Saving Seafood

The Press of Atlantic City: Menhaden decision sticks to science-based fisheries management

November 27, 2017 — Few people eat menhaden, or mossbunkers, so the foot-long fish is familiar mainly to those who use it for bait to catch bigger fish such as striped bass. Lots of other animals, such as ospreys and dolphins, eat them, too, and people also use them for fish-oil supplements, feed for aquaculture and bait for lobsters.

The management of such a beneficial fish is therefore crucial to many human and wildlife interests. Half a century ago, menhaden were superabundant, and as much as 712 million metric tons of menhaden was caught and mostly used for fertilizer. That led to a population crash and the fishery collapsed.

Since the 1990s and the advent of fisheries management, which included the closing of the menhaden fishery for a time, the menhaden population along the Atlantic Coast has recovered significantly. Stock assessments show the biomass of Atlantic menhaden more than doubling to about 1.2 million tons.

This month, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission updated its menhaden management plan, taking into account the increasing menhaden stock.

The commission was heavily lobbied by the fishing industry and by a coalition of environmentalists and sport-fishing interests led by a unit of the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Read the full editorial at The Press of Atlantic City

Days Before High-Stakes Menhaden Vote, Questions and Uncertainties Abound

Amendment 3’s new Ecological Reference Points in Center of Controversy

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — November 10, 2017 — By Marisa Torrieri:

As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission prepares to vote on highly-contested benchmarks for managing menhaden next week, uncertainties about the potential ripple effect of new ecological reference points (ERPs) are fueling heated exchanges between environmental groups and fisheries.

On November 13 and 14, the Commission is expected to meet to vote on Amendment 3, which will establish management benchmarks, and consider ecological reference points for menhaden, a bony and oily forage fish that is a primary food source for bigger fish such as striped bass and humpback whales and is harvested commercially for oil and fertilizer. The Commission also plans to review and potentially update state-by-state quota allocations.

Should the commission vote for “Option E” under Amendment 3 — an approach largely favored by environmental groups — the ASMFC would establish interim ecological reference points that would set a target of 75 percent and a threshold of 40 percent of a theoretical unfished stock. The ASMFC’s Biological Ecological Reference Points Workgroup would continue to develop Menhaden Specific ERP.

Fishermen whose livelihoods depend on the fish say the impact of this option would be catastrophic to their business.

Jeff Kaelin, head of government relations for Lund’s Fisheries, Inc., in Cape May, N.J., said New Jersey would lose a lot of jobs and money, in the event that interim ERPs took effect.

“With Option E, if we fish at the target that the environmental community is advocating, we’ll have a 25 percent cut in the fishery we have today, and that’s significant,” says Kaelin. “In 2013, when the quotas were established … we lost access to 50 percent of the fish. This is worth about $2 million to the state of New Jersey if we take a 25 percent cut. That’s what would happen, and there’s no need for it because the science is so robust.”

Yet environmental groups have countered that Option E, if selected, would not trigger draconian changes — it would simply put new goals in place that would benefit everyone, which could be phased in based on an organization’s own time table.

“The ERP is the goal, what you’re trying to achieve,” said Joseph Gordon, a senior manager for Pew Charitable Trusts, who directs campaigns to conserve forage fish. “Option E doesn’t tell you how fast to get there and how much risk to take. If the Commission decides to move forward Option E, they will be opting to have a very high population [of menhaden] in the ocean. When we talk about Option E, the goal of that is to achieve and maintain a high biomass of fish in the ocean. That should support significant amounts of fishing in the case of menhaden, over time as the population grows. The benefits to everyone, including commercial fisheries, is the goal of management.”

Chris Moore of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation also suggested Option E isn’t as bad as fisheries are making it out to be.

“Option E would say ‘OK, we now have a new target … fisheries would need to make changes to ensure they’re hitting that target,” says Moore. “But it’s not ‘we shall do this, we shall do that.’ If you look at the last stock assessment, the last quota showed we’re increasing. There’s a lot of leeway for the managers to get to the target.”

Omega Protein Corporation, the largest participant in the menhaden fishery, is based in Reedville, Va., a state that is currently allocated 85 percent of the catch. It says comments from environmentalists in support of Option E sugarcoat the potential economic impact of the ERPs.

Omega Protein is in favor of the more conservative Option B, which keeps ERPs at the existing status quo levels, until better mathematical models for menhaden are available.

“To say that the current reference points are inadequate, and we want to change them, and then say, ‘we won’t mandate that the harvest be cut when over the target,’ that’s ludicrous,” says Monty Deihl, Vice President of Operations for Omega Protein. “The environmentalist solution is looking for a problem, and there is no problem! We only take 8 percent of the biomass per year. The current model says you could harvest 300,000 metric tons per year without overfishing. With Option E, there’s a 25 percent cut in the harvest.”

Shaun Gehan, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who represents Omega Protein, said that environmentalists promoting Option E as a “phased approach” — while the language within the Option calls for a clear cut in fishing activities — are hypocritical.

“The real issue is if one believes that menhaden should be at 75 percent un-fished levels and the target [fishing mortality] helps achieve that, then it is hypocritical to advocate for anything but a cut,” he says. “It seems there is a lot of folks that want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, being able to say, ‘ecological reference points’ are being used, while avoiding harvest reductions they entail because no one thinks cuts are warranted in light of menhaden’s abundance.”

THE ROAD TO AMENDMENT 3

One of the biggest arguments for clamping down on menhaden fishing, one which has resonated with the public, is that concerns about menhaden weren’t on anyone’s radar until recently, when reports warned that the supply was in danger.

According to Pew, people started to “wake up” to the menhaden issue after a coast-wide decline in menhaden in the 1990s through the early 2000s that attracted a lot of attention: This decline was noticed on the water up and down the coast by recreational fishermen. The effects of this decline on predator species, especially striped bass, were especially noticed, since striped bass is a prized recreational fish – and the reason the ASMFC was created in the first place.

“Striped bass had been recovering from depletion, and many were interested and invested in this recovery,” Gordon noted. “But anglers were seeing signs of starvation and disease in striped bass, and it didn’t take long to trace many of the problems to the absence of adequate prey (menhaden) for them. That’s what led to the first cap on menhaden fishing in the Chesapeake Bay, in 2005.”

In 2012, with support from the Lenfest Ocean Program, the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University convened the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, a panel of 13 marine and fisheries scientists from around the world, to offer science-based advice for the management of species known as forage fish, because of their crucial role in marine ecosystems. In their report, “Little Fish, Big Impact,” researchers concluded fisheries managers “need to pay more careful attention to the special vulnerabilities of forage fish and the cascading effects of forage fishing on predators.”

Since then, ASMFC staff, scientists, and advisors have been developing and reviewing a range of ecological models and management strategies. In 2012, the ASMFC voted in favor of Amendment 2, which set a new coast-wide catch limit. In May of 2015, the ASMFC began drafting Amendment 3 to the menhaden management plan, with the goal of establishing ecological management, and to review and possibly update state-by-state quota allocations.

“What’s amazing to watch over time, and I’ve worked on this for about a decade, is we’ve gone from a situation where we didn’t have any coast-wide limit at all to a question of when it’s going to happen,” says Gordon.

CONSIDERING SCIENCE

The outcome of the vote on Amendment 3 is expected to have a powerful impact on the future of menhaden, as well as recreational anglers, tourism, conservationists and larger fisheries. Yet with so much on the line, figuring out the right path isn’t so clear cut.

For one, scientists and researchers who study menhaden are at odds with each other, some saying we are at a critical juncture and must make drastic moves to manage and protect menhaden, and others dismissing such reports as hysteria.

In a Q&A with Pew Charitable Trusts, Ellen Pikitch, a marine biology professor and director of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University, said the state of menhaden appears to be in decent shape if you examine the population in isolation.

“But when you look at it from an ecosystem perspective—whether there are enough to feed predators—menhaden are much less numerous than they ought to be,” she said. “On the East Coast, menhaden used to range from Nova Scotia to Florida, but we haven’t seen that kind of distribution for probably 50 years.”

Pikitch led a group of more than 100 scientists who commented on the proposed Amendment 3 ERPs, and is pushing for the implementation of Option E.

But at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard on October 24, fisheries scientist Dr. Ray Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, said there was “no empirical evidence to support the idea that the abundance of forage fish affects their predators.”

Dr. Hilborn’s comments came in response to questioning from Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) about whether fisheries managers should manage forage fish according to a “rule of thumb” approach, where fisheries are managed according to a set of broad ecological and management principals, or a “case-by-case” approach, where management is guided by more species-specific information.

Hilborn, who was part of a team of fisheries scientists that recently examined the effects fishing for forage fish species had on predator species, has expressed concern that the 2012 report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force may have overestimated the strength of the predator-prey relationship.

John Bull, commissioner for Virginia Marine Resources Commission, believes the latter. And while he’s heard environmental groups are trying to make Option E seem more palatable by saying it will result in “phased implementation,” he does not support the establishment of interim ERPs because it “doesn’t make sense, scientifically.”

“The science shows from a benchmark stock assessment a couple years ago that the stock is healthy, robust, and reproduction is good,” said Bull. “And in fact, a 30 percent increase on menhaden could be enacted with a 0 percent chance of overfishing. What Virginia would like to see is an increase in the quota on the East Coast of 5, 6, 7 percent.”

Marisa Torrieri is a freelance writer who lives in Fairfield, Connecticut, with her husband and two young sons. She possesses a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University, and has written and edited for dozens of publications, including the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, and the Village Voice.

Menhaden Fisheries Coalition Analysis Finds 92 Percent of Atlantic Menhaden Already Left In Water to Serve Ecological Role

Analysis Challenges Arguments That Interim Ecological Reference Points Are Urgently Needed

An analysis finds that 92 percent of Atlantic menhaden are left in the water to serve their ecological role. A high quality version of this infographic is available by clicking on the image.

WASHINGTON – November 9, 2017 – The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

A new analysis from the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC) finds that current management leaves 92 percent of Atlantic menhaden to serve their ecological role as forage for predators. The analysis is based on data from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) 2017 update stock assessment of Atlantic menhaden. The MFC has produced an infographic illustrating this analysis, which is available here.

In recent weeks, numerous ENGOs and recreational fishing groups up and down the Atlantic Coast have published articles and op-eds arguing that menhaden are in dire need of greater protection. These groups include the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the American Sportfishing Association, and local activists from coastal states like Rhode Island and New Jersey. However, the MFC’s analysis challenges the assertion that fisheries take too many menhaden, and makes clear that the vast majority of fish are already left in the water to fulfill their ecological role.

The analysis tracks an average menhaden year class through its full life cycle. It finds that two-thirds of juvenile menhaden (younger than age 1) are either consumed by predators or die of natural causes. These juvenile menhaden are the preferred forage for predator species and are not targeted by the fishery, which takes less than 1 percent of these fish.

Over half of the menhaden that survive to age-1 are allocated to the ecosystem to be eaten by predators such as striped bass and marine birds or die of natural causes. Only 8 percent of age-1 menhaden are harvested by the fishery.

The menhaden fishery largely harvests menhaden over the age of 2, but even for this age group, it only harvests about 40 percent of fish. Overall, just 8 percent of a menhaden year class is harvested by the fishery. The overwhelming majority of fish – 92 percent – are not impacted by the fishery.

This MFC analysis is an update of a previous analysis that was based on the ASMFC’s 2015 benchmark stock assessment of Atlantic menhaden. That analysis was reviewed by the ASMFC last fall. Both the 2015 benchmark assessment and the 2017 update assessment found that Atlantic menhaden is neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing.

Nils E. Stolpe/FishNet USA: “Fish Wars” or a Regime Shift in Ocean Governance?

October 2, 2017 — The reasons for Big Oil’s (now more accurately Big Energy’s) focus on fisheries – and on demonizing fishing and fishermen – has been fairly obvious since a coalition of fishermen and environmentalists successfully stopped energy exploration on Georges Bank in the early 80s. Using a handful of ocean oriented ENGOs as their agents, the Pew Charitable Trusts and other “charitable” trusts funded a hugely expensive campaign that the domestic fishing industry is still suffering from, but that campaign has paid off handsomely to the entities that participated in or funded it.

However, the entry of Philadelphia’s Lenfest Foundation into the fray, particularly considering that operational control was delegated to Pew, appeared to put the participation of other foundations with roots in the high tech area in a different light. Packard, Moore and Lenfest all working together with Pew et al to scuttle the public image and “revolutionize” the financial and social underpinnings of an entire industry in an apparently coordinated way started to make some sense (read more here).

But my thinking on this was further crystallized after reading a recent article in the New York Times. From the February 22, 2016 Fishnet:

“The authors (of the most recent Daniel Pauly assault on commercial fishing) acknowledge, and it will probably come as no surprise to most readers, “that The Pew Charitable Trusts, Philadelphia, funded the Sea Around Us from 1999 to 2014, during which the bulk of the catch reconstruction work was performed.” However, it might be news that “since mid-2014, the Sea Around Us has been funded mainly by The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation.” If anyone wonders why one of the founders of Microsoft might be interested in supporting research by Daniel Pauly, from an article in the NY Times last week  – Microsoft Plumbs Ocean’s Depths to Test Underwater Data Center)

“REDMOND, Wash. — Taking a page from Jules Verne, researchers at Microsoft believe the future of data centers may be under the sea. Microsoft has tested a prototype of a self-contained data center that can operate hundreds of feet below the surface of the ocean, eliminating one of the technology industry’s most expensive problems: the air-conditioning bill. Today’s data centers, which power everything from streaming video to social networking and email, contain thousands of computer servers generating lots of heat. When there is too much heat, the servers crash. Putting the gear under cold ocean water could fix the problem. It may also answer the exponentially growing energy demands of the computing world be-cause Microsoft is considering pairing the system either with a turbine or a tidal energy system to generate electricity. The effort, code-named Project Natick, might lead to strands of giant steel tubes linked by fiber optic cables placed on the seafloor. Another possibility would suspend containers shaped like jelly beans beneath the surface to capture the ocean current with turbines that generate electricity.”

Of course this needs to be coupled with Microsoft’s commitment to the future of “cloud computing” (for those readers who have successfully avoided advanced nerdhood up until now, the “cloud” is just a lot of web-connected servers housed in what are called server farms. Server farms are becoming increasingly expensive to operate shoreside – see the NY Times article linked above) and do a Google search on “Microsoft cloud future” to see where the tech industry thinks Microsoft is heading vis a vis cloud computing.

Is it possible that in the near future we’ll be reading foundation-funded research reports from our neighbors in British Columbia “proving” that submerged server farms put in place by the well-known Redmond conservationists provide much needed shelter for a myriad of marine creatures that are threatened by those rapacious fisher-men? Or that Marine Protected Areas are a really logical place to put those submerged servers?”

If you haven’t fully embraced the high-tech, internet-based wonders that are now easily and affordably available to virtually all of us – how about a Brita water purifier that will automatically order another filter before the old one needs replacing? – the major impetus for this seems to be to get folks to spend money without consciously deciding to do so. Propping this all up, making it possible, is “cloud computing” enabling you to receive a Brita filter and to get Amazon and Brita handsomely paid for getting it to you without you being involved.

With the increase in web-connected, web-enabled, web-anythinged appliances, processes, monitors, alarms, lighting and who knows what else in the future, and in hi-definition video and music streaming, a rapid growth in the capacity of the so-called cloud, which is going to become increasingly crowded, is guaranteed. That means that the demand for server farms will be increasing as well – and the closer those server farms are to the demand (population centers), the more efficient they will be.

As the Microsoft interest clearly demonstrates, alternatives to land based server farms in close proximity to population centers are going to become a high priority, and the only alternative is going to be siting them in the ocean – which offers the additional benefit of significantly reducing, or perhaps eliminating, cooling costs.

These sub-surface server farms will be as compatible with fishing as offshore power generation or the petroleum industry are. Would there be a more rational solution to what has already become a significant problem, given hundreds of billions of dollars in the bank, than for these high tech industries that are committed to a future in the oceans, than to marginalize fishermen.

Read the full opinion piece at FishNet USA

Tuna-fishing nations agree on plan to replenish severely depleted Pacific bluefin stocks

September 1, 2017 — TOKYO — The world’s Pacific bluefin tuna won something of a reprieve Friday, when tuna-fishing countries reached an agreement to gradually rebuild severely depleted stocks while still allowing nations such as Japan to catch and consume the delicacy.

Japan — by far the world’s biggest consumer of bluefin, eating about 80 percent of the global haul in the $42 billion tuna industry — had been resisting new rules, while conservationists have warned about the commercial extinction of bluefin in the Pacific Ocean.

Proponents of limits hailed the deal as a compromise that everyone could live with.

“It’s definitely a good first step towards the recovery of the species,” said James Gibbon, global tuna conservation officer at the Pew Charitable Trusts. “But it is only the first step. There are a lot of commitments that the countries agreed to, and we need to make sure they stick to them.”

At the week-long meeting in Busan, South Korea, the two bodies charged with shared management of Pacific bluefin — the northern committee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission — hammered out a plan to try to put the fish back on a path to sustainability. Countries represented at the meeting included the United States, Canada, China, South Korea and Japan.

The Pacific bluefin population has been depleted by more than 97 percent from its historic high, because of overfishing.

Read the full story at the Washington Post

Fishery officials to consider 2017 red snapper season

August 16, 2017 — Federal fishery managers will vote on an emergency order next month to create an open season later this year for red snapper, which are protected by strict regulations designed to help the species recover from overfishing.

The surprise move, which would create the first open season since 2014, will likely be welcomed by many local anglers who believe red snapper are thriving and mismanaged by overbearing federal officials.

Others were caught off guard by the news and concerned about the repercussions of loosening the regulations and whether fishery managers were legally allowed to make that decision on such short notice.

“The question is, what’s the emergency? Where’s the fire?,” said Leda Cunningham, who works for a campaign to end overfishing run by an arm of the Pew Charitable Trusts. “If there’s new information that indicates the status of the population has changed for the better or worse, we’ll need to see it.”

Red snapper have been protected by strict regulations since 2010, a result of the federal government ruling the species was overfished to dangerously low numbers. Anglers can still catch red snapper, but they’ve had just a few opportunities to keep the fish since the rules took effect.

Read the full story at the Florida Times-Union

Longer season threatens red snapper, group contends

But area anglers question the conservation group’s findings.

July 31, 2017 — A federal decision to extend the recreational fishing season for Gulf of Mexico red snapper this summer is likely to lead to overfishing, conservation group says.

The extended season, now under way, could allow anglers to take up to three times as much snapper as legally allowed under scientifically sound catch limits, according to an analysis of fishery data by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

Pew analyzed estimated red snapper catch rates and projections from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service and concluded that total 2017 landings in the Gulf by all fishermen will probably exceed legally allowed amounts by at least 37 percent.

“That’s a disturbing scenario for a species that plummeted to low population levels from overfishing in the 1990s,” Holly Binns, Pew’s director of U.S. Oceans Southeast, wrote Thursday in a report on the findings. “Gulf red snapper have been recovering thanks to federally mandated, science-based catch limits and court-ordered measures to prevent catching the fish faster than they can reproduce, but that progress is now in jeopardy.”

Louisiana and other Gulf Coast anglers won a 39-day red snapper season that started June 16 and is expected to run through Labor Day. Recreational fishermen can catch red snapper Fridays through Sundays through Sept. 4 in federal waters off Louisiana; state waters were closed to the fish as part of the deal.

Read the full story at Houma Today

A High-Tech Solution to Seafood Slavery and Illegal Fishing

July 20, 2017 — Inexpensive seafood can come at a high price. To make as much money as possible, it’s not uncommon for fishing vessels to spend more than a year at sea, fishing continuously, without supervision; some vessels spend as much as 525 straight days at sea, and others have logged 503 continuous days. This practice is only possible due to transshipment—the high-seas transfer of seafood catches between ships—and global fish stocks and human rights are taking the hit.

The U.S. is the world’s second largest market for seafood. Americans eat almost 16 pounds a year each, spending $96 billion (and that doesn’t include fish used in pet food). But 90 percent of that seafood is imported, and the odds are good that it was passed from one ship to another in international waters, where a whole range of illegal things may have happened.

Transshipment takes place when large fishing boats unload their catches to refrigerated cargo vessels, also known as reefers. It’s technically legal, and provides a cost-effective method for fishing boats to remain at sea and prolong their fishing trips without needing to head to port between catches. But because transshipment often happens far from monitoring eyes, it has also been linked to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (commonly referred to as “IUU”) fishing, along with human trafficking, slavery, and other criminal endeavors, including drug and illegal wildlife trade.

IUU fishing encompasses a grab bag of activities, not all strictly illegal. Fishing is illegal if it breaks national fishery laws or international fishing agreements—examples include fishing in prohibited areas or using illegal equipment. Unreported and unregulated fishing activities aren’t necessarily illicit—it might mean fishing in unregulated waters, or not reporting discarded fish. Illegal fishing can be difficult to accurately assess, but estimates say it’s responsible for $23 billion in economic losses.

In an effort to curb IUU, safeguard sovereign fish stocks, and strengthen ecological protections, NGOs and governments have taken an increasing global focus on transshipment practices in recent years. And several new projects are using technology to create the biggest and most accurate picture of transshipment to date.

Read the full story at Civil Eats

Controversial drift-gill net fishery wins long-fought battle

June 13, 2017 — Federal fishery managers denied a proposal this week to immediately shut down Southern California’s most controversial fishery in the event that wide-mesh gill nets accidentally kill a handful of certain marine mammals or sea turtle species.

The swordfish and thresher shark fishery will remain open, even if it kills several whales or sea turtles, the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries decided.

The decision not to institute so-called hard caps on the fishery comes after a public review period initiated last year was extended to discuss the law proposed by the state’s Pacific Fishery Management Council in 2014.

For the few dozen fishers who still catch swordfish and thresher sharks off Southern California in deep-water drift gill nets, the decision brought a big sigh of relief.

“It’s a great feeling to know that NOAA is using science and not political pressure to decide this issue,” said longtime local fisherman David Haworth. “We have just a few people fighting against millions of environmentalists who think taking one of anything is too many: That would be great, but we have to feed the whole world.”

The decision was a blow to Oceana, The Pew Charitable Trusts and other conservation groups that have lobbied for years to close the fishery.

“We’re disappointed that NOAA Fisheries decided to abandon these plans. It’s a long time coming,” said Paul Shively, project director for The Pew Charitable Trusts. “We did a poll (in 2015) that showed overwhelming support with Californians to shut down the fishery.

“This still remains the most harmful fishery on the West Coast when it comes to marine mammals and sea turtles.”

Read the full story at the Daily Breeze

HARRISON TASOFF: Proposed Changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act Would Compound Problems for the Nation’s Fish

June 2, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Congressional bill H.R. 200, introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-AK) in January, is the latest incarnation of laissez-faire management strategies that are gaining political appeal. This is despite broad support for the current fishing regulations and a principled approach which combines community and industry input with rigorous scientific analysis.

The country’s fisheries are managed by eight regional councils under the National Marine Fisheries Service, also known as NOAA Fisheries. The system was set up in 1976, when President Gerald Ford signed the Magnuson-Stevens Act into law.

Over the last 40 years, the measure has enjoyed wide support.

“It’s become one of the best, if not the best, fisheries management tools in the world,” says Steve Scheiblauer, who serves on the Pacific Fishery Management Council and had been a harbor master in central California for 40 years.

Part of Magnuson’s success comes from the regional councils, which themselves have advisory subgroups composed of a variety of stakeholders and include environmentalists, scientists, fisherman and Native Americans. “I think it’s the best public policy arena I’ve ever seen,” says John Holloway, who represents fishermen on the Pacific Council.

“One of the other things that the Magnuson-Stevens Act embraces is the principal of adaptive management,” explains Scheiblauer. “So when mistakes are recognized, there’s a method to correct them.”

Fishery management got a significant boost when the Act was reauthorized in 2007. The new legislation required the councils to base their strategies and quotas on scientific population surveys.

It is crucial that these fish surveys are done by marine biologists. Professional fishermen’s knowledge of fish runs as deep as some of the waters they trawl. But their background prepares them for different kinds of tasks than a marine biologist, whose years of training equip them with the skills to conduct surveys and model ecological phenomena.

Both fish and fishermen benefit from the role of science in fishery management: Last year NOAA Fisheries announced that nearly 40 fish stocks had recovered since 2000.

The 2007 reauthorization also strengthened the timeframe that the agencies have to rebuild depleted fish stocks. When managers discover that a stock is overfished, the regional council sets out a plan to rebuild the population in the shortest time possible, which is no more than 10 years for most fish species.

This timeframe is necessary to keep federal agencies from simply kicking the can down the road when it comes to overfishing. And a shorter timeframe allows for more fishing opportunities sooner, rather than dragging restrictions out, according to Ted Morton, the Director of U.S. Oceans at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

But most fishermen would like to see these timeframes loosened. The restrictions sometimes force fishermen to limit or forgo their catch of a species with a healthy population if it interferes with the recovery of a struggling stock. It’s nearly impossible to catch dover sole, for example, without catching some overfished black cod, Scheiblauer says, since the two fish associate with each other.

Morton says that extending the timeline would not resolve this issue, but fishermen like David Crabbe in Monterey, California disagree. A longer recovery time means population targets don’t have to be met quite so quickly, which would allow fishermen to catch just a few more of the recovering fish over the course of a season. This, in turn, would enable them to catch significantly more of the plentiful fish they are actually targeting.

“Tweaks in the regulation might help alleviate the constraints some,” says Crabbe, who catches squid and forage fish like sardines and mackerel.

But the bill currently in the House doesn’t just lengthen rebuilding timeframes, it explicitly exempts the councils from setting catch limits for forage fish. In addition to their commercial value, forage fish serve as the primary food-stuff for larger fish like tuna, snapper, and cod. Rolling back management on forage fish could have resounding consequences for these fisheries.

“I’m not aware of any kind of rationale for why this is in [the bill],” says Morton at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

What’s most alarming is that H.R. 200 would give the new version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act greater authority than a host of environmental laws. If H.R. 200 passes, the fishery councils would have the last word on fishing in marine sanctuaries, for instance. Right now, the branch of NOAA that oversees sanctuaries works in concert with NOAA Fisheries to manage stocks within protected waters. Giving priority to Magnuson would make this relationship unnecessarily adversarial.

H.R. 200 would even give the revised Magnuson-Stevens Act priority over the Endangered Species Act, which NOAA Fisheries also administers along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This means that when the two laws intersect, Congress would require NOAA to manage the situation as a commercial, rather than environmental, issue.

While the Endangered Species Act has been the topic of much debate itself, a quick look at its track record shows that it does prevent extinction and promote recovery. The law is currently protecting my favorite rockfish (the long-lived bocaccio) up in the Puget Sound as well as populations of species with more recognizable commercial histories, like salmon and steelhead.

Giving priority to the Magnuson-Stevens Act when the two butt heads will undermine the strength and efficacy of the Endangered Species Act, which is continually under attack.

Despite its strengths and popularity, the Magnuson-Stevens Act is not equipped to address such a diversity of issues, nor was it intended to. Giving preference to Magnuson erodes the comprehensive monitoring that these issues deserve.

To be effective, the new bill would need “very carefully nuanced language to make sure that it cannot be abused,” warns former harbormaster Scheiblauer. But H.R. 200 is not nuanced, and its provisions are not new.

This is the third Congress in a row that has introduced a similar bill, says Morton at Pew. Although the last two versions were unsuccessful, the second one made it through the House of Representatives in 2015. It died in the Senate, which has been less convinced than the House that Magnuson-Stevens needs a major overhaul.

Unlike the previous two reauthorizations, which had broad support, votes for the 2015 bill came almost exclusively from Republicans. This is troubling for a law that has long enjoyed wide-ranging support from industry, scientists and conservationists alike.

The growth of the red snapper population along the Gulf Coast has kept pace almost perfectly with NOAA Fisheries’ goal of a full recovery by 2032.

Magnuson-Stevens, in its present state, is working. One of its notable successes is the red snapper stock down in the Gulf Coast. The annual catch limit has more than doubled from 6.5 million pounds a decade ago to 13.7 million this year.

But organizational problems turn what is a good situation overall into a headache for recreational fishermen, according to Mike Gravitz, the director of policy and legislation at the Marine Conservation Institute.

Even though red snapper populations have grown significantly, the fishing season and bag limit —how many fish a fisherman can keep — has actually gone down, says Gravitz. “And this just pisses people off.”

But this isn’t a problem with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it’s a consequence of a recovering stock.

“The problem is the fish they do catch and are allowed to keep are getting bigger,” says Gravits, which means that fishermen reach their weight-limit more quickly than before. Particularly recreational fishermen, who can’t coordinate in the way that commercial fishermen can. And although catching fewer, bigger fish is still exciting, it means fewer adventures, and fewer boat and gear rentals overall.

But older, bigger fish have more offspring than smaller fish, which means recovery should start speeding up. As the stock returns to a healthy size, the restrictions will be phased out.

Overall, though, support for the Magnuson-Stevens remains high. “The Federal process [for fishery regulation] in the US is the best I’ve ever seen in terms of” its provisions for stakeholder involvement and input, says Holloway, who is a recreational fisherman himself.

Fisherman David Crabbe concurs. “I think that its strengths are that it’s a transparent public process … [with] a broad range of opportunities for the public to weigh in.”

The broad support for the Magnuson-Stevens Act is a rarity in the regulatory world these days, and something to celebrate. What we need now is to embrace Magnuson’s strengths – like its diverse advisory councils – which address changes and frustrations as they arise rather than overhaul a law that’s doing its job.

Fish are often out of mind for land-lubbers in a way that birds, game, and livestock are not. It’s hard to have a connection with animals you rarely see outside of a market. That’s why we need smart regulations like Magnuson to manage them: for the fish and their ecosystems, for fishermen and seafood eaters, and for future generations.

This opinion piece originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscriptions site. It is reprinted with permission.