May 8, 2013 — The following is an excerpt from the Blue Ocean Institute's blog post, "Reopening New England’s Closed Fishing Areas Would Be Bad For Mammals, Too," originally published on April 18.
In the early 1990’s, fisheries managers closed several fishing areas off New England. They closed these areas to help rebuild depleted fish populations of commercially important species of cod, haddock, and flounders. But these closed areas have also provided benefits for other ocean wildlife, like many of the region’s marine mammals– such as harbor porpoises, bottlenose dolphins, the endangered North Atlantic right whale, and endangered humpback whales. [If you are ever in Maine, I highly recommend going whale watching to see these magnificent creatures up close!] Unfortunately, these protections for New England’s marine mammals are now in jeopardy.
Read the full article at The Blue Ocean Institute
ANALYSIS: Against the recommendations of some environmental groups, last week NOAA approved Framework Adjustment 48, a proposal by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) to modify mortality closures off the coast of New England. Previous allegations suggested that the proposal would endanger marine mammals, particularly right whales.
In her online article, “Reopening New England’s Closed Fishing Areas Would Be Bad For Mammals, Too,” the Blue Ocean Institute’s Elizabeth Brown echoes these claims, stating: “We need to fully evaluate these effects before any areas are reopened.” But Framework 48 will not simply “open” these closures. The proposal only allows fishing sectors the ability to apply for access to these areas, after which, NOAA will weigh their requests against any possible environmental impacts.
In arguing that the closed area updates will endanger right whales, Ms. Brown makes several statements that are misleading, and some that are historically inaccurate.
MYTH: “[Managers] closed these areas to help rebuild depleted fish populations of commercially important species…”
Ms. Brown conflates mortality closures, which are under review for modification through Framework 48, with habitat closures, which will not be affected. Habitat closures were designated because of their value or unique habitat features that can protect fish populations. Mortality closures, on the other hand, are part of a system of fisheries management replaced two years ago that limited catch sizes by determining when, where and with what gear fishermen could operate. NOAA has acknowledged that in light of new management, these closures, which are geographically arbitrary and do not protect important fish habitat, are now outdated.
MYTH: “New England closed areas protect marine mammal habitats and provide them year-round protection from fishing”
Mortality closures were not designed to protect important habitat areas or provide any marine mammal protections. They are comprised mostly of sandy, gravelly areas of the seabed that are highly affected by currents and inhospitable to many marine species. Furthermore, these areas are not entirely closed to fishing. Many gear types — including dredge gear, longlines, gill nets and mid-level trawls — can already access these mortality closures. Habitat closures, which will not be modified under Framework 48, are the only closures that prohibit all fishing year-round. Seasonal marine mammal closures will also remain in effect.
MYTH: “Without these protected areas, fishing entanglements of marine mammals would likely occur more often”
There is little evidence that the proposed changes will have any effect on marine mammals. “These analyses are almost always qualitative. It’s very difficult to come up with any definitive answers,” said Pat Fiorelli, spokesperson for the NEFMC.
Marine mammals, including right whales, are most susceptible to entanglement by mid-level trawls and fixed gear fishing equipment like drift nets and gill nets. These gear types already have access to the mortality closure areas. Commercial groundfishermen, who primarily use bottom trawl gear, pose little added threat to mammal species by gaining access to mortality areas.
Moreover, when vessels apply for access, NOAA will evaluate each proposal individually to determine any potential risks to marine mammals. Managers have an understandably strong interest in protecting these species and will take precautions to ensure that any changes in management will not harm marine mammals or endangered species populations.
MYTH: “Sightings of this [right whale] species show it often concentrates within several of New England’s closed areas.”
The map that Ms. Brown includes in her story fails to distinguish between mortality closures and habitat closures. The illustration implies that all of the encircled areas will be modified. But many concentrated right whale sightings lay within the habitat closures that will not be altered. In fact, the largest areas being considered by Framework 48 experienced very few whale sightings.
MYTH: “[Managers are considering Framework 48 to] give New England fishermen the opportunity to catch more fish and make up for the current lack of fish in the open fishing areas.”
This statement is misleading. While the proposed changes will improve fishing capabilities, they also will correct redundant management efforts that strain the marine environment. Framework 48 enables fishermen to catch their quotas more easily by modifying the mortality closures that decrease fishing efficiency. This will allow fishermen to catch the same set amount of fish with less fishing effort — which means less stress on the marine environment. This is a win, not just for fishermen, but for habitat as well.
By asking: “Is catching a few more fish really worth that risk?” Ms. Brown misdirects attention from the current economic crisis in the New England groundfish fishery. This is not a struggle over “a few more fish.” Fishermen are only allocated a set quota of groundfish, a quantity deemed sustainable by managers, which will not change under Framework 48. By helping fishermen reach that with less fishing effort, managers are offering some much-needed relief to fishing families, as well as reducing any affects of gear on the marine environment. Fishermen and fishing communities already face severe economic uncertainty — and the situation is only expected to worsen with the allocation cuts that went into effect earlier this month.
Concerns for marine mammals and endangered species permeate all aspects of fisheries management. Regulations are in place to protect these species against human harm, and the suggestion that managers are neglecting to consider marine mammals is unfounded. The NEFMC is legally mandated to decrease long-term adverse fishing impacts. To mitigate any unforeseen environmental harms, NOAA will require sectors to apply and gain approval for access, seasonal closures will remain intact, and NOAA will retain the right to revoke access to these areas. NOAA is also considering mandatory monitoring on all fishing vessels inside of the mortality closures. These measures will help ensure that as management moves forward, marine mammals remain protected.