John McMurray

The tragic decline in the credibility of the angling community as a conservation force.
By Capt. John McMurray

At one time, anglers were proudly at the forefront of the marine conservation movement, calling on regulators to cut landings and impose more restrictions on all users, including anglers, for the betterment of our fish populations. Anglers’ passionate efforts to rebuild the striped bass population in the 1980s and ‘90s, including wide support for a harvest moratorium, represent just one shining example of that conservation legacy. However, in recent years, that all seems to have changed.

The problem seems most acute in the upper mid-Atlantic region where I reside. There, a small but very vocal minority has somehow managed to hijack many of the local outdoor publications. Their intemperate rants, which sound like nothing so much as the self-serving rhetoric of the New England commercial fishing community, makes it appear as if the recreational fishing community has abandoned a conservation ethic and adopted the “we-need-to-kill-more-fish-and-to-hell-with-the-future” mantra that was (and still is) all too commonly heard repeated on fish docks anywhere from Brielle to Gloucester to Portland.

It’s easy to understand why such sentiments arise. People who make their living by putting a price on the head of a fish see more restrictive regulations and other conservation efforts as immediate and direct threats to their livelihood. Concerned with paying for this month’s dockage and next week’s groceries, they concentrate on short-term profits and are nearly blind to the long-term benefits of science-based fisheries management. Thus, fisheries managers must rise to the challenge of making difficult decisions that focus on the long term, knowing that such a “tough love” approach is best for fish and fishermen alike.

I find it extremely disturbing that a contingent of the fishing community has now gone so far as to partner with the commercial fishing community, and continues to mount a concerted effort to tear the most important conservation provisions out of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation Act, which was reauthorized after much work a bit more than a year ago. Using bullying tactics that seem calculated to intimidate and stigmatize anyone who opposes them, they label conservationists, including conservation-minded anglers, as “elitists,” “environmental radicals” and “extremists” trying to “take food off the table,” “putting good folks out of business” etc. While that is simply not true, it has had the effect of making many anglers suspicious of biologists, fisheries managers and conservation efforts generally, and creating a “real men kill fish” attitude among the less knowledgeable members of the angling community. Readers need only look at previous fishery management success stories, including striped bass, haddock and red drum, to understand how important angler-supported conservation efforts are to the health of our fisheries, and to realize how the current anti-conservation message being spewed from some media outlets threatens the long-term prospects of the nation’s marine resources.

Hiding behind the euphemism “flexibility”, commercial fishermen and their allies in the recreational community call for the extension or removal of rebuilding deadlines for species such as summer flounder, grouper and red snapper. Years ago, we heard New England groundfishermen voice similar cries as they devastated stocks of fish that had previously supported not only North Americans, but most of coastal Europe, for more than five centuries. It is sad that some who purport to represent anglers would take us back to the days when too much emphasis on short-term economic well-being led to the collapse of not only our northeastern fisheries, but a traditional way of life in the region. Now, despite a decade of tougher management, cod populations are still a shadow of what they were, and there are serious doubts that some species, such as winter flounder, will ever come back. The commercial fishing industry’s short-term mindset has brought great hardship to commercial fishermen; I now fear that anglers have also lost their long-term perspective, and in adopting the attitudes of the commercial fishery, will suffer the same awful fate.

Editorial dishonesty is adding to the problem. Too many publications and too many columnists prejudice their readers against scientific fisheries management, throwing around emotion-laden catch phrases such as “Arbitrary rebuilding deadlines”, “pie in the sky targets” and other such catch phrases, in an effort to make scientists and conservationists look like fools. (My favorite nonsense headline came from a New Jersey paper which announced “Fluke Anglers Take On Experts Blinded by Science”, suggesting that knowledge and technical expertise is antithetical to proper fisheries management, and that ignorance is, in fact, bliss. These folks don’t have a leg to stand on when confronted with the science, but since they never print both sides of a story, they give their readers no opportunity to form an educated opinion about fisheries issues—which is what they want, because education is the greatest threat to their position.

There is a very real battle underway for the soul of the angling community, pitting those who are fighting to kill more fish now, and perhaps never fully restoring our fisheries, against folks who have taken a longer view and support precautionary measures to ensure there are abundant stocks of fish around for the next generation.

I know where I stand. The question is, who’s doing the “right” thing here, and which side are you on?

How your tax dollars contribute to overfishing
By Capt. John McMurray

Paying taxes is certainly not something we take any pleasure in doing, but Franklin D. Roosevelt correctly noted “Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.” The underlying assumption to Roosevelt’s comments were that such “dues” would be used to advance the public interest. In the case of our overstressed marine fisheries, that has not always been the case.

For at least the past 50 years, one of the problems that has bedeviled fishery managers is “overcapacity,” which can be described simply as “too many fishermen chasing too few fish.” Unfortunately, while one branch of government is trying to solve such problems, another perpetuates them through subsidies and incentive programs that defy market forces as well as the dictates of nature which would have otherwise rationalized in an economically unsustainable commercial fishing industry. As a result of such government intervention, the industry has continued to overfish many historically and biologically significant fish stocks. And, it is the public’s tax dollars that are supporting such destruction of public resources.

One example is the Fisheries Financing Program, which grew out of the Fisheries Loan Fund in the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. Under that plan, the federal government guarantees loans made to fishing vessel owners, fish processors and other fishing-related businesses. In return, banks work with the government to offer fishermen loans with longer amortization periods and very low interest rates. Although the lending bank is a private entity, NOAA Fisheries play a major role, processing the loan applications and often introduce fishermen to a potential lender. Most such loans have financed the construction, replacement, and/or upgrading of commercial vessels thus helping to create a large fleet of increasingly advanced fishing vessels that continue to wreak havoc on fish and fish habitat.

While recent regulations prohibit any financing or refinancing that could contribute to overcapitalization by increasing harvesting capacity, such regulations can’t undo the harm that the program has caused by overcapitalizing the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery, the New England groundfish fishery and the U.S. Pacific tuna fishery, all of which are now suffering the effects of depleted stocks and increased regulation.

The Capital Construction Fund (CCF) created by the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, may be an even more harmful incentive program, and one without even minimal safeguards against overcapitalization. CCF was conceived after the passage of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in the late 1970s, when it was thought that U.S. fishermen would enjoy substantial increases in landings once foreign fishermen were excluded from US waters, and reflected a Federal policy of encouraging the expansion and modernizing of the U.S. fishing fleet.

CCF, which is jointly administered by NOAA Fisheries and the Internal Revenue Service, allows fishermen to defer income tax on profits from fishing by setting such money aside in a special account for the eventual construction, upgrading or acquisition of fishing vessels. The amount deferred is, in effect, an interest free vessel construction loan from the Government. Just like the Fisheries Financing Program, CCF has had the effect of increasing the number, size, range and efficiency of commercial fishing vessels, so they can go out farther and more effectively exploit declining stocks.

Besides providing direct financial aid, the Federal Government has a long-standing record of providing free marketing, promotion, and development assistance to the nation’s fisheries, even those that are exploiting stocks in serious decline. NOAA Fisheries has also played a key role in fishing gear technology development and seafood processing technology, thus helping fishers become more efficient.

NOAA Fisheries has also advocated the development of fisheries for so-called “underutilized species”, providing incentives and subsidies for promotion, marketing and, in some cases vessel refitting. A number of instances exist in which government incentives to expand underutilized fisheries have led to quick overcapacity and overfishing of the target species. The tragic collapse of several Atlantic shark species provides what may be the best example.

Federal “Fishery Disaster Assistance” authorized under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act has also proven problematic. Such assistance might be appropriate in the case of natural disasters, such as hurricanes and other severe coastal storms. It also might be appropriate when fisheries collapse due to human activity unrelated to fishing, such as the sharp decline in Pacific salmon populations after the damming of rivers in the Pacific Northwest cut off the fish’s access to productive spawning habitat. Even in the case of natural and man-made “disasters”, it is not clear that using federal funding to restore the status quo is a better long-term policy than using the same funds to implement capacity reduction through buyouts or other means.

However, we witness a clear abuse of Fishery Disaster Assistance funding when federal money is used to bail out commercial fishing fleets that have brought the so-called “disaster” upon themselves through pure greed and lack of foresight, and fished stocks down to the point of collapse. In 1995, a thirty million dollar handout of that sort was provided to New England commercial fishermen to help them through the self-inflicted “crisis” caused by the depletion of cod and other groundfish. Today, cod and other groundfish stocks are still in bad shape and the fishing industry remains a basket case. It is very likely that both the fish and the fishing industry would have been far healthier if market forces had been allowed to rationalize the fleet and force the large number of marginally profitable operators out of the fishery.

Today, history seems poised to repeat itself. The Governor of Massachusetts has requested Federal Disaster Assistance for commercial fishermen in his state, claiming that recent regulations, intended to help recover groundfish stocks from decades of overfishing, have caused “a true economic disaster.” He is basically asking the public to insulate New England fishermen from the predictable consequences of their own actions, and to pick up the tab for years of avoidable overfishing. Some argue that the commercial fleets were only following federal rules when they plundered groundfish stocks, ignoring the fact that the commercial fishing industry’s lobbyists relentlessly and, until recently, successfully pushed for federal rules that allowed overfishing to continue. It is absurd to even consider using pubic tax money to again save the commercial fishing industry from its own folly, and naïve to believe that, should such bailout take place, the fishermen wouldn’t immediately seek regulations that would allow them to continue to overfish groundfish.

Not all federal subsidies are bad. Programs that buy back vessels, permits or quota shares provide an economic incentive for fishermen to leave the industry should receive a larger share of federal fisheries assistance funding. Such programs were not effective in the past, because they did not give adequate consideration to “latent capacity.” Vessels owners would sell back a vessel or particular permits, then merely concentrate their fishing effort on other fisheries not included in the program. Other fishers who. although permitted, were not active participants in a fishery, will take advantage of their previously unused permits to enter the fishery and fill the void left by those that are bought out. Fishermen can also alter their behavior when they know that a buyout program is being considered, staying in a fishery longer than they otherwise would have, hoping that the buyout will bring a financial windfall. However, good buyout programs can be designed to minimize such occurrences. Some buyback efforts, including effirts financed by the fishing industry, are currently under way.

Subsidies for job retraining, which permits the economic diversification of previously fishing-dependent communities, are also a productive use of federal money. Programs for non-fishing economic development can assist displaced workers find other jobs and identify new economic enterprises in such communities. Finally, it is difficult to argue against using federal funding for research and development of bycatch reduction devices and habitat-friendly gear.

Thus, federal fisheries assistance funding is not inherently bad, but merely misdirected. The federal government should stop providing economic incentives for economically marginal businesses to remain active in a fishery, when market forces and a scarcity of fish dictate otherwise. Congress should end support for the construction and refitting of vessels, and permit banks to base their lending decisions on the viability of the borrower’s business. Dollars previously allocated to such programs should be redirected toward efforts that will end overcapitalization, reduce bycatch and improve gear selectivity. Using taxpayer dollars in an attempt to keep economically moribund businesses on life support is a breach of the public trust and the worst kind of pork barrel spending.

On May 5, 2007, a bipartisan group of 13 United States Senators introduced a resolution calling for the U.S. to pursue an international ban on government subsidies that contribute to overfishing. As egregious as some U.S. programs are, this nation provides far fewer such subsidies than does Japan, the European Union or China. The Senate resolution inherently recognizes that fact, but the Senate should also look inward and propose a national ban on destructive subsidies as well. However, such a measure would not be popular in many coastal states, and we are not likely to see such a proposal made in the foreseeable future.

A prior version of this piece appeared in FFSW Magazine

By Capt. John McMurray

In writing this article I had initially set out to pen a brief, easy to understand rundown of how the marine fisheries management systems works. However, the title I came up with struck me as ironic and somewhat funny. I thought perhaps I should use the title: Fisheries Management by Dummies, as opposed to Fisheries Management for Dummies, as the prior is a pretty accurate description of how our marine resources have been managed as of late. But what can we expect when industry insiders have a big part in writing their own regulations.

NOAA Fisheries, the federal bureaucracy in charge of fisheries management, conducts the scientific research on which all fisheries regulations are ostensibly based. While the law requires the agency to actually issue the regulations, such regulations are largely based on recommendations from the eight regional fishery management councils.

Each state belonging to a Council is guaranteed at least two seats, one going to its “fisheries professional” and another “obligatory” seat to a member of the private sector; in addition, there are “at large” seats that may be filled by private-sector representatives from any of the member states. Governors of member states nominate each Council’s appointed members, who are supposed to be “knowledgeable regarding the conservation and management, or the commercial or recreational harvest, of the fishery resources of the geographic area concerned.” The Secretary of Commerce than appoints the council members from the list of governors’ appointees.

Despite the fact that fish are a public resource, the overwhelming majority of nongovernmental members of the councils are fishing industry insiders: commercial fishermen, operators of charter boats, seafood processors, etc., thus they have a direct financial interest in the fishery resource they are charged with conserving. Since members with a financial stake in the outcome of a vote will, far too often, strain all logic and ignore applicable science in an effort to maintain or even increase current fishing limits, the situation inevitably creates a fox-in-charge-of-the-hen-house scenario.

Fishery management council members are subject to conflict-of-interest rules, but the standard is so lax that virtually no one is ever disqualified from a vote, and only rarely does one recuse himself. Undoubtedly, most council members see themselves as representatives of specific special interests rather than the public trust. They take an oath to act for the good of the nation, but it defies human nature to willingly vote against the financial interests of family and friends.

This perceived and real conflict of interest is only part of the problem. Council members are also responsible for both conservation and allocation decisions. Not only do they decide how many fish are caught, but also who can catch them. Because larger catches are easier to divvy up among competing fishery interests, the councils’ allocation responsibilities all too often cause them to set fishery limits which are too high and undermine fishery conservation. In a rational world, the science alone should determine catch levels (how many fish can sustainably be taken from the sea) while the councils should determine how the catch is allocated.

Since the passage of Sustainable Fishing Act in 1996 this has gotten somewhat better, but it still isn’t “fixed.” For the most part the science does decide the quota and the council allocates it. But, if there is some doubt about the science, the councils tend to pick the highest permissible number, but if they pick a harvest that is not sustainable, NOAA Fisheries won’t let it go as we saw in the case of fluke this winter.

Prior to 1996 councils would consistently override scientific conclusions and set catch limits that were too high because the Magnuson Act required them to take into account the socioeconomic impacts on fishermen and the communities they support. By law Councils could not use the science alone to make equitable decisions. On the surface, this may seem like a rational rule, however, it had enabled shortsighted Councils to make irresponsible allocation and harvest decisions that have ruined many fisheries and the communities they support. What happened to the cod fishing communities in New England is a darn good example. After the 1996 socio-economic data may only be used to choose between two plans if both meet the recovery standards.

Both the Pew Oceans Commission and the Bush Administration’s US Commission on Ocean Policy reports make it very clear that the conflict-of-interest issues needed to be addressed if we are to ever have hope of maintaining wild fish stocks at sustainable levels, but so far nothing has been done. The Magnuson Act reauthorization bill that past in the final moments of the last congress did little to address the situation.

The final version failed to include a provision to expand council membership to include a wider range of constituencies instead of just those who stood to profit from fisheries. The bill also failed to limit the voting powers of council members who have direct financial conflicts of interest, although it does mandate “increasing training” for regional fishery council members regarding conflict of interest issues.

We need a legislative fix, but aside from a lot of lip service, from Congress and the Bush administration nothing is in the works. Politicians lack the political will to dismantle the culture of conflicts in the councils. In part, this represents pandering to special interests comprising the fishing industry, but it also reflects the low priority many legislators place on fisheries issues. People like to eat fish, but they are not too interested in where they come from, or how many are left. Fortunately, that seems to be changing with each front page news article that addresses the declining state of our oceans.

(Origionally published in FFSW magazine)

By Capt. John McMurray

How was your bluefin season this year? I hope better than mine as I didn’t see one, much less hook one. Last year my boat probably saw over 50 of these extraordinary fish, and I wasn’t alone. Many northeast and mid-Atlantic flyfishers took advantage of the spectacular run of school bluefin tuna we had just a few miles from the shore last year. Why these fish suddenly appeared remains a mystery. However, some scientists believe that the abundance of small fish were spawned by year classes born in 94 that are just maturing.

But why then did we not see them again in the same sort of numbers this year? No data exists on these school bluefin at the moment, and the abundance could be a result of the redistribution of the forage base, or simply changing water temps, but conditions in 2006 really weren’t much different from 2005’s.

Currently, there is a tagging study underway which will track movements of juvenile bluefin. But, the question still remains: Will those school bluefin make it to spawning size before harvest depletes their numbers? Sadly, I am not optimistic. I suspect those fish went to the Mediterranean over the winter as some studies suggest school bluefin do. And I suspect they were they scooped up by the gigantic fleet of European purse-seine boats out there? This belief is reinforced by the fact that I saw hundreds of these fish blitzing just a couple hundred yards from the beach while vacationing in Maderia, an Island off of Portugal, last January. These were the same size fish we had here. Unfortunately, there are no commercial or recreational size limits on tuna in Europe, and while there are quotas, there is little to no enforcement.

Despite the abundance of school bluefin we saw last year, that may or may not have made it to 2007, The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) estimates that Atlantic Bluefin populations are at 10 to 20% of what they were in the early 70’s. Many scientists believe that unless some changes are made quickly, Atlantic bluefin could be headed toward extinction.

There are solutions to the problems bluefin are facing, but whether or not the managing authorities have the backbone to ensure this species doesn’t go the way of the passenger pigeon is in question. Bluefin are perhaps the most sought after fish in the ocean because of their unusually high commercial value in the Japanese sushi market (some fish can sell for upwards of $100K!). Therefore it’s no surprise that bluefin, specifically the Atlantic stock, are in serious decline.

There are two distinct populations of Atlantic Bluefin: A western stock that spawns in the Gulf of Mexico and an eastern stock which reproduces in the Mediterranean Sea. Back in the early 80’s ICCAT established the longitude 45 degrees west line, which runs down the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, as the boundary between the eastern and western management zones. That decision was based on the best science available at the time, which suggested that the two stocks were separate and rarely intermingled.

Stock assessments have indicated for some time that the western stock is in serious decline, but that the eastern stock, while still waning, is doing better. Today ICCAT limits the annual tuna catch in the western Atlantic to 3,000-tons while allowing an astounding 32,000-ton quota in the Eastern Atlantic.

A report published in the journal Nature last spring emphasized that the two “separate” stocks frequently ignore the longitude 45W boundary and intermingle regularly at productive feeding grounds. Thus, bluefin from the North American waters, where fishing regulations are strict and quotas relatively small, are crossing the ocean to areas where quotas are higher and regulations are often ignored. This raises serious questions about whether ICCAT quotas protect vulnerable western bluefin that cross the imaginary 45W line into eastern waters to feed.

The US must convince ICCAT to move the current east/west boundary east, toward European waters where the mixing occurs. That would protect some of the largest tuna with the greatest reproductive potential. Closing productive feeding grounds where the two stocks mix may also be warranted. Furthermore, the US needs to insist on tighter quotas in the Eastern Atlantic. Trade sanctions and other economic measures could be implemented by the US to push eastern countries to end routine violations of size and catch limits by their fleets.

That would be the first thing we could do to protect declining stocks. But, there is quite a bit more we could do on the domestic front. Stay tuned and I’ll cover some other aspects in a future blog.

ENVIROS, ANGLERS AND THEIR CHILDISH FIGHTS
By Capt. John McMurray

The bickering and mud-slinging between angling and environmental groups has been going on for quite some time. It boiled to a head about 5-years ago, mainly because of a Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) report recommending 20% of all waters be closed to any type of fishing. Yes, it was preposterous recommendation being that the 20% they were recommending was the only water anyone really fished, and since then the environmental community has backed down, and the moderate ones have been trying to work with angling groups and those “moderate” angling groups have been receptive (eg. The Menhaden Matter coalition). Of course, working together has indeed been somewhat difficult when angling groups are comparing environmental groups to terrorists in their fundraising letters and enviro groups, in many instances, are publicly blaming anglers for the bulk of overfishing.

Fortunately, the debate over access and marine protected areas ignited by the NRDC report 5 years ago has largely subsided, although there is still much disagreement. But, there is another issue that has arisen creating more “hate-and-loathing,” mud slinging, and ridiculous rhetoric from both sides of the fence. The argument is over summer flounder (what we call fluke), and despite the fact that most flyrodders don’t target them, how things turn out with this fish will have large repercussions on how all sportfish will be managed in the future.

The Magnuson Stevens Act requires that fisheries management plans end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks within 10-years and that all management plans have at least a 50% chance of achieving their goal. That simply is not happening with fluke because managers have refused to make the difficult but necessary decisions required. And so, there is no other choice but to cut harvest back substantially in 2007 and this will undoubtedly have a negative impact on the party-boat industry in NY and NJ. That’s not good and I feel for those fishing charter captains that will suffer as a result. But, what is worse is the fact that some angling industry groups have joined forces with the commercial fishing industry and are exploiting the bad news by using the fluke situation to help promote efforts to remove the most effective conservation provisions from the Magnuson Act, an action which, if successful, would permit overfishing even of badly depleted stocks to go on indefinitely. The 10-year rebuilding time frame provision in the Magnuson Act may not be popular in some circles, but it assures that managers will rebuild stocks despite political pressure to continue overfishing.

But those conservation minded anglers like me (and probably you because you are taking the time to read this) who support the existing rebuilding time frames and real success rates are being labeled “environmental extremists,” “animal rights supporters” or “want to take you off the water.” That’s simply not true, and claims to this effect are cynical attempts by members of the angling industry to drive a wedge between the “environmental” community and anglers and to use that rift to raise more money for their own self-serving purposes. To throw environmentalists into the category of “extremists” or “animal rights advocates” is as wrong as PETA labeling an angler a “bloodthirsty killer.”

Yes, there are most certainly environmental extremists out there, but they’re the exception, not the rule, just as some angling industry groups that disguise themselves as representatives of individual recreational fishermen are one extreme of the angling community, and don’t represent the average conservation-minded angler like you and I.

Of course enviros are not squeaky clean in any sense of the word. Those regular readers of this site know that I’ve been steadfast in defending the enviro community in the past; however, I must admit that I continue to get more and more annoyed with them. In many cases, they fail to make a distinction between Anglers and commercial fishermen. For example, a Type 2 MPA that prevents bottom trawling–or perhaps all bottom fishing in order to protect deep-water species, but permits low-impact angling activities like catch and release could be a win-win situation for both sides, and might make the rare occasion when a complete closure is justified more palatable to anglers. Instead, there seems to be little effort to acknowledge the very real difference between gear types, and at times the enviro groups seem to go out of their way to poke a stick in the eye of the angling community (the Pew-financed paper emphasizing the impact of recreational fishing on fish stocks being a perfect example). Most anglers in the know are fully aware that they have an impact of fish stocks, but releasing an inflammatory report that drastically overstates this fact was just a bad move on the enviros side.

And, with the current fluke issue, enviros should consider trading a couple of more rebuilding years–which may well be biologically necessary anyway–for a lessened chance of weakening the Magnuson Act. If they remain too dogmatic, and don’t buy a compromise, they can end up screwing up things and pushing the mid-Atlantic angling community farther toward the extremist anti-enviro camp.

By taking some of the actions they do, which are perhaps aimed at the extreme and irrational branch of the angling community, the enviro groups anger all anglers while needlessly provoking the angling industry extremists into reaction. This sort of thing is poisoning the attitudes of the angling community as a whole. None of us–the enviros, the rational anglers or the resource– will benefit if it continues, yet I don’t expect anyone’s behavior to change. I’m not sure whether it is arrogance or just a strategic blind spot on the enviros’ behalf; but, if they don’t make a conscious effort to reach out to their natural allies among the sportsmen and if the sportsmen then, all of us are going to lose.

With out a doubt, sportsmen have historically been and continue to be the most effective leaders of the conservation movement, and enviros should acknowledge that. No one’s rhetoric, whether it comes from the envro side or the angling side should allow this to change. Stop bickering kids! Put the darn egos and ideology aside for the time being and think practically. Working together on the important fisheries conservation issues that could very possibly result in what the both of us want: Clean water and more fish in the sea.