September 3, 2021 — For longer than a year, we’ve been keeping an eye on the Recreational Reform Initiative (RRI), a comprehensive joint effort by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) to improve the management of four key recreational fisheries—black sea bass, fluke, scup, and bluefish. The process has been complex, evolving, and largely devoid of public input. However, now that concrete alternatives for the first piece of the RRI, the Recreational Harvest Control Rule (HCR) Framework/Addendum, are out in the public sphere, its time share our thoughts and concerns—and get you, the public, up to speed with what’s going on.
Quick Background on Recreational Reform
The RRI grew out of Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) growing pains, specifically with regard to black sea bass. After recalibrated MRIP estimates were approved for management use in 2017, our understanding of many stocks fundamentally changed. MRIP told us that because recreational effort, catch, and landings were substantially higher than previously understood, there must have been more fish in the ocean. This resulted in a phenomenon known as “chasing the recreational harvest limit (RHL),” where managers were constantly trying to constrain recreational catches.
Earlier this year, the Council and Commission prioritized the HCR as a possible alternative and solution to the current system of managing the recreational sector. An HCR can provide relief by relying on predetermined measures (bag size, season length, and size limit) for certain scenarios like stock status and trend. Additionally, HCRs can remove the political pressures surrounding recreational management measures—when implemented and developed effectively. Leading up to the joint Council/Commission meeting in August, Council and Commission staff met several times to develop various alternatives. Following these meetings, the slate of options on the table was comprehensive and addressed many—but not all—of ASGA’s initial concerns.
Throughout this whole process, our primary concern was that the HCR appeared to offer a way for recreational fisheries to sidestep the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirement of Annual Catch Limits (ACL)—bringing back unpleasant memories from the Modern Fish Act debate on Capitol Hill in 2017-2018. If you’re wondering why that’s a concern, consider that the same groups who initially proposed the HCR were also behind the Modern Fish Act. For months, staff members grappled with developing HCR alternatives without fully sorting out how this system will adhere to ACLs. We view this as a major issue for two reasons. One, ACLs work; they have been an integral reason for the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s success in rebuilding overfished stocks. Second, catch limits are a legal requirement; operating without them or ignoring them can open NOAA Fisheries to legal liability. Details regarding how managers plan to integrate ACLs—and accountability measures—into an HCR system remains to be seen.
Another glaring issue with the HCR discussions thus far concerns the public’s lack of awareness or involvement and the rushed effort to implement a brand-new management strategy as soon as next year. Follow along for a deeper dive into the HCR alternatives, how the most recent management discussions went, and what’s next.
Read the full story at the American Saltwater Guides Association