On June 3, NOAA Fisheries drastically cut private vessels back to just one school bluefin tuna from 27 to 47 inches, with recreational charter/headboat permit holders allowed two school bluefin. Reaction was swift and furious; the Manasquan River Marlin and Tuna Club immediately cancelled their Bluefin Open tournament, explaining “We feel that this does not meet the standard of the event we wish to host.” Honestly, NOAA Fisheries should wonder if this is the fisheries management standard they wish to host!
Thankfully, with a little poking and prodding from recreational advocates – particularly those from New Jersey – NOAA Fisheries readjusted the Atlantic bluefin fishery effective July 1, with HMS-permitted Angling category vessels allowed one bluefin from 27 to less than 73 inches, and HMS permitted Charter/Headboat vessels getting two bluefin from 27 to less than 73 inches (only one of which can be a large school/small medium of 47 to <73 inches). “Is this fake news or are we back in business,” a friend texted following NOAA Fisheries’ June 12th announcement. After confirming that this was, indeed, real news, he replied “(my son) is going to be so happy.” While I’ve become pretty jaded by these minor management adjustments, it is actually great news for anglers, even if it could’ve been a lot better.
Mind you, these cutbacks aren’t because the stock is in trouble; the problem is too many bluefin, not enough quota. As I noted in a June 9th weekly offshore column, the irony of 21st century fisheries management is that government builds sustainable populations of fish stocks to foster increased public participation in American fisheries, redistributing only crumbs to preserve as much of the fish pie as possible as a table showpiece. For that we can thank the environmental non-government organizations (ENGOS) who’ve embedded themselves, and their ideology, into the federal and international management process, while muddling the media narrative for show.
Case in point: one New England ENGO lobbyist with a newspaper column described bluefin abundance as the result of global warming. “This climate change impact points to the need for enhanced stock assessments and climate research to keep tabs on fish stocks,” he wrote. Hogwash! Much like black sea bass, bluefin tuna is a management success story; for the past 20 years anglers have been forced to make major sacrifices in the name of conservation with the promise of someday reaping the rewards, yet someday never comes.
ENGOs have built a cottage industry on “existential threats” and doomsday warnings in America, while countries like Tunisia for example walk away from the international bargaining table with as much as 3,000 metric tons (mt) of bluefin quota, more than double the U.S. share. America’s commercial bluefin fishermen had a total base quota of just over 1,000 mt last year, recreationals received less than 300 mt. And when the U.S. General and Harpoon commercial categories went over quota by roughly 125%, NOAA Fisheries offset the overage using an 18 to 22% portion of reserve as commercial adjustment. The angling community has exceeded quota maybe once in a decade, so we haven’t enjoyed these same benefits; there’s simply not enough quota!
The New England reporter-lobbyist blamed President Trump for allowing commercial overages in North Carolina in January, claiming his actions directly led to “reduced quotas for New York and New England fishermen as the fish migrate north.” False again, NOAA’s recreational adjustments have nothing to do with that overage, and any resulting reductions will, and should, come from the commercial General category.
I guess NOAA Fisheries could find more surplus to hand over to comms later while leaving the angling base untouched. You would think the ENGO reporter-lobbyists would have a problem with these puzzling inequities at both the national and international levels. They don’t, which quite frankly is why they remain the biggest existential threat to recreational fishing in America today!
