New England

Keywords: New England fisheries, Groundfish Amendment 13, Gulf of Maine, groundfisheries, area management, adaptive management.

Much has been made of the importance of local knowledge in conservation, especially in rainforests. Shamans and hunters bridge human society to the rest of the world; their information can point the way to understanding patterns of distribution, behavior, and diversity in the context of modern science. Most biologists would readily agree that local knowledge is prerequisite to work in remote jungles, yet some fishery biologists dismiss things local when they turn to their daily task of calculating allowable annual levels of extraction in the waters that ebb and flow against their own back yards. The science used in the Gulf of Maine to set a total allowable catch (TAC) assumes that every species behaves as a single, well-mixed population encompassing everything north of Cape Cod. This puzzles the fishermen -- and a good many scientists as well, who experience fish community dynamics in the Gulf of Maine somewhat differently. Where the regulators see uniformity, watermen see seasonal flows of locally adapted stocks, persistent gatherings upon boulder piles and banks, and recurrent patterns of change in where and when the fishes are and are not.

In September 2003, we sent a letter to Paul Howard, the Director of the New England Fisheries Management Council, requesting that local stocks and habitat structure be incorporated into fishery decision making for New England. Scores of colleagues endorsed this letter, reflecting strong support from the scientific community for the idea that current fishery management practices are based on an inappropriately large scale of examination.

September 9, 2003

Paul Howard, Executive Director, New England Fisheries Management Council50 Water Street, Mill 2
Newburyport, MA 01950

CC: Bill Hogarth, Director NOAA Fisheries
Pat Kurkul, NOAA Fisheries, Northeast Regional Administrator

Re: Comments on Groundfish Amendment 13

Dear Paul,

We are writing to urge the New England Fisheries Management Council to adopt a finer-scale, area management approach to the New England groundfishery. The wisdom of this suggestion derives from knowledge of the natural history of our fishes, from ecological theory, from socio-economics and from recent scientific evidence about the importance of localized behavior, site attachment, and population structure in groundfishes. These various sources of insight all indicate that our current broad-scale approach, in which the Gulf of Maine is assumed to constitute a single, homogeneous stock for every species, makes it difficult, perhaps impossible, for the Council to successfully implement fundamental requirements of resource management. In particular, it makes it extremely difficult to match fishing effort and patterns in the production and aggregation of fishes; it has hobbled the Council’s attempts to address habitat issues and other aspects of ecological structure; and it has discouraged a sense of stewardship among fishermen.

We realize that a system of governance for area management cannot be implemented full-blown at the outset. We also understand that area management by itself will not instantly solve all of the problems of the New England groundfishery. But if implemented with sufficient care, area management will bring us much closer to matching our fishing effort with the ocean’s potential to sustain it. Area management makes it possible to address local habitat features and the substocks of fish metapopulations that have accommodated behaviorally, and may have adapted genetically, to take advantage of these localized habitat features. Area management creates the circumstances under which adaptive management can really work. Most of all, it is consistent with the kind of decentralized management that is essential for self-interested stewardship among fishermen - one of the strongest steps we can take towards sustainable fisheries.

The problem of matching the spatial distribution of fishing effort to the regenerative capacity of the stocks is fundamental to fisheries management. What this means as a practical matter, however, is very dependent on our scientific perception of the appropriate spatial scale or scales. If it is assumed, as is the case currently, that the New England groundfishery is comprised of one or two homogeneous stocks of each species that mix freely over large geographical ranges and exhibit no important local biology, then it makes sense to define a single Total Allowable Catch (TAC) or total days-at-sea for each stock (or stock complex) at that scale. But, if it turns out that the groundfishery is characterized by spatially localized and locally distinct substocks, our current approach to effort management is certain to produce de facto and continuing open access. That is, each stock will be subject to much more fishing effort than any of these localized stocks or population concentrations can sustain.

The reason for this is very straightforward. Knowledgeable fishermen go where the fish are. If they can move freely from stock to stock (or between multispecies stock complexes) the amount of fishing effort that can be applied to each local stock is potentially the total amount of effort allocated to the entire fishery. Unfortunately, as a practical matter only marginal shifts in effort are likely to be required to knock down any growing local stock. Consequently, the current draconian reductions in fishing effort are likely to yield little long-term benefit so long as the circumstances of de facto open access dominate the fishery. By moving to area management and restricting the mobility of vessels, the Council can take a reasonable first step towards meeting the fundamental requirement of matching fishing activity with the regenerative capacity of the ecosystem. Area management also would allow us to begin to tailor fisheries management to the ecological details of particular areas. Fish from different parts of a species’ range are not all the same. They exhibit a spectrum of locally distinct attributes that range from learned behaviors to genetic adaptations; this helps them to track resources in a spatially heterogeneous environment. Management has paid insufficient attention to this extremely important aspect of groundfish biology and our relatively centralized administrative apparatus has made effective attention to this kind of ecological detail almost impossible. An area management approach will make it practical to consider local detail while also coordinating at a regional scale. This is a lesson that every large corporation in the world has learned: efficiency and productivity are enhanced when locally relevant decisions are delegated to responsible and knowledgeable local managers.

Area management also begins to point us down the road towards the development of stewardship incentives among resource users. This is how responsibility is built at the local level. Under the current system of de facto open access, stewardship is irrational for the individual. Restraint exercised by any individual fisherman does not pay off if the resource is exploited by other fishermen. Moving away from these kinds of mutually destructive incentives is also a fundamental requirement of good resource management. Area management makes the development of stewardship much more practical. It sets up the circumstances for multilevel governance and the meaningful participation of the industry.

For example, an important conservation effect that can be expected with area management comes from the user interests that will develop to address migratory and overlapping stocks. Usually migration is seen as a large barrier to area management. This can prove to be almost exactly wrong. The governance group or committee in each unit will have a strong incentive to make sure that neighboring areas apply appropriate conservation rules to these stocks. If the governance rules allow areas to negotiate with each other, a strong mutually beneficial conservation interest is enabled – one that is not currently present in the management system.

In the last two decades an extensive body of knowledge developed from the experience in business, government and resource management has grown up around workable ways to decentralize resource management (e.g, Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom, et al. 2002). Area management provides a framework for the implementation of that knowledge in the New England fisheries.

Whether the move to area management is appropriate or not depends upon the spatial attributes of the stocks. Ecological theory argues for the importance of local adaptations (Levin, 1998). In New England the hard evidence consistent with this theory has been cropping up for some time, but has only recently begun to filter into the literature. Perkins et al. (1997) describe the distinct biological features of a Sheepscot Bay substock. Ted Ames has a paper in press that documents, in a broader sense, the existence of local structure in the behavior of cod with respect to habitat features (Ames, in press). Ted shows that inshore cod aggregate, hang out, and move about in ways that can make them vulnerable to pulse fishing by highly mobile vessels. Ted’s data are based on historical patterns, but early returns from the Northeast Consortium-funded cod-tagging program may confirm the continued existence of localized stock structure in the Gulf of Maine. Recent finding show surprisingly limited movements by cod on Stellwagen Bank tracked via acoustic telemetry (Peter Auster, pers. Comm). This work is continuing, and we now appreciate that cod and haddock on Stellwagen boulder reefs can remain in association with a single boulder pile for periods of months, and in at least one case, milled about or kept returning to one small area for more than a year (Lindholm and Kaufman, pers. obs.). There is no reason to think that this behavior is unusual. Indeed, it is corroborated by studies conducted elsewhere in the range of Atlantic cod and other groundfishes (Wroblewski et al. 1996, Thorrold et al., 2001). There are records of highly localized concentrations of groundfish being depleted in just a few years (Preble and Safina, 2002), so we know that this can and does happen.

Are the substocks that are restricted behaviorally to a particular area of seabottom also genetically distinct, and if so, are they specially adapted to their peculiar conditions? There is some evidence to that they are genetically distinct (Bentzen et al. 1996, Ruzante et al. 1996a, 1996b). The genetics do not give us all the information we need, however, because (a) a lot of this work has yet to be done, and because (b) the methods currently used to define genetic stock structure are not the best for this purpose. (They tend to focus on “neutral” genes, or genes that are specifically thought not to be related to local adaptation). Whether the basis of local differences are learned, inherited, or both, these biological differences do exist, and are related to localized habitat features.Most people do not perceive the currents, rockpiles, nurseries, undersea highways, and breeding aggregations of our groundfishes. Though submarine habitats may be hidden from view by the sea’s leaden surface, their effects in restricting the movements and population structure of groundfishes are just as real as the more obvious effects of estuaries and headlands on anadromous species, as in the many distinct stocks of the Pacific salmons. Clearly, we must know about these local features - any good fishermen already does - and take them into account in the design of rules that govern fishing activity. By ignoring these local scale aspects of the ecosystem we have put both the stocks and the livelihood of the fishing industry at risk. In this respect broad-scale management is neither cautious nor economical.

In summary, ecological theory and growing scientific evidence points to the importance of localized movements and adaptations of fish populations. These patterns create diversity and resilience in the ecosystem. They are a fundamental aspect of the biological productivity of our fishery, and can no longer be ignored. When we do ignore them we make it almost impossible for us to fulfill four fundamental requirements for resource management: (1) we can’t match fishing effort to the ability of stocks to rebuild; (2) we can’t properly address the conservation of system habitat and structure;(3) we can’t develop the stewardship incentives appropriate to sustainable conservation, and (4) we can’t exercise reasonable precaution in decision-making. These are extremely serious problems. If they are not addressed, management will fail to meet the requirements of the Sustainable Fisheries Act and the fishery will continue to limp along from crisis to crisis.

Area management creates a structure in which we can begin to address these problems. It complements regional coordination with finer-scale management. It makes it easier to match effort to the resiliency of the system; it moves us towards practical ways of dealing with habitat and system structure, and it makes it easier to develop appropriate stewardship incentives for users. Most of all it creates an environment in which we can learn and adapt – one that is amenable to adaptive management (Walters, 1986). We understand the problems fishermen, scientists, and administrators will face in a transition to area management, but the costs of continuing with the current large-scale approach are unacceptable from both a conservation and an economic perspective.

Sincerely yours, Dr. Les Kaufman, Boston University; Dr. Jim Wilson, University of Maine

The undersigned also endorse the basic points made in this letter.

[A list of more than 87 signatories followed]

If the letter’s signatories are correct, then society should be deeply suspicious of the science currently employed to regulate fisheries in the Gulf of Maine. Given that poor fishery management can have severe biological and economic impacts, this local information should be crucial to managing precisely where and how people are allowed to fish. Alternatively, if we are wrong, then the patterns we cite are all so much noise, and worrying too much about small-scale dynamics could be a waste of public funds. What is right for the Gulf of Maine? What is the right scale and richness for the information on which fishery regulatory decisions are based, for anywhere in the world?

Ironically, fishermen, scientists and regulators collectively hold a great deal more knowledge than is actually used in management, even though this knowledge is essential to the sustainability of their enterprise. Many in our community agree on some basic realities: that too many fishes have been caught, that the ocean is not a farmer’s field -- for we do not sow -- and that the fields of the sea plant themselves in fragile, multispecies communities, not in single crops that can then be conveniently harvested over and over again. They know that the prey we seek are so deeply embedded in a complex, fluid system that they simply can not be removed without altering the system. We can, at least, attempt to understand, track, and minimize these alterations.

A shift to finer-scale information flow and policy is just one of several improvements to fishery management that are essential components in a move toward sustainable fisheries. The first is to bring policy into closer alignment with the information flow on which it is based. A desire for more information is the underpinning of risk management in fisheries. In an information-poor environment (such as when we do not even know the regional population size of a target species), a policy for sustainability is a policy of precaution. Single species management is problematical but, nevertheless, essential without appropriate information about the ecosystem. Creating finer scale management units to complement our current very broad scale administration is a way to acquire that information effectively. Eventually, when enough is known about the ocean, management can shift from species-based to ecosystem-based. Making the shift requires a rich information base that includes consideration of climate, habitat, ecosystem structure and function (e.g., biodiversity, food web dynamics), and both watershed and fishery impacts. Furthermore, if accompanied by appropriate local governance, as we’ve learned in so many other instances, finer scale management can generate individual user incentives that are compatible with sustainability. Those circumstances make the science problem immeasurably easier.

A clear progression through these three stages of science and management is rarely part of the vision for a regional fishery. California is an exception because the state Marine Life Management Act legally requires such a vision. Recently, the precise meaning of shifting management through the three stages (information-poor, information-moderate, information-rich) was articulated in the California Nearshore Fishery Management Plan (see http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/nfmp/section1_acknowledgements.html. New England is in a superb position to reach for information-rich management by virtue of its rich academic endowment, and lively community of scientists concerned with marine conservation and fisheries. Whether the region can muster itself to do so in the absence of a persuasive, ecosystem-minded set of laws, remains to be seen.

Academics easily become frustrated by the slow turning of the policy mill, but there are useful things that we can do while we wait. Even with the best and richest information flow to decision-makers, we are still going to make frequent, and sometimes costly, mistakes. Our best strategy for reducing error is to adopt an adaptive approach to marine impact management. We can do this by working with industry to help create the circumstances in which controlled experiments are not only acceptable but are seen to be in the self-interest of resource users, e.g., establish aereal management, then promulgate regulations in some areas while holding others as controls. Most of the time there will be three experimental treatments in progress: old regulations, new regulations, and totally- protected marine reserves as reference areas. Each of the replicates or sites will also be its own control, by adopting a BACI (before-after-control-impact), repeated-measures design. Without such a design, or something comparable, it is impossible to attribute a change in the population size of a target species to particular human impact, a successful or unsuccessful change in regulations, or a natural event unrelated to fishery management.

While policy makers are plying their jawboning in hallways and boardrooms, social and natural scientists can be designing and implementing the experiments that are needed to provide both guidance and accountability for policy actions. Many of the people engaged in the public debate over the importance and utility of marine protected areas (MPA’s) overlook the role of totally-protected MPA’s as an essential part of the science necessary for adaptive management.

Legitimate concerns can be raised about the practicality of rigorous adaptive management. Regardless of one’s position on the matter, there are two quantitative products of taking an adaptive management approach that have an essential role to play in any management system. One is the creation of a diagnostic toolkit for measuring change in the ecosystem that supports a fishery. In other words, what useful things can we measure aside from just counting the fishes?

The second quantitative product is an improved set of biological reference points. These are numerical values for informative parameters that can be used as decision points for management. For example, current decisions about fisheries are often made as a function of proximity to a number called “MSY”, or maximum sustainable yield. Equally important from an ecosystem perspective, however, may be factors such as the frequency and intensity of habitat alteration, the structure of the food web, or life history parameters that track the way that an exploited population responds to extraction: e.g. age and size at maturity, changes in spatial and temporal patterns of distribution, etc.

A non-quantitative but equally essential aspect of adaptive management that is usually not considered in scientific discussions is the organizational structure of the management regime. The importance of area management is the fact that smaller areas and correspondingly decentralized management allow for greater adaptation to local circumstances and, therefore, a greater ability to experiment. Experimenting with new management approaches over the whole of New England waters is hard to do. The heterogeneity of both the social and biological environment means that change in policy that makes sense in one place may be wrong in others. However, an experiment limited to Downeast Maine or in Long Island Sound, on the other hand, can be better tailored to both the social and biological conditions of the area and, for that reason, is likely to be a better experiment and also will be more acceptable to the affected people.

The New England Fisheries – including the Gulf of Maine -- suffer from obvious problems that have been articulated in detail in the reports of the Pew Oceans Commission (http://www.pewoceans.org/oceans/index.asp) and the Federal Oceans Commission (http://oceancommission.gov/documents/prelimreport/welcome.html). It is incumbent upon the marine conservation science community in New England to encourage policy makers to bring the best, but also the most original and sophisticated, science to bear on fisheries management. By revealing truths about the nature of the continental shelf and human impacts upon it, and by opening promising avenues toward a more sustainable relationship between the New Englanders and their ocean, scientists can actually spearhead fishery reform in our region rather than waiting to be called upon after it is too late to introduce fundamental concepts or new approaches. The decision whether or not to engage in this process is a personal one. Nonetheless, once we, as members of academic faculty have passed the milestones of tenure and promotion, we should be expected to throw our weight and wisdom into the effort of reform and conservation. The struggle against corruption of the environment and human society is occurring in New England and all over the world. Let us do the best we can to heal the waters that ebb and flow against our own back yards for the welfare of humanity and the rest of the members of the Gulf of Maine ecosystem.

The authors express their gratitude to Heather Deese, Beazie Chase, and Craig Pendleton of the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance; to Ted Ames and Robin Alden of the Stonington Fisheries Alliance; to John Williamson and other colleagues on the Research Steering Committee of the New England Fishery Management Council; and to David Bergeron and Olivia Rugo of the Massachusetts Fishermens’ Partnership for fruitful discussions of science and fishery management in New England.

Ames, T. 2004. Atlantic cod structure in the Gulf of Maine. Journal of the American Fisheries Society 29(1): 10-27.

Bentzen, P., Taggart, C. Ruzzante, D., Cook, D. 1996. Microsatellite polymorphism and the population structure of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the northwest Atlantic. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2706 - 2721.

Levin, S. A. 1998. Fragile Dominions: Complexity and the Commons. Perseus Books. Reading, MA

Ostrom, etal. 2002, Drama of the Commons. National Academy Press, 2002. (committee on human dimensions of global change, national research council)

Ostrom 1990, Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action, Cambridge University Press, NY.

Perkins, H. C., Chenoweth, S. B. and Langton, R. W. 1997. The Gulf of Maine Atlantic cod complex, patterns of distribution and movement of the Sheepscot Bay substock. Bull. Natl. Res. Inst. Aquacult. Supp. 3. 101 - 107.

Preble, D. and C. Safina. 2002. A Rising Tide for Ethics. In: S. Kellert, Ed. The Good In Nature and Humanity. Island Press. Washington, DC.

Ruzzante, D. Taggart, C. and Cook, D. 1996a. Spatial and temporal variation in the genetic composition of a larval cod (Gadus morhua) aggregation: cohort contribution and genetic stability. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 2695 - 2705.

Ruzzante, D., Taggart, C., Cook, D., Goddard, S. 1996b. Genetic differentiation between inshore and offshore Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) off Newfoundland: microsatellite DNA variation and antifreeze level. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 53: 634 - 645.

Thorrold, S. R., Latkoczy, C., Swart, P. K., Jones, C. M. 2001. Natal homing in a marine fish metapopulation. Science. 291: 297 - 299.

Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillian, New York.

Wroblewski, J. S., Smedbol, R. K, Taggart, C. T., Goddard, S. V. 1996. Movements of farmed and wild Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) released in Trinity Bay, Newfoundland. Mar. Biol. 124: 619 - 627.