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.

• 

  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.

• “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.

As I wrote in a recent post here on CLF Scoop, 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. We recently posted that clip to YouTube. You can watch it by clicking on the image below.

You can also download a transcript of my testimony here, or read it here.

Thanks for supporting CLF’s work to rebuild a vibrant New England fishery.

Catch up with the latest news on Talking Fish, 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. Talking Fish aims to increase people’s understanding of the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries. Here’s what went on this week:

• August 16: “Consumer education is the key to better prices for New England fish” – Glen Libby, Maine fisherman, writes about educating consumers about the importance of buying fish that are caught locally and are sold at prices that allow fishermen to make a profit and continue to fish sustainably and responsibly.
• August 18: “Overfishing 101: Why rebuilding fish populations benefits everyone” – In the latest post in his “Overfishing 101″ series, Lee Crockett of the Pew Environment Group writes about how rebuilding fish populations provides long-term benefits for commercial fishermen, coastal communities, ecosystems, consumers, and recreational fishermen.
• August 18: “Fish Talk in the News – Thursday, August 18″ – A weekly update of recent news stories that might interest Talking Fish readers.

Great white sharks off the coast of Massachusetts. (Photo credit: Green Massachusetts)

Let’s be honest. When we talk about great white sharks, we are usually talking about their appetites. White sharks have been found with a number of thought-provoking objects in their stomachs, including a partial suit of armor and an engine block. But what they really like is large, fatty ocean going animals: tuna, seals and sea lions, rays, whale carcasses. These are not always easy to catch, so sharks employ a number of hunting strategies, including a sneak attack from behind (shudder) and rushing up from the depths (double shudder). So, while their feeding style can be quite lively, and more than a little intimidating, scientists believe it is usually a case of “mistaken identity” when a shark bites a human, not mindless, malicious predation. White sharks are visual predators, and sometimes we humans do a fairly good seal impersonation. Often, once the shark realizes there has been a misunderstanding, it will move on to something tastier. Don’t get me wrong; I am not recommending anyone take their chances in the water with these big fish. If there is a shark sighting at your favorite beach, please stay out until you hear it’s safe again. I know they’re out there, but it gives me a bit of comfort to think that if they REALLY wanted to eat us then we’d know about it by now.

Shark survival, and hopefully I’ve convinced you by now that this is a good thing, is dependent on a robust, thriving food chain. Overfishing, coastal pollution (especially nutrient pollution), and the byproducts of power generation are severely impairing our near shore and blue water ecosystems. Coastal areas function as nurseries for ocean going fish, birds, and other marine life. So a small area of degradation can have a big effect out to sea. Protecting sensitive coastal ecosystems is protecting the bottom of the food chain. The things at the bottom feeds the things we like to eat (shellfish, cod, striped bass), the things we like to see (seals, whales), and things we maybe don’t want around, but are good anyway (sharks). CLF is working to protect these important ecosystems. From supporting our National Ocean Policy, to fighting dirty emissions that create unhealthy acidic water, to promoting healthy estuaries, CLF is on the forefront of efforts to protect our oceans and keep their waters clean and productive for generations to come.

(Photo credit: NOAA Photo Library)

It’s more of an obsession, really. I spend a lot of time in the water: surfing, boogie boarding with my kids, or just cooling off. I think about sharks every time I get in the ocean. If I haven’t had a good long think about them before I get in, then I ponder their existence as soon as I’ve made it out past the break and I’m dangling my feet off the sides of my seal shaped surfboard. If you meet a surfer who says they don’t think about sharks, they are lying.

So, why the love? Well, I love the ocean. I love a balanced ecosystem. I love eating fish and shellfish. Sharks are one of our more exciting apex predators. An apex predator is the one at the top of the food chain that keeps the populations in check all the way down the line. Recent studies on shark populations have found that a drop in shark numbers leads to plummeting shellfish populations. Sharks eat other predatory fish, as well as rays and other animals that feed on shellfish. Once the sharks are gone, the clams, scallops and oyster populations are preyed on heavily by animals that would normally not be so abundant.  Unfortunately, sharks are declining precipitously around the world. Sharks are taken intentionally for “finning” (the removal of fins for shark fin soup), and unintentionally as bycatch during the fishing of other species. Marine scientists aren’t exactly sure how things would play out if sharks were gone, but none of the scenarios are good.

In “A Sand County Almanac,” Aldo Leopold wrote about one of the apex predators of the west. In his days with the Forest Service there was a mass kill policy for wolves. As a result, deer populations exploded. This led to major overgrazing of mountain vegetation. Erosion and river-choking sedimentation are a couple of the problems associated with overgrazing. Leopold wrote: “I now suspect that just as a deer herd lives in mortal fear of its wolves, so does a mountain live in mortal fear of its deer.” This was a formative part of his land ethic. Simply put “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

The release last year of our National Ocean Policy (NOP) was a big step in promoting a saltwater version of this ethic. CLF’s Priscilla Brooks had this to say about the newly created NOP: “For the first time in this country’s history, we will have a national policy that aligns the great promise of our oceans with the great responsibility for managing them in a coordinated, thoughtful and sustainable fashion. New England has led the charge to balance the ever-increasing interest in our state waters … with the need to protect wildlife and critical habitat areas so that our region’s oceans will continue to be productive for generations to come. From Massachusetts to Rhode Island to Maine, we are developing ocean management plans that will serve as guides for better protection and management in federal waters across the nation.”

Ecosystem-based management is at the heart of the NOP. Healthy shark populations are just one facet of a balanced ecosystem. Seal populations have been recovering after near decimation from hunting (and a thriving shark population will keep the seals in check). Some commercial fish populations are now recovering from decades of overfishing. Shellfish, seals, sharks, commercial fish – all are linked. We can’t “manage” one without the effects cascading through the others. Ecosystem-based ocean management plans will consider these connections.

So, even as I picture just what it would look like if a great white shark came rushing from the depths for a neoprene-wrapped snack (me), I still love sharks.  I try to be sensible. I avoid the water at dawn and dusk (unless the waves are really good). I stay in shallow water. I get out of the areas where seabirds are working – evidence of major food chain activity. And I’ll take a shark sighting as seriously as anyone. But, since sharks are essential for thriving, productive oceans, they are good to have around. Even if I don’t want them around me.

Catch the latest news from Talking Fish, the blog brought to you by CLF and others that is focused on the scientific, financial and social aspects at work in New England’s fisheries.

July 1: “Federal judge puts an end to judicial fishing season for Amendment 16,” by Peter Shelley

June 30: “Overfishing 101: How Science Helps Managers End Overfishing and Rebuild Depleted Stock Populations,” by Lee Crockett

“New England’s listening session on the National Ocean Policy was this week – how did fishing factor into the conversation?” by Talking Fish

June 29: “The Catch of Climate Change: What is Ocean Acidification?” by Nancy Shrodes

New Bedford Harbor. Photo credit: brixton, flickr

Yesterday, in a ruling by the Massachusetts District Court in a lawsuit by the City of New Bedford and others challenging the legality of the fishing regulations known as Amendment 16 , Judge Rya Zobel denied the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment in the case, upholding the regulations. CLF intervened in the case in September 2010 on the side of the Federal government. CLF’s motion and the government’s motion for summary judgment were allowed, terminating the case. Read CLF’s complete press statement >

In response, CLF’s Peter Shelley reflected on the decision’s significance in the commercial fishing industry in a blog post published in Talking Fish, the blog developed by CLF and others that focuses on fisheries management issues in New England. Shelley wrote:

Federal judge Rya Zobel was talking fish recently when she declared an end to the judicial fishing season for Amendment 16, terminating the two suits brought by the Cities of New Bedford and Gloucester and a variety of commercial fishing interests from Massachusetts and the mid-Atlantic. Judge Zobel’s ruling, while it may yet be appealed to a higher court by the plaintiffs, puts to bed several issues that have been floating around New England’s groundfish for several years.

First, the decision strengthens the role of the New England Fishery Management Council and NMFS in their critical planning process by emphasizing that the “Agency’s informed conclusion, reached at Congress’ express direction after an extended and formal administrative process” effectively binds the reviewing court’s hands under well-established principles of law. By  emphasizing this point, the Court made clear that the plan development process through the Council was where attention should be paid by all interested parties and that the courts were not available to second guess management planning decisions. Many saw New Bedford’s and Gloucester’s legal action as a thinly disguised effort at an end run around the council. Fortunately, it hasn’t paid off. Keep reading on Talking Fish >

Background on Amendment 16

This amendment, part of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan, establishes science-based annual catch limits for cod, haddock, flounder and other groundfish as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act to end overfishing in U.S. waters. Amendment 16 also creates a voluntary sector system for the New England groundfish fishery. CLF has been in support of Amendment 16 since its inception, reasoning that the new regulations allow fishermen to increase their profits while leaving more fish in the ocean, which is particularly important for species such as the Atlantic cod, which have been dangerously overfished in previous decades. Read more on CLF’s involvement with Amendment 16 and fisheries management issues in New England >