayed, tongue hanging out and blood pooling on the tailgate. Is that scenario going to happen as you travel home from your hunt? Perhaps, but that is not the moment to preserve or publicize.

Some will disagree, arguing that they have nothing to hide and that anyone who does not appreciate their pictures can choose not to look at them. I maintain that there is a distinction between hiding your pictures and not rubbing people’s noses with them. There is a difference between a private email to a friend or a post on a hunting website and uploading an image that is going to appear on your vegetarian Aunt Susan’s Facebook page. This goes back to the respect issue, in this case respect for your audience. Every hunter must be cognizant of the fact that we are ambassadors for our sport, whether we choose to be or not, and that it’s not just like-minded individuals who see our pictures when they are made public.

My husband and I have our “hero shots” framed in the hallway of our home and in a private online album shared with hunting friends. Collectively, they reflect a lifetime’s passion for wild things and wild places. We often look through them, and I am always struck by the same thought – killing a deer, elk or any other game does not make you a hero – it makes you a hunter.