This piece was originally published on TalkingFish.org.

Federal fishery managers rolled the dice on the New England cod fishery on Monday, once again. It is hard to escape the premonition that they fell well short of their responsibility. We think catch levels were set too high, too little was done to reduce the growing cod catches of recreational fishermen, and nothing was done to balance fishermen’s economic and social pain by directing the small allocation of Gulf of Maine cod toward coastal fishing boats.

The decision of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to accept the New England Fishery Management Council’s quota recommendation had little to do with precautionary principles and much to do with politics.

Atlantic cod (photo credit: NOAA).

The 2011 Gulf of Maine cod assessment, which has a broad consensus in the science community, concluded that the fishing levels for the last three years had been set perhaps five times as high as they should have been. A large percentage, sometimes bordering on almost 90% of the spawning cod, has been caught each year in recent times. With few adults older than ten years old in a population that should include significant numbers of highly-reproductive twenty-something-year old fish, the spawning populations are buoyed by little more than the individual year-classes of new maturing fish, year-by-year. The risks of a Gulf of Maine cod train wreck may well be much higher than this decision assumes.

The one thing that is known with certainty about past cod assessments is that they have consistently overestimated the spawning biomass and underestimated the amount of human and natural mortality that is happening in the real world. The scientists are not counting all the fish that are actually being killed each year. In the fisheries modeling world, this sort of systematic model error is called a retrospective pattern. The new assessment, just like prior assessments, is still based on a model exhibiting a retrospective pattern.

What this means in simple language is that while the managers think their new catch levels pose a 30% risk of bringing spawning fish populations down to new historic lows, the real risk is almost guaranteed to be higher – and only time will tell how much higher.  The scientists’ best estimate is that Gulf of Maine cod spawning stock biomass (the amount of the stock that is capable of reproducing) is roughly 11,868 metric tons (mt). By setting new 2012 catch limits at 6,700mt, NMFS and the Council expect that 56% of this spawning population will be caught in the fishing year. But this 11,868mt estimate is just one in a range of estimates; the actual spawning stock biomass could be lower or higher. In fact, the approved 6,700mt catch level could remove anywhere from 41% and 71% of the entire spawning population with equal confidence. Killing two-thirds of the spawners in a population that is already decimated is not rational.

And it is critical to remember that these are just best scientific estimates. The unforeseen cod collapse in Atlantic Canada in the 1990s that has lasted many decades now produced one irrefutable fact: even the smartest people in the room can’t fully understand or predict, let alone control, the biology of a situation. We should be mindful of that if we are to avoid our own cod collapse.

On the brighter side of the NMFS interim cod action, the managers didn’t open up any of the areas that are currently closed to fishing in order to protect important fish habitat and help species rebuild. That would have done little to help Gulf of Maine cod fishermen and much to undermine other rebuilding stocks that likely benefit from these closed areas. Significantly more analysis is needed before that action should be considered.

We are also encouraged to see that additional cod assessments and analysis will be done later this year. There may also be new assessment tools—specifically, the new low frequency sonar technologies developed by MIT and Northeastern—that might finally allow scientists to “see” the fish under the water and get a better real-time estimate of what the total populations of cod might be. All this work is of the highest priority. It would be a great relief if the latest assessment turned out to be overly pessimistic.

The power of denial and the risk of significant bias in these efforts, however, cannot be overstated.  The new analysis must be done right. With so much political pressure, so many fishermen in serious economic straits already, and so many scientists heading into the effort hopeful that a new look at the cod populations might produce a better result, the tendency to skew the inquiry will be practically unavoidable. With the long-term health of Atlantic cod in New England in the balance, however, the integrity of the scientific process must be protected.

There is no way to completely reduce the risks in a fishery, no perfect fishery. Nonetheless, we had started to hope that the New England managers were getting more risk-averse and more focused on realizing the important goal of managing this pivotal fishery out of its persistent crisis state. We hoped that they were becoming more mindful of the bad distributional effects of some of their management rules on the smaller coastal day boats. This latest cod decision negates optimism. It treated that long-term better and fairer future like some game of chance with such long odds that it wasn’t even worth playing.

• 

  This week, TalkingFish.org interviews Mark Usewicz, chef and Co-Owner of Mermaid’s Garden, a Brooklyn-based sustainable seafood consultancy (Photo credit: Mark Usewicz).

  “Mark Usewicz helps chefs bring sustainable and adventurous seafood to your plate” – Brooklyn-based sustainable seafood consultant Mark Usewicz talks with TalkingFish.org about how he helps chefs make the right decisions about what seafood to serve their customers. Plus, he shares a great shell bean and clam stew recipe.

• “Ready to hear about herring?” – A rundown of the main concerns with the industrial Atlantic herring trawl fleet and the solutions available in the upcoming amendment to the herring fishery management plan, as well as a schedule of public hearings where you can voice your opinions on the new plan.
• “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, March 9” – Some interesting news we’ve been reading this week: Senator Kerry introduces a bill to fund fishery research, the government and CLF support Amendment 16 in the Court of Appeals, author Paul Greenberg shares his current fish choices, and a roundup of this weekend’s ocean and fish-related events.

• 

  TalkingFish.org's Ask an Expert interview this week is with Chef Evan Mallett of Portsmouth's Black Trumpet Bistro (Photo credit: Black Trumpet Bistro).

  February 21: “Letter to Secretary Bryson: New England Can’t Afford To Put Gulf of Maine Cod at Risk” – Originally published right here on the CLF Scoop, CLF’s Peter Shelley blogged about his request to Commerce Secretary John Bryson to impose strict catch limits to protect the Gulf of Maine cod population and also to provide federal disaster relief funding to fishermen who will face economic hardship due to the lower catch allowances.

• February 23: “Chef Evan Mallett is committed to a diverse and sustainable menu” – Our latest Ask an Expert feature interviews Evan Mallett, chef and owner of Black Trumpet Bistro in Portsmouth, NH. Chef Evan talks about the importance of flexibility and diversity when creating his menus.
• February 24: “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, February 24” – This week’s stories: NOAA’s proposed 2013 budget may cut funding for fisheries but requests support for research in the northeast; gross revenues are up after the Pacific groundfish fleet’s first year under catch shares; the Nature Conservancy is working with diverse stakeholders to prevent river herring bycatch; and the World Bank is creating a global alliance to save the world’s oceans.

This blog was originally published on TalkingFish.org.

It’s been widely reported that at its February meeting, the New England Fishery Management Council voted to ask the National Marine Fisheries Service to take emergency action on Gulf of Maine cod for the 2012 fishing year. The measures proposed, including a mere 3-13% reduction in the catch limit, were notable largely for their failure to address the condition of the depleted cod stock. But there is an aspect of the proposed package that has received little attention, which is troubling, because it would have NMFS open up five of the six existing areas currently closed to groundfishing. The areas at issue serve a myriad of functions for managed commercial species including protection of their habitat and spawning areas and providing a buffer against excessive fishing effort on certain species. Several of these areas have been in place for over fifteen years and have taken on important and positive functions and values that are currently being studied but are not yet entirely understood.

A map of the Gulf of Maine showing the groundfish closed areas (Photo credit: NOAA).

That’s one of the many reasons why the Council’s action is so incomprehensible. It came one day after the Council announced that it was only one year away from completing an eight-year process of collecting data and developing a highly scientific model by which it believes it can identify the best and most vulnerable habitat to protect. So, just when a lengthy scientific process is about to render answers as to what areas should be open and which closed, the Council urged action to open areas and did so without any scientific support. What’s more, many of these closures were imposed in order to comply with a court order to protect habitat from fishing gear, and several of these areas were chosen precisely because they are habitat for Gulf of Maine cod. Giving fishermen access to these areas will increase the likelihood that catch limits on cod will be exceeded and that catch will be discarded, increasing the mortality of this stock and undermining the very purpose of the emergency measure.

There is also the question of the legalities of opening these areas with this action. Many of the areas that the Council has put on the chopping block were originally designated in order to comply with a requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that essential fish habitat must be protected from fishing to the extent practicable. Any elimination of these closed areas risks undoing the Council’s means of complying with this requirement of federal fisheries law. The Service’s action will also be limited by the need to analyze the environmental impacts of reopening closures in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Just such an analysis is currently ongoing with the Council’s groundfish technical team. This analysis can, and with the Service’s help would, be completed in time for the 2013 fishing year, but is not ready as part of this emergency action.

The Service should take this opportunity to invest resources in the essential fish habitat process and the analysis of the groundfish closed areas already underway in order to ensure that it will be completed in time for what will inevitably be an even more restrictive 2013 fishing year. If the Service instead chooses to randomly reopen closed areas through the Council’s requested emergency action, it risks leaving Gulf of Maine cod and other fish stocks more vulnerable to overfishing than before, a blow to the fishery and exactly the opposite of the emergency action’s intended effect.

• “Bottom Line: Historic Anniversary for Fishing in America’s Oceans”: Lee Crockett of the Pew Environment Group discusses the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the progress that has been made because of its strict limits on overfishing.
• “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, January 27″: This week’s news roundup: discussion of NOAA’s potential move from the Department of Commerce to the Department of the Interior, talking fishery management with Maine fisherman Glen Libby, and updates on menhaden conservation and the Gulf of Maine cod stock assessment.

• “An Inconvenient Truth About Gulf of Maine Cod” – Jud Crawford of the Pew Environment Group discusses Gulf of Maine cod and fisheries science.
• “Local Oysters Deliver a Taste of Place” – We’ve rounded up some recent oyster-related items readers might enjoy. Learn about oyster culture in several regions around the U.S. and how oystermen keep oysters alive in root cellars over the winter.

Here’s what went on this week on TalkingFish.org, a blog brought to you by CLF and other organizations and individuals who want to see a sustainable fishing industry in New England and abundant fish populations for generations to come:

• January 11: “Bottom Line: New Year’s Resolution 2012: Let’s Gain Weight in the Ocean” – Lee Crockett of the Pew Environment Group continues blogging about fishery management with this piece on how we can increase the size of fish populations (or help them “gain weight”) in 2012. (Lee’s blog series used to be titled “Overfishing 101″; it is now called “Bottom Line.”)
• January 11: “Thoughts on Steve Arnold’s rescue from around the web” – Last weekend, Rhode Island fisherman Steve Arnold’s fishing vessel sank in the North Atlantic Ocean. Thankfully, Steve and his crew were rescued by the Coast Guard and are all okay. This blog post contains links to other sources’ thoughts on the incident and well wishes for all involved.
• January 12: “Max Harvey on giving consumers dayboat quality seafood at Summer Shack” – TalkingFish.org interviewed Max Harvey, Seafood buyer at Jasper White’s Summer Shack in Cambridge, Massachusetts, about his seafood buying practices, questions he most frequently hears from consumers, and more.
• January 13: “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, January 13″ – A weekly roundup of articles and opinion we think will interest TalkingFish.org readers. This week: catch limits on all federally managed species will be in place by the start of 2012 fishing seasons, success under the first year of catch shares for Pacific groundfish, thoughts on pair trawling in Rhode Island state waters, and an interactive timeline of the history of U.S. federal fishery management.

• December 9: “Chefs Collaborative: Why accurate fish stock assessments matter” – Guest blog from Chefs Collaborative executive director about why accurately assessing the size of fish populations is important for fishermen, coastal communities, the government and even chefs and consumers!
• December 12: “Fish Talk in the News – Monday, December 12″ – This week in the news: disagreement over the decision to appeal the judge’s ruling in the Amendment 16 case, the Nature Conservancy buys a groundfish permit in Maine, support for catch shares in the Gulf of Mexico, locally sourced meats and seafood will be big in 2012, and the need to keep the Magnuson-Stevens Act strong.
• December 14: “Video: Watch my Testimony on Rebuilding a Vibrant New England Fishery” – A video of CLF’s Peter Shelley testifying before the House Committee on Natural Resources in early December.
• December 15: “Overfishing 101: Dissecting Sectors” – Lee Crockett of the Pew Environment Group writes about the New England groundfish fishery’s first year and counting under the new sector management system.
• December 16: “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, December 16″ – Gulf of Maine cod stock assessment, fish may be more susceptible to ocean acidification than previously thought, the Coast Guard and fishermen work together to find mutually agreeable solutions, and a new app to track the mercury in your sushi.

Last Thursday, I testified before the House Committee on Natural Resources on a topic that I have worked on for years: restoring New England’s fisheries and commercial fish populations.

The topic is as important today as it was when I started working on it in 1989, if not more: our fish species continue to face immense pressure with a number of stocks still in terrible condition after a decade of concerted effort and the region’s fishing communities and fishermen continue to face unacceptable levels of business uncertainty and volatility. At the same time, there are some positive signs in the fishing industry that are critical to build on rather than  continuing to focus on the past.

There were not any commercial fishermen on the panel before the Natural Resources Committee, which was a lost opportunity for the panel to hear what’s working and what’s not working for the working fleets.  In any event,  I appreciated the opportunity to voice CLF’s support for rebuilding a vibrant New England fishery.

Below find the full text of my testimony. Or, if you like, you can find a .pdf here.

****

Chairman Hastings, and Ranking Member Markey, thank you for inviting me to testify today.

My name is Peter Shelley. I am a senior attorney with New England’s Conservation Law Foundation, the oldest regional conservation advocacy group in the nation. I have worked on federal fishery management issues in New England since 1989.

Next to my computer at work, I have a post-it note with formula on it:

31 billion (dollars more in fish product sales) + 500,000 (new jobs) +

2.2 billion (more dollars flowing to America’s fishermen and their communities).

Those are the results that rebuilt fisheries in this country could produce. Even if the country could only reach half those numbers, rebuilding fisheries would be an important national strategic objective.

Those were the goals Congress had when it overwhelmingly passed the Magnuson Reauthorization Act in the Bush Administration in 2006.

To get to those goals, I believe, Congress needs to do three things:

1. Allow the current law to work and allow the regional councils and the agencies to implement it — it’s only just begun to take effect.
2. Fund the Act so it can work, perhaps on the order of three times the current appropriation for the essential tasks of stock assessments, monitoring, and data collection, and
3. Invest in our working waterfronts and coastal communities so they will be there to benefit from a healthy, restored ocean.

In my view, three of the bills before the Committee today are aligned with those actions. The other five bills, notwithstanding the good intentions of their sponsors, are not.

The Coastal Jobs Creation Act, sponsored by Representatives Pallone and Pingree, is a great piece of legislation with broad public support. The infrastructure and capacity investments the bill identifies are essential to our maritime and fishery future and will be repaid many times over. H.R. 594 should be supported by the Committee.

Rep. Frank’s Asset Forfeiture Fund bill and Rep. Keating’s Strengthen Fisheries bill also have merit.  These two bills are the only ones before the Committee today that make an effort to identify new funding streams for the fisheries science and data collection that is critically needed in the regions. HR 2753 also has merit but no new funding source.

In my opinion, the other four major bills before the Committee, H.R. 1646, 2304, 2772, and 3061, would move this country farther from our common goals, perhaps out of reach.

Without exception, they

–impose new costs and mandates for marginal benefits and without new funding
–create more business uncertainty and volatility for fishermen
–require substantial new regulations and guidelines
–cause more procedural delay in the management process
–mandate that councils take higher risks than they might deem advisable
–and eliminate one of the only market-driven and de-regulatory tools in the management toolbox—the LAPPs.

Finally, by providing the least protection to the weakest fish populations, these four bills actually increase the probabilities of future stock failures and job losses in my opinion.

I think that they could put New England’s groundfisheries right back in the 20-year deep ditch they have just now started to climb out of.

The first New England groundfishing season using a management plan in full compliance with the new Reauthorization Act requirements ended April 2011.

The net profits to the small business boat owners that year are reported to have increased $10.8 million—in a year when quotas were significantly cut, the Council started an entirely new management program, and diesel prices went up 30%.

If the New England Council had not shifted to the “sector” catch share program they now use, the economic estimates were that the fleet might lose 15 million dollars.

As stated in a letter sent to the New England Congressional delegation on Nov. 14, 109 fishing captains –- some of N.E.’s best small business owners in the groundfishery –- want to retain the current catch share program and management program.

By my count, these folks have seen rules changes on average every four months from March 1994 to May 2010. They think that’s enough and I tend to agree with them. They believe they can make the Magnuson Act work and I agree with them there as well.

These four bills do not directly address one of the three specific things those knowledgeable fishermen have asked for in their letter to the delegation.

1) Management stability
2) New opportunities to target rebuilt fish stocks and reduce operations costs
3) Funding to improve and increase frequency of stock assessments to support effective management

Despite the often heated rhetoric, it is clear to me that more New England fishermen are starting to have some hope based on the success of the sectors program. These fishermen now need regulatory stability so they can continue to grow their businesses.

Moreover, there are strong signs that the Magnuson Act Reauthorization is working around the country. Overfishing is finally stopping and many fish stocks are growing, sometimes rapidly.

I am confident that  conditions will continue to improve if the course is continued and not weakened. Decades of overfishing can’t be turned around overnight. Full recovery will take time and patience and there will be some very rough spots ahead. we can get through them without new law and when statutory changes are needed, such as with the Canadian trans-boundary issue last year in New England, precise and surgical changes can be made that minimize the ever present risk of unintended consequences.

In 1976, Congress created a fishery management council system, which is unique in the country and one that many skeptics thought couldn’t work. But the system brings regional and local values and local political accountability to these complex and multi-faceted fishery decisions and management actions and risks get adjusted for local conditions.  In New England, the Council system is starting to work for more and more fisheries and fishermen.

I urge the Committee to continue to trust the council system and the agencies with these tough management decisions without statutory micromanagement. I also urge the Committee to fund the agencies and programs so they can succeed.

Thank you and I look forward to answering your questions.