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 33 Number 12
August 2006
Why aren’t 2003 Georges Bank haddock growing?
WOODS HOLE, MA – Fishermen working on Georges Bank are becoming increasingly concerned that haddock from the enormous 2003 year class aren’t getting any bigger.
Many fishermen and scientists alike had expected at least some of the fish to begin recruiting into the commercial fishery last year, but that didn’t happen. And the fish haven’t grown much at all between last year and this year.
“Their growth has almost been stunted,” said Jackie Odell, executive director of the Northeast Seafood Coalition, who attended the June 13-16 meeting of the US/Canada Transboundary Resource Assessment Committee (TRAC) in Woods Hole where scientists agreed that the fish didn’t appear to be growing much.
The slow growth rate has substantial consequences for fishermen, said Odell.
“A lot of the assumptions last year were predicated on the recruitment of those fish into a larger size fish. But they are not reaching the size that would allow us to have a healthy fishery and a healthy population in the future,” she said.
While coalition members are worried about the potential for significant discards in the fishery of 16", 17", and even 18" fish, many harbor another fear.
“We’re all a little bit concerned that this haddock is just going to die,” said Odell.
Many scientists don’t think that will happen. They say the fish eventually will grow to a harvestable size. But it’s clear that the situation is extremely problematic for the offshore fleet.
Rhode Island fisherman Phil Ruhle is a member of the US/Canada Transboundary Management Guidance Committee (TMGC) that will use the recent TRAC information to develop quota shares between the US and Canada for Georges Bank cod, haddock, and yellowtail (see related story page 1A).
“My greatest concern is: What the hell really is going on out there?” he said. “Here we are a year later, and these fish are the same size. We’re going to have a serious, serious discard problem for no gain.”
Large stocks sustainable?
Ruhle is worried that the problem isn’t just related to haddock.
“Other things are not growing the way they should,” he said.
During the New England Fishery Management Council’s mid-June meeting in Newport, RI, Ruhle called on the Northeast Fisheries Science Center to provide more information about growth rates for a number of species, as well as possible explanations for what could be at the root of the phenomenon. The center will make a presentation addressing those questions at the council’s Sept. 26-28 meeting in Peabody, MA.
Ruhle’s underlying concern is whether or not the ocean can sustain extremely large stocks. And that makes him question the biological reference points that call for each stock to be rebuilt to extremely large levels simultaneously.
“If you can’t sustain these rebuilt stocks, then why are we going there?” he asked.
What’s going on?
The TRAC didn’t offer any new insight into the situation, but last September, the science center’s Paul Rago presented the results of the 2005 Groundfish Assessment Review Meeting (GARM) to the New England council.
The GARM had just finished updating the status of 19 groundfish stocks and, during that process, Rago told the council that scientists had noted a trend that was causing concern.
The average weight of fish from several groundfish stocks was decreasing. The decrease was particularly evident for Georges Bank cod and Georges Bank haddock, as well as Gulf of Maine winter flounder and witch flounder.
As for witch flounder, Rago said, “The average eight-year-old is now what the average seven-year-old was 10 years ago.”
GARM scientists said the cause of the problem was unclear and beyond the scope of the GARM’s charge. But Rago said potential causes could be: environmental change; density dependence relationships; earlier maturation or genetic selection; or a combination of factors.
“It occurs for stocks at both high and low abundance,” said Rago. “It has important implications for management.”
He said lower-weight fish could lead to lower yields, slower rebuilding, and possible changes to rebuilding targets when the stocks are re-evaluated again in 2008.
What about haddock?
Back on Jan. 14, 2005, Jon Brodziak, who at the time was working on haddock for the science center, presented haddock growth rate information to the council’s bycatch committee.
He likened the 2003 year class to the extremely large 1963 haddock year class, which also exhibited a slow-growth pattern. Brodziak said the 2003 year class appeared to be tracking the 1963 year class and, if this pattern held steady, the 2003 fish might not begin recruiting into the fishery until 2007.
According to summary minutes of that meeting, Brodziak also said the 2003 year class was so large that it had “20 times the ability to help produce another banner year class.”
Still, despite ongoing studies, scientists have yet to be able to put an exact finger on why some fish stocks, and especially this haddock year class, are growing slowly.
Jackie Odell isn’t sure the industry can wait any longer for a definitive answer. Noting that US fishermen only harvested 500 metric tons (mt) of eastern Georges Bank haddock in 2005 when their quota share for the stock was roughly 7,600 mt, she said the time has come for the US to “reconsider its approach.”
“I think the US needs to take a step back and think about how we should use this population of haddock,” she said. “If we don’t, there’ll be a huge loss to this country and our economy.”
Lower minimum size?
In what has become a rather controversial suggestion, Brian Rothschild, chairman of the city of New Bedford Mayor’s Ocean and Fisheries Council, has broached the idea of temporarily reducing the haddock minimum size from 19" to 17".
In a June 9 letter to New England council Chairman Frank Blount and National Marine Fisheries Service Regional Administrator Pat Kurkul, Rothschild wrote, “While there may be some declines in yield-per-recruit, we feel that this measure would avoid considerable waste. In fact, the net benefit in a reduction in minimum size to 17" would be a net benefit.”
At the moment, the council doesn’t appear to have a regulatory tool to quickly put forward such a change, and few council members have expressed support for the proposal.
Janice M. Plante
|
|
Tell us what you think.
