Science must be used in marine fisheries conservation. Establish appropriate guidelines for Marine Protected Areas that require a scientific basis for designation, a transparent process, periodic review, and include clear criteria for their creation. Guarantee that an adequate environmental review process is in place when developing fishery management plans and protecting essential fish habitat. Factsheet: Marine Protected Areas [PDF]

Background

A number of tools are available to fisheries managers to maintain sustainable fisheries, including fishing quotas, gear restrictions, trip and creel limits, size limitations, and seasonal or temporary closures. When they are made using the best available science, these management decisions are effective in restoring degraded marine ecosystems and depleted fish stocks.

Another tool available to fisheries managers is the establishment of special restricted areas in which all ocean fishing (both recreational and commercial) is permanently prohibited. While the designation of these no-fishing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) or Marine Reserves may be appropriate in some cases, the designations must be based on adequate, peer-reviewed science.

Any new marine policy should establish appropriate guidelines for Marine Protected Areas that require a scientific basis for designation, a transparent process, periodic review, and include clear criteria for their creation.

Closing out Access

Marine Protected Areas (both "no take" and other types) can serve a positive function as a management tool in protecting spawning areas, helping restore populations with little connectivity to stocks in nearby unprotected areas, and in protecting critical habitat, which can be damaged by certain fishing methods. The majority of fish stocks in need of protection, however, are too mobile to receive more benefit from permanent no take areas than from traditional management techniques.

For decades recreational anglers have supported scientifically based management measures that restrict angling, such as season closures, size and bag (possession) limits, catch-and-release requirements and gear restrictions. Seemingly arbitrary decisions to stop all fishing access to certain areas — particularly large expanses — raise concern for anglers. The need to ensure appropriate access can be addressed by having an open process for the designation of no take areas, a clear management objective for the closure and by basing the designation on sound scientific research.

The Channel Islands Example

In 2001, a proposal to ban all sportfishing in the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was on a fast track for approval by the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG). The plan would have cut recreational anglers out of an estimated 10 percent of marine fishing opportunities in Southern California yet anglers were not being included in the decision-making process and there was little scientific support that a ban of sportfishing was necessary. The potential economic impact of the proposal was dramatic — a loss of $100 million in retail sales alone and the possible loss of 2,700 jobs. To replace the economic losses due to sportfishing bans, other activities (such as whale watching, sailing and sightseeing) would have had to increase by at least 350 percent. A public outcry forced the CDFG to slow down their proposal and expand the public scoping process. Since then, a Blue Ribbon Task Force was established to construct a network of MPAs using a broader focus and a more open public process.

Sticking to the Plan

Fishery management plans are essential to ensuring that fisheries are sustainable. From setting allowable catch limits to establishing essential fish habitat, the plans created by the Regional Fishery Management Councils and implemented by the interstate fisheries commissions become the guiding force behind fisheries conservation. When developing fishery management plans, councils should rely more on their Science and Statistical Committees (SSC) and incorporate SSC findings and advice into the decision-making process. Scientific decisions, including stock assessments and determinations of allowable biological catch should be properly evaluated by SSC's and members of the SSC's should meet stringent scientific and conflict-of-interest requirements to ensure that their recommendations are based on unbiased, sound science. In addition, fishery management plans should require adequate environmental review to ensure that actions that come from the plan do not do unnecessary harm to the marine environment.

Setting Limits

One of the most important steps towards managing fish stocks is setting an appropriate catch level to maintain sustainability. In certain circumstances, both commercial and recreational anglers may exceed their catch limits leading to a question of how to address the over-harvest. While the concept of reducing the next year's harvest limit seems like the most appropriate response, this method can be unfair to recreational anglers. The data collected on recreational catch is just a rough estimate of the total catch and was never intended to be used for this purpose. Secondly, the concept as proposed only accounts for quota overages and ignores harvest underages and would remove the flexibility of fishery managers to take into account the impact of the harvest on the health of the fishery. Having a measure to hold sectors accountable for their harvest is important but hard total allowable catches and automatic over-harvest deductions are overly simplistic solutions to a very complex problem.