by:

posted in: TRCP Marine

September 20, 2013

If It Ain’t Broke…

A recent NRC report on rebuilding fisheries is right about some things, but if history is any indication, it’s wrong on others

 

DSC_0046a

Back in 1996, Congress enacted the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), which rightly requires fishery managers to rebuild overfished stocks in a time period that is “as short as possible,” generally not to exceed 10 years (except in cases where the biology of the stock, other environmental conditions or international agreements dictate otherwise).  By all means, reasonable to most anglers who want to enjoy such rebuilt/abundant fisheries… in our lifetimes.

Congress, with what appeared to be overwhelming support of the American people, reaffirmed the need to rebuild stocks promptly when it reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 2006, upholding the “as short as possible,” timeframe, but also explicitly directing fishery management councils to heed the advice of independent scientists on their Science and Statistical Committees regarding biologically-based maximum fishing levels.  This provision essentially isolated Council decisions from political pressure to do the wrong thing, as the scientists would be the ones setting the maximum harvest levels.  Congress, as well as conservation-minded angling groups, understood that such a provision was necessary to alter the cultural predisposition of regional fisheries management councils to discount scientific recommendations if there might be some short-term economic pain for their constituencies.

In addition, the Magnuson reauthorization required firm catch limits and accountability measures be established to ensure that such fisheries were indeed rebuilt.  In short, the 2006 Reauthorization gave fishery management law real teeth and thus far it appears to be working.  Rebuilding for the majority of federally managed species is either done, or getting done.

Unsurprisingly, the resulting fishing restrictions have caused some economic pain, suffered not only by the commercial fishing industry, but the recreational sector also, as seasons and bag limits shrink and stocks recover from decades of overfishing.   A slow economy probably hasn’t helped the situation.

Responding to concern about such economic and social impacts in their states, and, well, a chorus of disgruntled fishermen who want to be able to kill more fish than the current law allows, members of Congress recently requested that NOAA fund a National Research Council (NRC) assessment of the rebuilding plans and their associated ecological and economic effects.  Most of what they found generally wasn’t surprising.  From the document:

  • The current rebuilding approach has “resulted in demonstrated successes in identifying and rebuilding overfished stocks.”
  • “fishing mortality has generally been reduced, and stock biomass has generally increased, for stocks that were placed in a rebuilding plan.”
  • “the long-term net economic benefits” have been “positive.”
  • “the legal and prescriptive nature of rebuilding mandates forces difficult decisions to be made, ensures a relatively high level of accountability, and can help prevent protracted debate over whether and how stocks should be rebuilt.”
  • “setting rebuilding times is useful for specifying target fishing mortality rates for rebuilding and for avoiding delays in initiating rebuilding plans.”

Yet, even as the NRC Report confirms the well-documented and unprecedented success in rebuilding fisheries, it strangely enough suggests that policymakers consider policy changes that could very quickly undermine that success, most notably the elimination of mandatory deadlines and rebuilding targets set forth in the 1996 SFA.   Although it doesn’t explicitly call for a change in the law itself, the report does appear to recommend reversing course on the strict deadlines and rebuilding targets that repeatedly and successfully rebuilt depleted fish populations.  I do understand the reasoning, but I think there’s a huge lack of perspective here.

First, the report points out that, given the many environmental factors that can affect population size in addition to fishing,  there is considerable uncertainty about how fast fish populations will grow.  For example, climate change and other ecological factors can certainly drive changes in fish stocks.  Thus, the report argues,  rebuilding fish populations within a certain timeframe cannot be assured.

That may be the case, but there are a couple of key points here that the report ignores.  One is that we have no control over natural mortality that comes with such environmental and ecological factors.  And, well, natural mortality plus fishing mortality equals total mortality.  While we can’t control that other stuff, we can control fishing mortality.  Whether we can control fishing mortality enough to allow a stock to rebuild within a time certain, in light of the above mentioned natural factors, is indeed a relevant question.  But the fact that the majority of federally managed stocks have rebuilt or are rebuilding within the prescribed time frames strongly suggests we can.  Sure, there are some that haven’t, but the current law allows consideration of such natural factors in those fisheries when setting rebuilding timelines.  As I said, above, the law stipulates rebuilding “in as short as time as possible”, which in most cases is 10 years “except in cases where the biology of the stock, other environmental conditions” dictates otherwise.  So, such non-controllable factors are actually already addressed under current law.

The report goes on to identify strategies for accommodating  uncertainties which could lessen short-term economic and social impacts. For one, it recommends taking earlier action to avoid overfishing by imposing prompt but gradual limits on fishing when fish populations start to drop rather than waiting until they are overfished.  No argument here.  This strategy could help managers avoid the stricter limits that come with rebuilding badly depleted stocks.  The ASMFC should certainly take note of this one (e.g. striped bass).

Yet the report also recommends basing rebuilding plans on monitoring and controlling fishing levels, rather than on requiring that fish populations recover to a pre-specified target size within a certain timeframe, arguing that this strategy might be less disruptive.  In other words, if managers could keep fishing at a reduced but constant level for a longer period of time, they could rebuild fish stocks while allowing higher harvest levels.

Of course, that seems obvious right?  Why not let people kill more fish while the stock is recovering, and just let that recovery take longer?  But what does “longer” mean?  Instead of 10 years, 20 years?  Or 40 years!?  Don’t know about you guys but I want to see fish stocks rebuild in my lifetime.  Fish are a publicly owned natural resource, and should be managed for the benefit of everyone.  Seriously, why should I have to lose charter business because the resource-extractive sectors want to kill more fluke and drive the stock down to levels where they aren’t available to me?  Regardless, aside from those questions, the suggestion disregards the last 30 years of fisheries management history.

Prior to 1996 (when SFA was passed), managers were able to put off rebuilding in the name of minimizing economic impacts, and the result was, well,  it was chronic overfishing.  It doesn’t take a, brain surgeon, or, ehm, a fisheries scientist to figure that one out. The longer the rebuilding period, the longer managers, under extreme pressure from their constituents and politicians, put off rebuilding as most federally managed stocks bounced along at a low level.  This hurt everyone in those fisheries, but particularly anglers.  Commercial fishermen, at least the good ones, could always find fish to scoop up via net.  But anglers, using the least efficient gear and having the least range, and who really depend on abundance, were stuck busting their rear-ends to find a 14” fluke.  Even after SFA was enacted, NOAA Fisheries and the Councils had to be sued before they would institute rebuilding plans that had any real chance of success.

Such reluctance to act also demonstrates the hazard inherent in the previously mentioned “environmental factors beyond our control” language.  If managers can shirk their responsibilities by claiming that the condition of an overfished stock is beyond their control because of environmental conditions, it’s very likely that they will find countless excuses that “justify” rebuilding failures.  Fishermen are notorious for placing blame for declining stocks on predation, development, pollution, climate change—anything but fishing.  While these factors are certainly relevant, they do not justify continued overfishing.  When fish populations face stress from environmental factors, it doesn’t make sense to continue to catch them faster than they can reproduce, yet fishermen routinely point to such problems, and try to use them as excuses for overfishing collapsed stocks.  Southern New England winter flounder is a darn good example of that.

My overarching point is this: without  firm deadlines and rebuilding goals, managers don’t have the balls to rebuild.  Speaking from  a Manager’s perspective (I sit on the Mid Atlantic Council), I absolutely understand this.  It’s  really freak’n hard to make the difficult but necessary decisions that will cause substantial short-term pain, but are needed to ensure long term sustainability.  It’s particularly tough when your constituency and in some cases politicians are crying for more fish.  The sort of “flexibility” the NRC report seems to be endorsing will give the Councils ample reason to avoid making those tough decisions and to perpetually put off rebuilding.

Advocates of flexibility will continue to say that a 10-year rebuilding requirement is “arbitrary” and not science-based even when such deadlines are endorsed by scientists and, in fact, are actually being met!  And I suppose in the strictest sense, 10 years could be considered arbitrary.  But so is any deadline.  20 years is just as “arbitrary” as 10.  Perhaps I’ve become too cynical, but I have to think that Council members, seeking to placate their constituents, would be unlikely to work any harder to recover a stock in 20 or 30 years than in 10.   And even after that, there’s no reason to believe managers would get serious about rebuilding and wouldn’t only ask for more flexibility down the road.  I have to believe that it would be nearly impossible to implement any finite time frames in any rebuilding plan if we were to take the report’s suggestion seriously.  In truth, “flexibility,” is merely a euphemism for “delay”, and building more “flexibility” into the management system would merely allow managers to avoid the obligation to recover fish populations, and lawsuits resulting from their failure to do so

I talked about this pretty extensively in my first blog.  But I’m gonna hammer it home again, because it needs to be said over and over again.  The firm rebuilding goals and timelines are working.  So much so that I’ve created a “summer doldrums” business for summer flounder (fluke) for my light-tackle clients.  Fluke, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth (e.g. “it can’t be done”, “we’ll all go out of business”) was rebuilt to a level where we are pretty much all benefiting now!  According to NOAA Fisheries summer flounder recreational landings were up 700% from 1989 to 2011 when the stock was rebuilt!

I certainly understand that the situation down south is quite a bit different, and I’m the first one to admit that I’m not an expert on red snapper.  But I do know that one of the defining aspects of that rebuilding plan is that red snapper is much longer-lived and slower growing than a species like summer flounder (or bluefish, black seabass or scup for that matter), and the pain that comes with such rebuilding will likely last a lot longer.  I also understand there are data problems.  But I have to say that the complaints from snapper fishermen sound very similar to what we were hearing from the summer flounder crowd about 6 years ago.  Regardless, to blow up an entire management system, which the conservation minded angling community worked so hard to get in place, and which, overall, appears to be benefiting anglers (who of course rely on abundant fisheries) is pretty damn stupid and short-sighted, especially considering the fact that the vast majority of anglers don’t even really target red snapper.

It’s pretty clear to me that, overall, science-based goals and firm deadlines serve the general public well, even if a few business interests may have to suffer temporarily.  The case of summer flounder makes that clear.  Today, the average Joe can go out into the Bay with his kids with the reasonable expectation of catching a few keeper fluke.  That simply wasn’t the case just a few years ago.

But back to the NRC report…  I didn’t find its criticism of the use of timelines and rebuilding goals  to be balanced or compelling. It acknowledged, but then dismissed, their efficacy  to date, and the criticism was based on theory rather than real-world experience.   While there have certainly been and continue to be problems with the rebuilding programs, I’m pretty sure they are just “growing pains” which, assuming we leave Magnuson intact, will probably abate as the process continues to mature.  With any real world regulatory programs there is always “messiness” in the beginning.   And really, such problems are being addressed by the Councils within the constraints of the current law which already offers sufficient flexibility.  Furthermore, the report failed to coherently and specifically provide an alternative approach, let alone demonstrate that such an approach would have produced superior (or even similar) results.

But where does it leave us?  I’m afraid not in a very good place.  The NRC report, despite clearly recognizing that the rebuilding timelines and goals are working, is quickly becoming “Exhibit A” for the same “more-fish-for-me” crowd that has been working so hard to tear the heart out of the Magnuson Act’s provisions since 1996.  The very provisions that have allowed extraordinary recoveries such as summer flounder to occur.

Perhaps it’s an Irish trait to always have a half-empty glass, but I have a somewhat bleak outlook on the next Magnuson Reauthorization.  The good guys no longer appear to be the good guys, and the public is so darn anti-government/anti-regulation right now.  And then there’s freak’n red snapper, which very few anglers even target, but that stupid fish seems to be driving the debate.  Perhaps most importantly, we don’t have strong leadership on fisheries on the Hill anymore (e.g. Stevenson and, well George W., who was actually quite good).  On the other hand, Congress is so dysfunctional, it’s entirely possible this doesn’t move at all.  Pretty pathetic, but really, that may be a saving grace.   (Note:  my “copy editor” calls this paragraph “needless whiny pessimism that isn’t helping anything.”  I don’t disagree).

Congress is already holding hearings on the Magnuson Stevenson Act Reauthorization.  I actually testified in front of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard in July.  You can find the archived testimony here.  Note that my testimony begins at 1:29.  Yet a more recent hearing in the House had a completely different tone: a bunch of guys referencing the NRC’s suggestion for flexibility in rebuilding timelines and goals.  Congress needs to keep hearing from anglers and small business owners like me (and you!) who have and continue to benefit from rebuilt stocks, and not just from the more-fish-for-me crowd who’s new rallying cry around the NRC report is “we told you so”.

Well, the facts show that “WE told you so”.  Nearly two-thirds of the stocks put in rebuilding plans since 1996 have either rebuilt to healthy population levels, or have made significant rebuilding progress. This rebuilding success was responsible for an increase in estimated gross commercial revenues of $585 million—92 percent higher (54 percent when adjusted for inflation) than revenues at the start of rebuilding.  That is incredibly significant.

It would be unwise to go back to a policy that seemed to have so obviously failed our fisheries, our fishermen and the general public.  But that’s exactly where we’re headed if we don’t make our voices heard and exercise our right to influence the direction of fisheries policy.  As we get down to reauthorization time (when that might be is really anyone’s guess right now), we have to let Congress know that this is not what we want.  Stay tuned and I’ll let you know how we can do that.

Do you have any thoughts on this post?

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

by:

posted in: TRCP Marine

September 18, 2013

More Recreational Fishing Closures in South Atlantic Fishery

More waters could be closed to recreational fishing when the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council meets this week in Charleston, S.C.

 

On Wednesday morning, the council’s Snapper Grouper Committee will discuss whether closed areas are beneficial. Then the committee will consider the establishment of 12 new marine protected areas and habitat areas of particular concern and the tweaking of four current closed areas to increase the population of speckled hind and warsaw grouper.

The waters in question range from North Carolina to Florida. If everything that has been proposed is approved, the total amount of protected area would increase by a few hundred square miles. Whatever the committee decides, public hearings won’t be held until 2014.

I am not against having closed areas as long as there is a need for them and they protect the species in question. Unfortunately, the federal government has a track record of claiming a species is in dire need of protection and goes ahead with plans to close an area to fishing.

When anglers and, in the case of Florida, for example, biologists with the state’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission challenge that claim, the feds suddenly announce that the species in question is actually doing quite well and the closure is no longer needed.

Another problem with closed areas is they often prohibit all types of fishing. In the case of bottom-dwelling species like speckled hind and warsaw grouper, it makes sense to prohibit bottom fishing for other groupers and snappers because there is a chance of accidentally catching the species in question.

Not allowing anglers to troll or live-bait on the surface for species such as dolphin, wahoo and billfish, even though the chances of catching a grouper or snapper are between slim and none, makes no sense. In this case, the South Atlantic Council could allow trolling.

One other problem I have with closed areas is they rarely ever become open areas again, despite the promises of the reigning federal fishery managers. What often results is a perverse type of Catch-22.

If the protected area doesn’t work, the managers and environmental groups, many of whom believe that no one should be allowed to fish, will say that the area needs to be expanded to make it work better.

If the protected area does work, those same people will say that since it is doing such a good job of increasing fish populations, it makes sense to expand the area to protect even more fish from the hooks of recreational anglers.

Then there are the factors that do way more damage to fish and their habitat than recreational anglers, but are never considered, like fertilizer-laden runoff and minimally treated sewage.

In Florida, those things lead to algae blooms and bleaching of coral reefs, which negatively impact the juvenile fish that fishery managers are so concerned about protecting from anglers.

Of course, it’s a lot easier to tell anglers that they can’t fish somewhere than telling state, federal and municipal bureaucrats that they need to stop pumping fouled freshwater into our estuaries and the Atlantic Ocean.

For Your Information

More ‘no bottom-fishing’ preserves proposed for South Carolina, Southeast offshore

South Atlantic Fishery Council to discuss closing Georgetown Hole, other areas, to fishing

by:

posted in: TRCP Marine

September 16, 2013

Much Ado About Nothing

The desire to point the finger without acknowledging our own impact is endemic in the angling community

 

Slinging

 

So…  It looks like there are quite a few people who have their panties in a bunch over my recent column in Fly Fishing in Saltwaters:Deep Diving (is spearfishing the blood-sport we think it is?).  If you are on Facebook, you will see the well over 100 comments on the article which I posted on my page, most of which are from people who appear to be greatly offended, and well… angry. (Please do “friend” me if you’d like to see those comments).   Believe me, I get it.  It’s beyond infuriating to see some knucklehead holding a big, fecund dead and bloody fish, which had likely lived for two decades before this bonehead decided it would be fun to put a spear in it.  But if you could have made it past the knee jerk reaction, and, uhm, read the article, you would have probably seen a different picture.

If you are too busy/lazy to read the article, I’ll summarize it in a couple of paragraphs.  Spear-fishermen in Louisiana have been shooting tarpon (29 in the last 3 years according to the Louisiana Council of Dive Clubs) so that Dr. William Stein (an ardent tarpon angler turned marine biologist) may dissect and analyze the fish with the intent of finding out more about them, and with the end goal of providing relevant information that may ultimately help us protect them.

Unfortunately, a spearfishing club unwisely posted photos of dead tarpon/hero-shots as well as video of the act itself.  Yes, it was offensive, yet pretty much harmless, and in fact beneficial when you consider the scientific use of such fish.  Yet, there was a reverberating reaction as editorials popped up everywhere and internet forums lit up.  In response, there were some who rightly pointed out that recreational release mortality (whether it’s 10% or 4%) simply dwarfs whatever damage such speared fish might cause, even if you were to assume spear-fishermen kill “hundreds” of tarpon a year (which they don’t, simply because, as anyone who has ever fished for them knows, tarpon are big, strong, fast animals).  In other words, it’s really freak’n dangerous.  And, despite whatever preconceived notion folks might have of spear-fishers, they generally don’t like to kill simply for the sake of killing, and you really can’t eat tarpon without having a gag reflex.

None of this apparently mattered to a lot of people who read the piece.  That’s assuming they did read the piece in its entirety (given some of the comments on my Facebook page, I have to believe a lot of people didn’t bother to read the entire article, at least not initially).  Killing a tarpon was wrong in any case, they claimed.  Yet when anyone, including me, pointed out that, well, anglers inadvertently kill a lot more tarpon, and that perhaps we shouldn’t throw stones.…  Well, it got a little ugly.   There were folks who simply denied and continue to deny the well-established fact that release mortality is significant.  And there were people who claimed that they deserve no blame and that the perceived reduction in tarpon over the last two decades was simply due to habitat loss.  The latter may be true; however, natural mortality due to habitat loss, plus fishing mortality, of course equals total mortality, so you really can’t point to habitat loss and say you are not responsible at all.  Because you are.  And, well, individually, there isn’t much we can do about habitat loss, while there are indeed steps we can take to reduce fishing mortality.  I listed such steps in my article, no need to rehash here.

Moving on, there are those folks who surprisingly believe that Dr. Stein is not really using these fish for science at all. They claim his documented research is simply an excuse to allow blood-thirsty divers to shoot tarpon.  Well, this is just silly.  Those divers are entitled to shoot as many tarpon as they want as there are no regulations (gear type, seasons, bag/size limits) in either state or federal waters.  Why on earth would they need to use Dr. Stein’s work as an excuse?!

What was perhaps most disturbing, however, were the deeply personal attacks from both sides, some of which came from supposedly unbiased scientists.  Frightening given that I had always thought that marine biologists were supposed to be objective.  In this case, they certainly weren’t.

The bottom line is this.  Anglers more than likely kill orders of magnitude more tarpon than Louisiana spear-fishers. To deny this is intellectually dishonest, self-serving and scientifically inaccurate.  I don’t like to see dead tarpon either, but given the facts, I’m certainly okay with some being killed via spear for science.  And, of course I like to throw flies at tarpon just as much as anyone else.  And in no way did I or would I suggest we stop.  I made what I thought was a very valid point; that we probably shouldn’t throw stones at the innocents when we might be living in  glass houses, because, in the end, a dead tarpon is a dead tarpon.   I followed up by suggesting some things we should be focusing on rather than those fish killed for science by spear-fishers.

The point of this blog is not, however, to simply rehash that debate.  It is that, unfortunately, this sort of finger-pointing has become endemic in the recreational fishing community and particularly the flyfishing community.  There is often a complete denial that we have any impact, and we frequently act as if we are simply above it all, because we release most, if not all, of what we catch, and we promote conservation in our magazines, etc.  Yet most of us are loath to attend a public hearing, or to otherwise actually do something constructive; instead, we just complain about “those guys”.  I’m not saying that being a conservationist (e.g. releasing “keepers”, carefully handling fish, educating other anglers etc.)  or that promoting conservation isn’t significant.  It is!  But the supposition that it’s “those guys” or even, in this case anyway, “habitat destruction” has become a distraction from doing what’s best for the fishery, which is in most cases is reducing total mortality.   I touched on this during a recent striped bass blog.  Such finger pointing to some extent has taken our community’s eye off the ball, and in several cases has severely reduced anglers’ credibility amongst fishery managers.  I know this to be true, because I’ve sat with such managers and they’ve told me point-blank that this is the case.  And we wonder why we are always being accused of being elitist, snobs, and/or why managers simply don’t listen to us.

Believe me, I’m on your team here, but we have to be real.  We really need to work at thoroughly understanding the issues, provide useful solution-oriented comment, and be willing not to rule ourselves out as part of the problem, because in many fisheries we likely are!  We have to remember that despite the fact that we, as anglers, may be the best stewards of the resource, that resource does not belong to us.  It belongs to the public.  And unfortunately, that includes the guy in Wisconsin who might want a fresh fish fillet without having to drive out here to catch it.

As anglers and conservation advocates, we have to work within the system, making compelling arguments that take all sides into account.  Not simply come out, guns blazing, that these fish are ours, we don’t have an impact, and we’re more economically important or something.  Unfortunately that seems to be the track most recreational opinion leaders want to take.  And it isn’t working.  .

The take home message here is that we can be part of the solution if we, for one, acknowledge that we may be part of the problem and two, educate ourselves on all aspects of the issue at hand, instead of shooting off with knee jerk reactions similar to the one we saw here with the speared tarpon.   In the future, I’ll do my best to educate readers on what the aspects of such issues are.  So stay tuned!

by:

posted in: TRCP Marine

September 14, 2013

Gulf Coast Snapper- Past to Present

Photo courtesy of Gulfmex.com

Who would have ever thought red snapper could become the next Leatherback turtle, a species pursued to the brink of extinction?  Certainly not my fellow offshore anglers and me, who pursued the red delicacies back in the offshore fishing hey days of the early 1970s.  But if you look at the latest regulatory actions of the National Marine Fisheries Service, you might make an argument to have the species added to the list. I say, “might” because despite NMFS data indicating doom and gloom, they readily admit that data isn’t worth the word documents and paper on which it’s published.

The latest developments in a four-decade saga of mismanagement include for 2014, the possibility of less than the skimpy 9-day, 2 fish per person season Louisiana was offered for 2013 and the withdrawal of the LA Department of Wildlife & Fisheries from the NOAA Fisheries Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP).  This move represents the state fishery management equivalent of seceding from the Union.  Furthermore, what seemed just a few decades ago to be an Orwellian project, there are serious attempts to “breed” red snapper for supplemental release into the Gulf of Mexico.   How did we ever get to this point and maybe the more important question, is it necessary?

Having spent forty years of contributing in a very small way to the red snapper demise, here’s what I’ve seen.  In the early 1970s when I first began offshore fishing, big, beautiful red snapper were easily caught along with 3-4 pound white trout and bull croaker.  We were only limited by how many we wanted to clean.  All three species went into a serious decline from the late 1970s into the 1990s. With few exceptions, handfuls of 12 inch and smaller red snapper became the catch of the day.  Rarely are those big white trout and croakers found at all any more.  That is another story for another day.

Following an overharvest determination and the resulting regulations, red snapper populations in the Gulf rebounded.

But while populations were growing through the 1990s and 2000s, NMFS continued to implement stricter regulations using their suspect data. In more recent times the empirical evidence of many more red snapper in the Gulf than estimated by the feds has pretty much been ignored.  Reports from commercial and recreational anglers and what you would have to regard as very reliable, eyewitness observations from scuba divers who have monitored fish populations at rig and reef habitat first hand for decades have not convinced federal managers that longer seasons with more generous bag limits are warranted.  Conversely, they have shortened the seasons as if red snapper are declining when in fact, clear-thinking, unbridled-by-bureaucrats fishery biologists proclaim there are and have been many more snapper than federal counts have estimated for years.

Earlier this year, Louisiana, frustrated with the incompetency joined other Gulf States by going non-compliant with federal regulations in state-managed waters. The LDWF set up a state waters season offering more days and a larger bag limit.  Additionally, Louisiana began its own accounting method to set the stage and argument for regional management of offshore species.  This obviously posed a threat to the feds.  Their response – at first they said using the new methodology they were pleasantly surprised to “find” excess snapper and would allow an extended fall season in October. But at its latest meeting they reassessed the data and put a hold on that extension until they can further study the data.  So while they are considering if and when a fall snapper season is a possibility and what impact this new data will have on the 2014 season, charter boat operators as well as private fishermen are put on hold.

Would this type of mismanagement happen under more state control under the regional concept? No one can be certain but I’m willing to take the risk, given the track records of fish stocks under management authority of both agencies.   There’s not a single saltwater species Louisiana manages that is considered over or under -fished. Federal managers have demonstrated the exact opposite whether real or perceived.  The result is still the same.

The latest move by LDWF to withdraw from MRIP is huge.  As of January 1, 2014 they will no longer participate in the survey.  What type of retaliation the state can expect is uncertain, but given the direction federal management is headed, is there really anything to lose?

The Thad Cochran Center for Marine Aquaculture at the University of Southern Mississippi is working on developing a supplemental stocking program by raising juvenile snapper in tanks.

Perhaps the combination of these two efforts will be part of making once again catching and keeping a sensible limit of the wonderful red snapper possible.

by:

posted in: TRCP Marine

September 12, 2013

Let’s Get Together

Recreational Fishing Community needs to find common ground with the Environmental Lobby

 

Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia

 

This past week I spent some time in DC, common slang for our nation’s capitol and a place I like to avoid when the temperature goes above 85 and Congress is in session. I failed on both accounts. I was there to work with a group of folks from the recreational fishing industry/community to discuss the vision for this user group. What do we think the recreational fishing community/industry should look like in say ten years and how do we get there. It is an interesting process and one that is very much still a work in progress.

One of the groups that came to the meeting to participate in the exchange of information was a number of the environmental non-governmental organization (ENGO) community leadership. Wash you mouth out with soap!!! It was soooo intimidating being face-to-face with members of the “great conspiracy.” Okay, I’m just kidding, but there are some in the recreational community that feel we should not be talking to or working with the environmental community. I’ll take the other side and simply say that the recreational community cannot succeed in a realistic future vision without embracing the ENGO community in some fashion.

Let’s take last week’s Blog on the proposed tuna regulations that NOAA Fisheries is asking comment on. Pushing those changes was not done by a single entity, it was a cooperative effort by the International Game Fish Association (IGFA), the National Coalition for Marine Conservation (NCMC) and the Pew Environmental Group. Could the recreational side of the equation have made this happen on their own? Maybe. Could the ENGO’s have done this on their own? Maybe. But they did successfully do it together and that is what counts.

One of the discussion topics at the visioning project was that all of the groups concerned about sustainable fish resources should be working together more often on issues that move all of us toward our visions. It is my feeling that this is going to be important in an era of budget constraints and increasing demands on fishery managers. Does this mean that the recreational community has to agree with everything proposed by the ENGO community? Heck no. The truth is that the recreational community does not always agree 100% with its own proposals.

A number of years ago, I worked with a member of the ENGO community to bring together a coalition of interested parties to look at common ground where we could all work together to an objective accomplished. We did come up areas of mutual agreement, but the effort lost traction as folks went about their own business, not because it was a bad idea. All of these collective efforts take constant attention and effort to push them forward.

So, do I think that we should be working together with the ENGO community where we have common goals? You bet I do. I do not think that all ENGO’s want to end recreational fishing. It is my feeling that the perception that all ENGO’s are after the recreational fishing community is fear mongering perpetuated by a small and vocal minority. It is my belief that most of the reputable ENGO’s want to see sustainable rebuilt fisheries resources. How does that not benefit the recreational community?

I know that there will be potholes along the road to success, but that does not mean we should not try to work together. I believe that it has the possibility of moving the recreational fishing community/industry toward that ever elusive vision of the future.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

WHAT WILL FEWER HUNTERS MEAN FOR CONSERVATION?

The precipitous drop in hunter participation should be a call to action for all sportsmen and women, because it will have a significant ripple effect on key conservation funding models.

Learn More
Subscribe

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!