[OnTheFlats]

The concept of putting more "flexibility" into fisheries management has become a real hot-button issue in much of the recreational-fishing community, particularly since late last year when Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC) introduced into Congress legislation intending to change our national fisheries.

The Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2007 (HR 4087) would allow federal fisheries managers to extend deadlines (generally set at a maximum 10 years by the current Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) for rebuilding some stocks.

We focused (and took a position) on this very issue in our February editorial. That brought a more immediate and passionate response than any recent editorial, with many strongly agreeing with Sport Fishing's stand and some contesting it.

You can read a debate between the RFA and Pew Institute here.

What do you think?

[Seth]

When will people wake up to the fact that our oceans are being depleted of fish faster than they are able to recover. The demand for fish from the oceans is unsustainable.
It is very apparent that fisheries management is an oxymoron. What management? When the very segment of the fishing community that is responsible for taking the most fish is in charge of the management what real progress can we expect. Commercial operations continue to cry foul. "We are not taking as much fish, we cannot sustain our operations, why do we take all the blame for reductions, look at how many recreational boats there are taking fish". The obvious reason there are less fish being caught and fewer dollars to pass around is because there are less fish, duh! Everyone is defensive and territorial. This is not just a local, regional or U.S. problem. This is a global problem. Since we cannot force other countries to enforce or amend laws protecting various ocean species, we have to look to our own backyards. Unfortunately, some see this as unfair. Maybe it is, maybe it is not. None the less, something has to happen. The current state of management is a failure. Sure, you can point to a few success stories, but in aggregate the picture continues to worsen. What should happen and how>?
Limitations on catch counts, banning the taking of certain species, restrictions on areas open to commercial operations both domestic and international have a direct impact on fish populations. This is not rocket science. We can only enforce our own territorial waters. If nothing else, let's be the standard bearer for the rest of the world.
Personally, I have no problem with someone making a living anyway they see fit, so long as it is legal, but certain measures must be taken in regards to preserving the oceans fishes. I also firmly believe most of the onus falls on international commercial operations that engage in long/flag lining, purse seining and bottom dredging. Without international enforcement or fear of persecution there is no accountability.
There must be a system in place that is based on real scientific evidence and not economic consequence. Without healthy oceans we will all pay a heavy price down the road. We should NOT allow ourselves to enter the race for the last fish.
I have rambled long enough, for now.

[Onemorecast]

I think this pretty much says it all: "HR 4087 Sponsor, Rep. Barney Frank, a strong ally to his commercial fishing constituents in New England and who presided over the New England Groundfish collapse, wrote. “If the same rebuilding targets can be met in, say, 13 years instead of 10, without compromising the ultimate rebuilding goal, who is hurt?” One can see how this plays out in the real world, because the latest reauthorization of the Magnuson Act did exactly what Congressman Frank suggests, changing the rebuilding deadline for summer flounder from 10 to 13 years. What did fisheries managers do with such new-found “flexibility?” Exactly what they did before. They ignored the recommendations of their own scientists and chose the riskiest option available to them, even though they were warned that overfishing would probably result. “Managers and industry are not doing anything with the extra 3 years, except complaining that it doesn’t provide enough time,” noted Coastal Conservation Association New York Chairman, Charles Witek “The longer the rebuilding period, the longer people will procrastinate. If you gave them fifty years to rebuild the stock, they would still opt for the largest short-term harvest, and in year 47 we would be right where we are today, with the industry people complaining about their situation and demanding that more “flexibility” be written into the law.”

Read the entire article here: http://www.tidewise.com/index.php?op...tid=35:General

[rook]

It is refreshing to find a sportfishing magazine with the journalistic integrity to present a balanced view of such a controversial issue.

I must confess that I never heard of Sportfishing Magazine prior to this issue. (I don't think it is carried in my local shops.) Now I'm glad that I have.

[Karen]

All of the things that are being said here would ring true if summer flounder were in trouble.

Yet all of these arguments conveniently overlook the fact that the summer flounder biomass has grown by 400 percent since 2000 and is at the highest level ever recorded in its history, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Even if all harvest of summer flounder stops tomorrow, the bycatch mortality used by NMFS in its computer models will say overfishing is occurring. That alone should be a red flag that something has gone horribly wrong with the system.

In addition, the only method fisheries managers have available to use to "fix" the situation involves increasing the minimum size of the fish we're allowed to keep -- their way of deterring anglers from fishing. NMFS proposed a coastwide limit for summer flounder of two fish at a minimum of 19 1/2 inches. Interestingly, the NEAMAP fall trawl survey showed that out of 97 summer flounder culled that were 19 inches or larger, 97 of them were female. That's right. Every single one. So NMFS' own regulations direct us to take the breeding females. How, exactly, do these regulations contribute to rebuilding the biomass?

These regulations are promulgated by groups that really want us to stop fishing, period. If they get their way and the cuts continue, there will be significant job losses at a time when the nation's economy is already struggling. We can preserve every single fish the way Lee Crockett and the others want, but just exactly who will be around to teach the next generation how to fish?

If you lose this generation of fishermen, who will be around to buy your magazines?

Recreational anglers aren't asking to take every last fish. We just want to be able to take a few fish home for dinner.

Is that really too much to ask?

[Onemorecast]

"Yet all of these arguments conveniently overlook the fact that the summer flounder biomass has grown by 400 percent since 2000 and is at the highest level ever recorded in its history, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service."

Nobody is overlooking this. Everyone acknowledges that fluke are quite a bit more abundant than they were just 10 years ago. That should be a good indication that the management plan is indeed working (thanks to the enviros who had the foresight to sue NMFS so that it would implement a rebuilding plan with an actual chance of succeeding). But they are not near what scientists say they can be. And might I point out that some angling industry groups went hand-in-hand with the commercial folks kicking and screaming all the way, always fighting for size and bag limits that frequently went beyond what scientists recommended. If managers did what those groups wanted we'd be in really bad shape. The below from McMurray's article:

"These improvements are consistent with what fishermen report — more and larger fluke than ever before. "We're on the right track. We've rebuilt a lot.” Coakley said. “There's a lot more fish out there, and they're older fish." This confirms how low this population was due to massive overfishing in the 1980s. Now, because of limits on overfishing, the stock has begun to rebound. A point that gets missed by critics, who tend to demonize what they call “the environmental industry”, is that this progress wouldn't have occurred without those in the environmental community holding the National Marine Fisheries Service legally accountable for conserving and rebuilding fish stocks.”

"Even if all harvest of summer flounder stops tomorrow, the bycatch mortality used by NMFS in its computer models will say overfishing is occurring. That alone should be a red flag that something has gone horribly wrong with the system."

What? Where on earth did you get this from? Again, below from McMurray's article:

"NOAA scientists say that recent stock growth, despite growing fishing pressure and high fishing mortality rates, suggests that the current environment can support a large summer flounder population. Thus, the target is realistic based on the capacity of the stock to reproduce."

"In addition, the only method fisheries managers have available to use to "fix" the situation involves increasing the minimum size of the fish we're allowed to keep -- their way of deterring anglers from fishing. NMFS proposed a coastwide limit for summer flounder of two fish at a minimum of 19 1/2 inches. Interestingly, the NEAMAP fall trawl survey showed that out of 97 summer flounder culled that were 19 inches or larger, 97 of them were female. That's right. Every single one. So NMFS' own regulations direct us to take the breeding females. How, exactly, do these regulations contribute to rebuilding the biomass?"

BY REDUCING MORTALITY! Fisheries Management 101.

"These regulations are promulgated by groups that really want us to stop fishing, period."

More “enviro-boogieman” scare-tactics in hopes of creating an us-against-them scenario. It should be noted here that both CCA and ASA were in favor of a 10 year rebuilding period. CCA has been vocal about maintaining it and following the best available science. I seriously doubt they want to stop all fishing. In fact the assumption is ridiculous.

"If you lose this generation of fishermen, who will be around to buy your magazines?"

Those folks that aren’t dinosaurs, who enjoy the simple act of fishing, and understand the very real need for strong rebuilding measures.

"Recreational anglers aren't asking to take every last fish. We just want to be able to take a few fish home for dinner. Is that really too much to ask?

Certainly not... But weakening fishery management law with a "flexibility" (aka procrastination/perpetual overfishing) amendment certainly is.

[Karen]

Originally Posted by Onemorecast

More “enviro-boogieman” scare-tactics

If the shoe fits, Mr. McMurray. If the shoe fits ...

[Longlnr]

It still escapes me why those clamoring for "flexibility" say it isn't about taking more fish. It is. The built in flexibility in the current MSA is for unforeseeable environmental factors, not for continued ignorance of or indifference to the best available science. Some fisheries managers don't (or won't) use the tools at hand to do what has to be done. The viewpoint of "We'll worry about it next year" has brought us to our current situation. Setting meaningful limits now, although tough to swallow, will result in a turnaround in SSB and TAL will likely increase as the stock continues to rebuild. Ignorance will lead to a short season, or none at all, for Summer Flounder in 2009. The last thing we need is more "flexibility", so all of the work done up 'til now can be thrown out the window.

[Longlnr]

If you are trying to fill a swimming pool that holds 10,000 gallons, and refills at 2 gallons per hour, if you draw 2.1 gallons per hour from it, it will empty. You can talk about the shape of the pool, how deep it is, and so on, bu it doesn't change the problem

BTW- It's refreshing to see a magazine that presents open minded articles, not the same old "Look at how many fish we caught!". Sign me up for a year!

[Karen]

Originally Posted by Onemorecast

Whose shoe are you talking about Mr. Hutchinson???

Last time I checked, I am female and I am posting under my real name, which is Karen Wall.