Doctors abide by the Hippocratic Oath, where they pledge to "first, do no harm." It's a rule that applies equally well to fisheries managers, and something that the ASMFC should consider as it meets this week.
WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — August 6, 2014 — The following opinion piece was submitted to Saving Seafood by Douglas B. Huntley, of the American Eel Sustainability Association (AESA):
Doctors abide by the Hippocratic Oath, where they pledge to "first, do no harm." It's a rule that applies equally well to fisheries managers, and something that the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) should consider as it meets this week and considers American Eel management options.
On the docket is Draft Addendum IV to the American Eel Fishery Management Plan, and along with it proposed new restrictions on the harvest of American Eels, which have the potential to limit the catch and restrict the growth of a fishery that has become the linchpin of a robust global eel market and a rare opportunity to improve the US trade balance. With the current status of the eel stock subject to uncertainty, and with the last round of eel regulations passed in Addendum III barely having had time to take effect, the Commission should act cautiously, and avoid overly harsh limits that may unnecessarily burden eel fishermen.
The measures before the Commission vary from maintaining the status quo, to deep cuts in harvest levels, to a complete closure of segments of the eel fishery. One of the biggest hurdles facing the Commission as it debates the appropriateness of these measures is that the scientific evidence does not indicate with any certainty that American eels are being overfished. As a result, it's unclear whether additional fishing conservation measures are needed. The most recent ASMFC assessment, released in 2012, concluded that eels were "depleted" relative to their historical averages, but stopped short of making a definitive determination of whether or not they were overfished.
In fact, there are metrics within the ASMFC's assessment that indicate American eels are at least stable, if not in the middle of a long, slow process of recovery. One of the assessment's models, the Depletion-Based Stock Reduction Analysis, calculated that, over the last 15 years, the overall eel biomass had gradually increased by 41 percent. Similarly, eel recruitment has been relatively stable over the last 25 years, meaning that there are no clear signs of population decline.
Other assessments have reached even more positive conclusions. In 2007, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) conducted the most extensive investigation into the status of American Eel to date, to determine whether the species merited protection under the Endangered Species Act. The FWS ultimately concluded that eels did not require protection under the Act, and that the American eel population was both stable and "very abundant."
However, even with these two assessments, there is still much about American Eels that we don't know. The information in the ASMFC's assessment is mostly derived from catch data. But the eel fishery only occupies a small fraction of the American eel's total range, which extends from Brazil to Greenland, and large parts of the US are not subject to fishing. This raises concerns that fisheries managers are not getting a clear and complete picture of the eel stock, as extensive portions of it remain unfished. This may affect the accuracy of both the estimates of eel abundance and perceptions on the stock's health.
At an upcoming meeting of the American Fisheries Society later this month in Quebec, some of the most preeminent experts in eel science and management are scheduled to present new data that is expected to shed further light on these issues. Passing new restrictive regulations before this information can be absorbed and evaluated by the ASMFC would be premature.
Clearly any hasty, potentially unnecessary restrictions on the eel fishery would hurt the fishermen who rely on eels, and who have fished the resource carefully and responsibly. In fact, Maine, which records one of the largest eel harvests, has been proactive in conservatively managing its glass eel fishery, one of the fastest growing and in-demand fisheries in the US. The state took measures to control the growth of the fishery by implementing an individual fisherman quota for the first time in 2014 and reduced the allowable eel harvest by 35 percent. And to ensure that this quota was not exceeded, officials also implemented a new "swipe card" program aimed at tracking eel transactions and cracking down on eel poaching. In its first year, the quota has successfully kept the harvest in check while still allowing eel fisherman to make a living and stimulate our economy.
In 2013 the ASMFC passed Addendum III, the last set of ASMFC regulations on American eel harvesting. These restrictions, which included net and gear restrictions to preserve the Silver Eels on their breeding migration; shutting down the fingerling eel fishery; raising the minimum allowable size for eels by 50 percent, to 9 inches; and implementing coast-wide gear restrictions for yellow eels, just took effect in January of this year. Having only been in place for seven months-and only halfway through one fishing season-it is impossible to definitely determine whether or not these regulations are sufficient, or whether further action by the Commission is needed. Waiting to see the effectiveness of current management measures is both a sensible course and yet another reason why the ASMFC should be cautious in its approach to this week's meeting.
With so many unanswered questions about the American eel stock, the ASMFC shouldn't overreach in its decisions this week. There are too many unknown variables, unanswered questions, and too much uncertainty for the Commission to move forward with some of the more aggressive measures up for debate. These include options that would shut down the glass eel fishery and reduce yellow eel harvests by up to 20 percent. Instead, considering some of Addendum IV's other, less restrictive options would still allow the Commission to be precautionary in its management, but without subjecting fishermen to unnecessarily strict cuts and economic harm.
Douglas B. Huntley
Member, Board of Directors
American Eel Sustainability Association
www.AmericanEel.org