Overshadowed by the election campaign reports, the President's trip to the Middle East and the sabre-rattling by Iraq, and buried on the back pages of local newspapers, the New England Fishery Management Council's groundfish committee in October recommended action that will essentially end a way of life and alter New England's harbors and fishing industry irretrievably.
After decades of overfishing and refusal by the industry to effectively self-regulate, some species are at their lowest historical levels and endangered.
The current recommendations will expand offshore closure areas from last May's actions and additionally limit annual catches for target species.
On George's Bank at the turn of the century, the average halibut caught weighed 40 pounds. Last year, the average was 10 pounds. The sustainable annual yield is estimated to be about 100 million pounds, but last year 10 million pounds were caught.
To fully understand what happens to one of the world's most productive marine ecosystems requires wading through the finger-pointing because industry blames the biologists for failure to understand the ecosystem and accurately predict the decline and a regulatory bureaucracy for its slowness to respond and the biologists blame the industry for their greed and failure to make the requisite financial decisions before the situation was dire and the regulators blame the other two.
Historical, the United States had laid claim to coastal territorial waters extending twelve miles from the coast.
In the sixties and seventies, foreign fishing fleets, including Japan, Poland and the former Soviet Union sent massive factory ships into the fishing areas beyond the twelve mile limit, precisely those areas that are the most productive.
By the early seventies, the decline of these areas was evident and Congress enacted the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976 extending the coastal limit to 200 miles, effectively evicting foreign factory ships.
The Magnuson Act provided that eight regional councils would be established to develop and implement management plans to regulate the regional industry and exempted council members from conflict of interest laws because the intent of Congress was that the commercial industry should self-regulate. In fairness to all involved, the regional councils have been successful in other areas and have regulated the commercial harvest at sustainable levels.
With the foreign trawlers successfully evicted, the New England fishing fleets expanded and thrived. New processing plants were constructed. Larger fishing boats were purchased. More sophisticated and expensive technology was purchased. More money was borrowed.
Those same vested interests that controlled the regional council failed to adopt appreciable limits because of potential financial consequences to themselves.
Both the Conservation Law Foundation and the Audubon Society had united with the commercial fishermen to prevent oil exploration in George's Bank, but by 1991, when overfishing continued and no appreciable action was evident, they sued the Commerce Department for failure to regulate the overfishing and received a consent decree mandating a stock rebuilding plan by 1992.
It had been argued that if the fishermen formulated a workable plan, their commitment to its success was assured.
For each proposal that was acceptable to one port, another argued that it was punitive.
When annual quotas were discussed, it was argued that the quotas would lead to a practice called "high-grading" wherein fish already caught are tossed overboard for a more valuable catch.
It should also be mentioned that most of the groundfish in the George's Bank area are caught in "otter trawls." My understanding is, that they resemble large mesh stockings. The boats pull the net through the water, above the bottom and the net fills with groundfish.
The first problem that quickly becomes apparent is that this technique is unselective - it catches everything in its path.
As the net fills, the larger fish block the mesh and consequently smaller fish are trapped within. If some of the fish landed are illegal, they are tossed overboard - dead. So in effect, nothing has been gained by the quota.
Additionally, some of the boats carry net liners with smaller mesh and argue necessity for other commercial species. There is no way to assure that there liners are not being used illegally.
When the closure areas were in effect, the fishermen fished the perimeters heavily and attacked closed areas when they opened like a Filene's Basement Sale, rendering the closure almost useless.
The 1992 deadline passed and various plans were still discussed. It finally became apparent that the limits imposed would include reduction of fishing days among other items.
Finally, in 1993, the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] requested comments on the Council's amendment 5 that proposed measures to increase depleted stocks, addressed trawl, longline and sink gillnet fishing, as well as addressed incidental takes of depleted marine mammals, specifically harbor porpoises and right whales, by phasing in over five years no fish areas.
The Marine Mammal Commission [MMC] responded recommending faster phase in of the no fishing days.
It should be acknowledged that while proposals were being considered, a gag order was issued which prevented biologists from speaking out and educating the public.
In May 1994, the Council enacted Amendment 5.
In 1993, a five year moratorium on incidental takes of marine mammals expired and when the Marine Mammal Protection Act was reauthorized in 1994, it strengthened those measures intended to restrict fisheries interaction. In 1993, NMFS proposed adding harbor porpoises to the Endangered Species Act as a threatened species due to the high mortality caused by bottom-gillnet fishing and listed eastern spinner dolphin, northeastern offshore spotted dolphin and coastal migratory bottlenosed dolphin as depleted under the MMPA. None of these species was addressed adequately under Amendment 5.
All these pressures combined to force the Council to make their recommendations in October. It can be argued that it was decades overdue and the the industry's failure to act led to its own demise. Although the fishermen have argued that inadequate time has elapsed to allow Amendment 5 to work, they have complained that they are forced to stay out longer fishing and traveling further to fill their hulls.
There will be important lessons to be learned as the no fishing areas are enforced and marine biologists study the impacted species. Will the marine ecosystem rebound? Will we learn the lessons? History will report this as our gross stupidity and irresponsibility to our environment.
The above was written in the 1990s and although the fishing industry may have changed, politicians involved haven't.
Fishermen invested heavily in an industry in collapse, whine to politicians for rescue, bailout, increased limits and pretend to be victims of the depletion they have caused.
The most recent sacrilege is Attorney General Martha Coakley's Grand Standing to support an industry that has destroyed itself and one of the World's Most Productive Fishing Grounds.
The Epitaph has Martha Coakley's initials writ large.
No comments:
Post a Comment