COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 37 Number 9
May 2010
Butterfish cap validity questioned; new science finding discounts role of fishing mortality
DOVER, DE – With the implementation of Amendment 10 to the federal Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish Fishery Management Plan, the future of the valuable Loligo squid fishery now hinges on butterfish.
On March 11, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) published the final rule for Amendment 10 despite growing concern that the butterfish mortality cap it establishes will cause serious economic harm to the fishing industry.
Making the situation worse is a new finding by stock assessment scientists that fishing mortality is no longer considered to be a significant factor in butterfish stock status.
The butterfish mortality cap, which goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2011, requires the closure of the directed Loligo fishery once the cap is reached.
The cap will be equal to 75% of the butterfish acceptable biological catch (ABC) and all butterfish landed and discarded by the directed Loligo fishery will count against the cap.
The remaining 25% of the ABC will be allocated to account for butterfish catch in other fisheries, including Loligo trips landing less than 2,500 pounds of Loligo.
The most pressing concern is the level at which the butterfish ABC will be set by the council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee when it meets in May.
Best science?
A recently concluded stock assessment raised many questions about the status of the butterfish stock and challenged the previously held assumption that fishing mortality had a significant impact on the health of the stock.
In a March 2 letter, attorney Eldon Greenberg, writing on behalf of the Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA), urged Commerce Department Sec. Gary Locke to reject Amendment 10.
“Simply stated, new science renders the amendment inconsistent with the requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) that management measures must be based on the best scientific information available,” Greenberg said.
He explained that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council developed, approved, and submitted Amendment 10 for two primary reasons. First, the butterfish resource was deemed to be overfished. And, second, discards in the directed Loligo fishery were considered to be the reason for the overfished condition.
“It now appears, however, … that neither of these reasons is valid,” Greenberg said.
Stock status
According to a summary of the butterfish stock assessment report, the review panel felt “that not all of the assessment results could be used to support management.”
The panel stressed that the inconclusive results weren’t anyone’s fault. Rather, they were due to the “significant uncertainty” associated with the data that went into the scientific model used in the assessment process and the subsequent uncertainty about the results the model generated.
The summary noted that commercial catch estimates were not exact due to a lack of precision in estimating butterfish discards. Furthermore, there was limited reliable survey data available to plug into the model. The panel also found that estimates of biomass and fishing mortality were “fairly imprecise.”
And, while the review panel felt the butterfish stock is indeed at a relatively low level, it was reluctant to attribute that condition to fishing pressure.
“It was agreed that overfishing was not likely occurring,” the summary said. “The review panel concluded that the decline in the butterfish stock appears to be driven by environmental processes and low recruitment.”
The panel also questioned whether it was appropriate to apply the theory of maximum sustainable yield to butterfish since it is a short-lived, recruitment-dominated species.
Implementation questioned
That NMFS would go ahead and implement Amendment 10 given these findings was extremely difficult for the GSSA to accept. The association represents commercial fishermen, shore-based processors, commercial dock facilities, seafood markets, restaurants, and industry support businesses in New Jersey.
In a March 30 letter to NMFS Director Eric Schwaab raising questions about the amendment, GSSA Executive Director Greg DiDomenico said he was also addressing the concerns of fishing vessel owner/operators, commercial fishing associations, companies, and fish houses from Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina.
Based on the findings of the stock assessment review panel, DiDomenico said, “There is no evidence to suggest that reducing butterfish discards is necessary to rebuild the butterfish stock. In fact, the simulations presented (during the stock assessment) showed that it made very little difference to the projected population size whether the fishery continued at its current size or was shut down completely since the fishing mortality rates are trivially small.”
In a mid-April interview, DiDomenico expressed disbelief that NMFS was prepared to go forward with the cap under the circumstances.
“The main impact of this will be the early closure of the Loligo fishery,” he said. “We’re managing to the lowest common denominator and the agency is perfectly comfortable. It is willing to put another fishery at risk for minimal benefits.”
Council’s dilemma
During the April 13-15 meeting of the Mid-Atlantic council, some members questioned the fairness of moving forward with the cap.
“We’re punishing the Loligo fleet for something we’re not sure they’re guilty of,” said Erling Berg of New Jersey. “We’re not treating the fishermen fairly here.”
Berg encouraged the council to come up with another strategy, but the options were few.
Because the mortality cap was established by a formal plan amendment, it would take a full-fledged amendment – and a lot of time – to substantively change it.
And, as National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration attorney Joel MacDonald reminded the council, the butterfish cap was implemented not just to reduce fishing mortality but also to comply with National Standard 9 of the MSA, which requires conservation and management plans to minimize bycatch and, “to the extent bycatch cannot be avoided,” to minimize bycatch mortality.
Said council Chairman Rick Robins, “This is our primary mortality control. It’s difficult if we abandon the cap. We still have to figure out a way to control mortality.”
And as to coming up with new ideas for how to achieve that goal, Robins was not immediately optimistic considering the fact that no “silver bullet” alternatives came to light during the lengthy Amendment 10 development process.
“This leaves us in a difficult but unfortunate position,” he said.
Council member Pete Himchak of New Jersey echoed Berg’s frustration.
“So we’re pigeonholed by the process,” he said. “If we can’t come up with good precision on level of bycatch, the social-economic consequences of that are unfair.”
Lorelei Stevens
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
