The commercial fishing industry may not always approve of the regional fishery
management councils’ processes and what they stand for, but many in the industry
agree that they are necessary for the well-being of fishing stocks.
Members of the industry and councils gathered for a three-day Fish Expo WorkBoat Atlantic conference at the Rhode Island Convention Center Sept. 30 to Oct. 2 to discuss proposals for fishery management reform in response to recommendations in reviews from the Pew Ocean Commission and U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.
The convention was timely in light of the upcoming reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which provides management and conservation guidelines for the commercial fishing industry. The reauthorization has provided the opportunity to rework aspects of the act and improve efficiency.
The eight regional fishery management councils established by the act – like the New England Fishery Management Council here – are being accused of having conflict of interest within the ranks, a lack of balance between appointed members, allowing faulty scientific data determine catch limits and stock levels, and a lack of accountability.
“There were two recent reports that (say) that the councils are not working and that our fisheries are in a state of collapse,” said Paul Howard, executive director of the New England council. “There have been numerous inaccurate and incomplete assessments of our stocks. The problems have been exaggerated … and the success stories are ignored. It leads the public to believe that fisheries are suffering and fishermen are the cause.”
David Frulla, an attorney with Brand & Frulla P.C. in Washington, D.C., said that council board members need the experience and education of the industry and the environmental science and conservation background for a balanced council.
“The rationale for the simplistic formulation that those with fishery experience should have no say in managing their industry does not bear close scrutiny,” he said. “A legislator with a real-world perspective does not disserve the public. Fisheries management is, or at least should be, based on a combination of science and practical experience.”
Critics say the New England council is overly dominated by commercial fishing interests, Howard said, but only eight of the 18-voting members are commercial fishermen.
For those who say the councils lack accountability, Howard said that isn’t true – all councils have to adhere to 10 National Standards set forth by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and maintained by the U.S. secretary of state. Some critics have suggested separating the management from the science, but Howard said the two need to work together.
“There have been times when the New England council may not have accepted the recommendations of science, but those days are in the past,” he said. “Separating the two is bureaucratic and a simplistic solution that won’t work. It will only create more distrust, and we need a transparent collaboration.”
Gil Pope, a commercial fisherman and former member of the Atlantic States Marine Fishery Council, said he has faith in the system.
“I think it’s a very successful process,” he said. “I am a firm believer in the way the system works now. Critics have said that no other agency is allowed to govern itself, and nowhere else can council members fatten their own pockets like this. Where the system needs help is in data gathering.”
Scientists have blamed the fishing industry for declines in fishing stocks, but Howard stressed that no one is looking at other land-based causes. Every eight months, 11 million gallons of oil run into coastal waters in the United States, he said. Nutrient pollution from fertilizers also impacts the marine environment.
“The biggest threat to marine ecosystems is not fishing, but the degradation of natural resources and water quality from pollution,” he said. “The National Academy of Science blames fishing, but no one’s looking at other contributors.”
In response to the findings of the two agency reports, Howard challenged the ideas of ecosystem governance as an inclusive approach to management, and that single-species management is destructive.
“Ideally, this would shift the burden of proof so that fishing would not take
place unless someone can prove no harm to any part of the ecosystem,” Howard
said. “That’s not revolutionary – it’s all part of the Sustainable Fisheries
Act, but fisheries management is making remarkable improvements as a result
of single-species management.”
