CCA wrong when it comes to allocating additional snapper to recreational anglers
By David Sikes <http://ift.tt/1f2i4lF;
March 27, 2014
CORPUS CHRISTI — Fisheries management would be so simple if regulations were based solely on science.
But that’s impossible in a world where special — interest groups, political factions, constituency pandering, public suspicion, misinformation, ignorance, economics, finger pointing and a host of other nonscientific influences get in the way of reason and sound policy decisions.
And in the case of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, not enough science really exists to know for certain whether the best available information is really that reliable. How do we accurately count fish in the sea? We don’t. We do the best we can based on a handful of near certainties.
Harvest count could be, and indeed should be, among these near-certainties. We know basically how many red snapper commercial boats remove from the gulf because they adopted a system in 2007 for logging their harvest. Actual fish counts now determine whether the commercial sector has achieved its annual share of the harvest.
The elimination of guesswork makes for better management. The commercial harvest mystery was solved and with that came professional flexibility with reasonable limits.
And soon it should be just as easy to calculate the number of snapper brought in by anglers who fish with charter outfits and on party boats. A pilot program currently is underway to test an accountability system for the party boat fleet that is similar to the catch shares method used by the commercial fleet.
Nobody doubts accurate harvest data is one of the hallmarks of a science-based fisheries management program. And you would think any conservation organization representing the best interests of a natural resource would lead the charge for greater accountability of the red snapper harvest.
And certainly such organizations would campaign against a system that repeatedly results in harvesting millions of pounds more than a user group is allowed by law to take. For years, this was the accusation leveled at the commercial fishery. And you can bet recreational anglers were plenty angry at the unfairness.
But since commercial fisherman adopted a system that keeps them honest, the tables have turned.
Now, and for years, it is the recreational sector that has repeatedly gone over its harvest quota. Harvest overages can total more than a million pounds each year. Since 2007, recreational anglers collectively have harvested 8.54 million pounds more than our allocated share, according to calculations by federal fisheries managers.
And despite possessing the authority to sanction recreational anglers for these overages, federal fisheries managers have never subtracted the overruns from the following year’s allocation. Part of the reason is the National Marine Fisheries Service is not willing to stand firm against mounting political pressure. Another likely reason is they’re not certain of their own calculations.
And that’s a problem. A problem that could be partially solved with a better accounting system for a very substantial recreational harvest. Again, you would think a coastal conservation organization would be struggling to fill this glaring data gap in the overall harvest of a highly regulated, overfished species.
And some conservation groups are indeed calling for improved accountability for better management.
But the Coastal Conservation Association has taken a different tack. The organization, considered the most influential angler-based group in the country, is demanding that federal fisheries managers give additional snapper shares to the only fisheries sector without a harvest accounting system.
For all the good CCA does to protect and enhance fisheries, this snapper strategy simply does not make good conservation sense. CCA is bombarding its members with a propaganda message that is anything but straightforward and, I believe, is insincere. The organization is crying foul and proclaiming the current snapper allocation — 51 percent for the commercials and 49 percent for the recreational sector — is unfair, outdated and uneconomical. I will not argue this point, except to insist this is a suggestion out of sequence.
The recreational sector has never adhered to its 49 percent allocation. In 2009, recreational anglers harvested 65 percent of the total annual quota and then went over its quota again the following year. So the 51-49 allocation is a farce.
It would be irresponsible to reward a segment of the fishery with a greater percentage of the quota before it adopts some kind of measure to keep its harvest numbers in check. Maybe a tag system. CCA is behaving like a parent who would rather be friends with their kids (members) than make the difficult and unpopular decision to keep them in line.
Federal fisheries managers have been looking the other way for years while the recreational sector harvests more than its share. Federal neglect doesn’t give CCA license to shun its responsibility. CCA should demand accountability from every sector.
Instead, when the annual combined snapper quota for a given year exceeds 9.12 million pounds, CCA strongly supports a proposal to give recreational anglers 75 percent of any amount over 9.12 million pounds. The organization essentially is asking to be given legally what recreational anglers have been taking for years without authorization.
The organization hardly mentions the lack of accountability of private recreational anglers in its indignant arguments. CCA says it wants a greater piece of the pie because the current 51-49 split is outdated, irrelevant, unjust and because a red snapper is worth more when caught by a recreational angler compared with the economic value of a snapper caught on a commercial boat and sold at a restaurant or fish market.
Again, I will not argue this economic point. And actually I don’t dispute the position.
But the greater point is that we should not base fisheries management on economic multipliers that have nothing to do with maintaining a sustainable resource. The amount of money generated from the sale of offshore boats, fuel, bait and ice, along with the revenue snapper anglers spend in coastal communities will not necessarily fix a fishery or reverse the damage of overfishing.
A healthy fishery, which is the goal here, can accommodate all user groups fairly if and only if we collect reliable harvest numbers from the last remaining holdout.
Is the federal management system flawed? Sure it is. But we cannot correct a flawed system by ignoring one of its greatest deficiencies. Accountability must be our highest priority and certainly should be well ahead of any redistribution scheme.
So stop asking for an additional helping when you’ve already taken more than your share.
By David Sikes <http://ift.tt/1f2i4lF;
March 27, 2014
CORPUS CHRISTI — Fisheries management would be so simple if regulations were based solely on science.
But that’s impossible in a world where special — interest groups, political factions, constituency pandering, public suspicion, misinformation, ignorance, economics, finger pointing and a host of other nonscientific influences get in the way of reason and sound policy decisions.
And in the case of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, not enough science really exists to know for certain whether the best available information is really that reliable. How do we accurately count fish in the sea? We don’t. We do the best we can based on a handful of near certainties.
Harvest count could be, and indeed should be, among these near-certainties. We know basically how many red snapper commercial boats remove from the gulf because they adopted a system in 2007 for logging their harvest. Actual fish counts now determine whether the commercial sector has achieved its annual share of the harvest.
The elimination of guesswork makes for better management. The commercial harvest mystery was solved and with that came professional flexibility with reasonable limits.
And soon it should be just as easy to calculate the number of snapper brought in by anglers who fish with charter outfits and on party boats. A pilot program currently is underway to test an accountability system for the party boat fleet that is similar to the catch shares method used by the commercial fleet.
Nobody doubts accurate harvest data is one of the hallmarks of a science-based fisheries management program. And you would think any conservation organization representing the best interests of a natural resource would lead the charge for greater accountability of the red snapper harvest.
And certainly such organizations would campaign against a system that repeatedly results in harvesting millions of pounds more than a user group is allowed by law to take. For years, this was the accusation leveled at the commercial fishery. And you can bet recreational anglers were plenty angry at the unfairness.
But since commercial fisherman adopted a system that keeps them honest, the tables have turned.
Now, and for years, it is the recreational sector that has repeatedly gone over its harvest quota. Harvest overages can total more than a million pounds each year. Since 2007, recreational anglers collectively have harvested 8.54 million pounds more than our allocated share, according to calculations by federal fisheries managers.
And despite possessing the authority to sanction recreational anglers for these overages, federal fisheries managers have never subtracted the overruns from the following year’s allocation. Part of the reason is the National Marine Fisheries Service is not willing to stand firm against mounting political pressure. Another likely reason is they’re not certain of their own calculations.
And that’s a problem. A problem that could be partially solved with a better accounting system for a very substantial recreational harvest. Again, you would think a coastal conservation organization would be struggling to fill this glaring data gap in the overall harvest of a highly regulated, overfished species.
And some conservation groups are indeed calling for improved accountability for better management.
But the Coastal Conservation Association has taken a different tack. The organization, considered the most influential angler-based group in the country, is demanding that federal fisheries managers give additional snapper shares to the only fisheries sector without a harvest accounting system.
For all the good CCA does to protect and enhance fisheries, this snapper strategy simply does not make good conservation sense. CCA is bombarding its members with a propaganda message that is anything but straightforward and, I believe, is insincere. The organization is crying foul and proclaiming the current snapper allocation — 51 percent for the commercials and 49 percent for the recreational sector — is unfair, outdated and uneconomical. I will not argue this point, except to insist this is a suggestion out of sequence.
The recreational sector has never adhered to its 49 percent allocation. In 2009, recreational anglers harvested 65 percent of the total annual quota and then went over its quota again the following year. So the 51-49 allocation is a farce.
It would be irresponsible to reward a segment of the fishery with a greater percentage of the quota before it adopts some kind of measure to keep its harvest numbers in check. Maybe a tag system. CCA is behaving like a parent who would rather be friends with their kids (members) than make the difficult and unpopular decision to keep them in line.
Federal fisheries managers have been looking the other way for years while the recreational sector harvests more than its share. Federal neglect doesn’t give CCA license to shun its responsibility. CCA should demand accountability from every sector.
Instead, when the annual combined snapper quota for a given year exceeds 9.12 million pounds, CCA strongly supports a proposal to give recreational anglers 75 percent of any amount over 9.12 million pounds. The organization essentially is asking to be given legally what recreational anglers have been taking for years without authorization.
The organization hardly mentions the lack of accountability of private recreational anglers in its indignant arguments. CCA says it wants a greater piece of the pie because the current 51-49 split is outdated, irrelevant, unjust and because a red snapper is worth more when caught by a recreational angler compared with the economic value of a snapper caught on a commercial boat and sold at a restaurant or fish market.
Again, I will not argue this economic point. And actually I don’t dispute the position.
But the greater point is that we should not base fisheries management on economic multipliers that have nothing to do with maintaining a sustainable resource. The amount of money generated from the sale of offshore boats, fuel, bait and ice, along with the revenue snapper anglers spend in coastal communities will not necessarily fix a fishery or reverse the damage of overfishing.
A healthy fishery, which is the goal here, can accommodate all user groups fairly if and only if we collect reliable harvest numbers from the last remaining holdout.
Is the federal management system flawed? Sure it is. But we cannot correct a flawed system by ignoring one of its greatest deficiencies. Accountability must be our highest priority and certainly should be well ahead of any redistribution scheme.
So stop asking for an additional helping when you’ve already taken more than your share.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire