August 13, 2013 — Last year, fishermen warned Maryland officials that menhaden catch reductions would affect in-state fishermen, not just larger menhaden harvesters in Virginia. Now, as restrictions are implemented, Maryland regulators appear to be sidestepping the very catch cuts that they led the charge to create.
Last December, Maryland officials advocated for Atlantic menhaden harvest restrictions, despite uncertain science. Their Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) representatives joined a winning vote to reduce the commercial menhaden Total Allowable Catch (TAC) — a decision that was publicly backed by both Governor Martin O’ Malley and Attorney General Doug Gansler despite objections from Maryland commercial fishermen, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 400, and the Maryland State Conference NAACP. Attorney General Gansler even went so far as to consider suing the largest menhaden harvesting company, Omega Protein, which operates out of Virginia, if the harvest was not substantially reduced.
That meeting resulted in the ASMFC’s adoption of Amendment II to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden, which reduced the overall allowable harvest of menhaden by 20 percent and allows for an additional 6,000 pounds of menhaden bycatch per vessel, per trip. This bycatch allowance is not included in the TAC and accounts for additional menhaden fishing pressure. Maryland estimates that 92 percent of menhaden caught in its waters are caught in pound nets, primarily as bycatch for the striped bass and other popular fisheries.
But when regulators met in May to discuss each state’s plan to implement these restrictions, Maryland representatives proposed different measures for its own fishermen that would revisit the bycatch cap for which the state voted last December, and would effectively exempt the state from the same strict harvest limits that it helped create. At the May meeting of the ASMFC’s Menhaden Management Board, the Board approved Maryland’s proposal to increase the menhaden bycatch trip limit from 6,000 pounds per vessel to 12,000 pounds per vessel if two permit holders are on board.
Maryland’s action led the other states affected by these restrictions to seek a similar accommodation for their fixed gear fisheries. In Maryland, virtually all menhaden are caught with pound nets. Pound nets and other stationary fixed gear differ from the mobile purse seine fishery, which uses purse-like nets deployed by vessels around menhaden schools. The purse seine fishery harvests the overwhelming majority of menhaden caught in states other than Maryland, and remains accountable to the strict restrictions that Maryland proposed, voted for, and then eased for its own fishermen.
So, after cutting menhaden harvests for fishermen who rely on the species, Maryland is now doubling menhaden bycatch for its own in-state fishermen and paving the way for other states to do the same. This seemingly contradicts Maryland’s previous calls for reductions based on extreme conservationist ideals and ensures menhaden catch is limited only for the mostly-out-of-state fisheries that target and rely on the species.
At the time Maryland officials supported strict menhaden restrictions, they did so even though the state did not possess the regulatory infrastructure required to effectively monitor those regulations — specifically, the reduced menhaden TAC — as mandated under Amendment II. Unlike Virginia, which requires weekly reporting on menhaden catch numbers, Maryland monitors their menhaden catch monthly, with at least a two-month lag time before landing reports are updated.
Maryland began implementing weekly reporting in July, which means that the state was operating on estimates, rather than reported numbers, when it switched to a reduced menhaden TAC in June. The state’s decision to increase bycatch landings before reports from earlier in the season became available contradicts the strict regulatory conservation efforts for which Maryland previously advocated.
Though the increased bycatch allowance is bringing relief to some fishermen affected by the cuts, Maryland is ultimately skirting larger, important questions regarding their regulatory rationale and the aftermath of constrictive decisions for already-struggling fishermen