WASHINGTON – January 10 2010 — On December 15, Alllison Fairbrother of the Public Trust Project, a nonprofit organization that describes itself as a group that "investigates and reports on the manipulation of scientific research by corporations and government" responded to an an op-ed published in the January issue of The National Fisherman, by David Frulla and Shaun Gehan, Washington attorneys representing Omega Protein.
An excerpt from the response by Ms. Fairbrother follows along with a link to the original op-ed by Attorneys Frulla and Gehan, and our analysis of the Public Trust Project's response:
Omega Protein’s lobbyists can hardly contain their disbelief.
In an op-ed published in the January issue of The National Fisherman, David Frulla and Shaun Gehan, Washington lawyers representing Omega Protein, minimize efforts to limit over-exploitation of a fish species crucial to the Atlantic marine ecosystem by saying “menhaden have become a ‘cause célébre.’”
Frulla and Gehan are referring to the 90,000 comments submitted by people from around the globe on behalf of the little fish that has come to be known as “the most important fish in the sea.”
In letters, emails, and petitions, concerned citizens asked regulators at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) to preserve more Atlantic menhaden from commercial nets, citing stock assessment science and independent peer review showing that the menhaden population was in poor shape.
In a landmark decision in November 2011, the ASMFC responded. Over the next year the allowable menhaden catch will be cut as much as 37 percent from the 2010 harvest.
This doesn’t sit well with Omega Protein, the industrial fishing company responsible for 80 percent of the coast-wide menhaden catch — about a quarter billion pounds annually.
Read the full article at the Public Trust Project.
Read the original article from National Fisherman.
Analysis:
The Public Trust Project's analysis gets several key facts wrong about menhaden recruitment and the current state of menhaden management. In addition to many unnecessary ad hominem attacks, the article does not present a full picture of what the best available science tells us about the menhaden fishery.
The article takes issue with the assertion that the menhaden stock is “just about at target level of abundance,” arguing that, while true, this is “only in terms of eggs, not fish that grow into the population.” Following the advice of its Technical Committee, supported by peer review, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) adopted “population fecundity (number of maturing or ripe eggs) as a better measure of reproductive output of the population compared to Spawning Stock Biomass (the weight of mature females). Older menhaden release more eggs than younger menhaden. By using the number of eggs released there is more importance given to older fish in the population and therefore population fecundity is a more direct measure of reproductive potential.” (ASMFC, Menhaden Addendum I Aug. 2004). More importantly, the egg-abundance index is the official abundance measure and it shows the population is 99% of its target–about twice the abundance level that would be considered overfished.
By focusing on the adoption of new fishing mortality reference points, the article ignores the historically weak correlation between menhaden recruitment and fishing mortality. Environmental factors such as salinity, temperature, rainfall, winds, tides, and overall water quality have a much greater influence than fishing mortality on whether menhaden eggs grow into larval and then juvenile fish. There is no guarantee that a decrease in fishing mortality will lead to higher recruitment.
The ASMFC did recently increase the menhaden overfishing threshold to a fishing mortality rate (F) that equates to a Maximum Spawning Potential (MSP) of 15 percent, and to establish a target of 30 percent MSP. Historically, however, MSP has not correlated well with actual abundance or stock resiliency. The most recent assessment shows that in 2008, F equated to an MSP of 8 percent. However, from 1955-2008, MSP averaged around 6%. At those levels, the menhaden stock has been able to rebuild, subject to cyclical fluctuations apparently reflecting varying environmental conditions. For example, menhaden recruitment was comparatively high in the mid-1970s, and comparatively low in the late-1980s and 90s, without a significant change in MSP in that timeframe. During the early and mid-1980s, when all agree menhaden abundance was high, the MSP values were below 5 percent. Encouragingly, data shows that in the last two years, juvenile menhaden recruitment in the Chesapeake Bay and Virginia to be at their highest point in decades, without a change in levels of fishing.
Because of the unique properties of menhaden, specifically its very high fecundity and its ability to repopulate from what would otherwise seem to be a low abundance level, applying a blanket certification standard, like the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) 75 percent level for forage fish, may not be an appropriate way to manage the species. Establishing such a reference point does not adequately account for the unique properties of individual forage fish and their role in individual ecosystems. The authors of the article critiqued by the Public Trust Project are criticized for noting the MSC adopted its standard “against well-reasoned scientific argument” without specific citation. Those authors reviewed comments submitted in conjunction with the MSC’s decision, but did so in confidence. The MSC, unlike a public entity, does not publish submitted comments. However, MSC’s representative does not cite scientific support for the organization’s 75 percent MSP standard. Rather, Mr. Daniel Hoggarth, MSC’s Senior Fisheries Assessment Manager, is quoted as saying the standard is “common sense.”
The article criticizes the authors for citing the unsupported and non-statutory nature of the references to “forage” fish in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Magnuson-Stevens Act National Standard 1 guidelines. National Standard 1 requires NMFS to manage species to their optimum yield “for the United States fishing industry.” Magnuson-Stevens does not define or make distinctions for “forage” fish, and provides no statutory authority to apply a set of standards other than optimum yield to forage fish or to treat forage fish differently than the other species that NMFS manages.
Finally, the article is critical of the characterization of H. Bruce Franklin, author of The Most Important Fish in the Sea: Menhaden and America, as a “science fiction expert.” Professor Franklin claims no training or expertise in marine biology, but rather has a doctorate in Philosophy, English and American Literature. According to Professor Franklin’s biography on the Rutgers University website, where he serves as the John Cotton Dana Professor of English and America Studies, Dr. Franklin has written several books on the study of science fiction, including one on author Robert Heinlein. Among other areas of expertise claimed by Dr. Franklin are “history and literature of the Vietnam War since 1966,” prison literature, and Herman Melville.