REBUILDING PLAN FOR ATLANTIC MACKEREL

PROPOSED REBUILDING PLAN FOR ATLANTIC MACKEREL DRAWS QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS FROM THE RECREATIONAL SECTOR

Capt. Barry Gibson, RFA New England Regional Director

A new amendment on tap to rebuild Atlantic mackerel stocks has raised serious questions about survey methods and areas, stock shifts due to the effects of warming Gulf of Maine waters, and how the proposed measures will affect recreational fishermen.

In the Winter 2022 edition of Making Waves I explained to readers that in June of 2021, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released what they call a “Management Track Survey” of Atlantic mackerel along the East Coast of the U.S. The survey was designed to create a snapshot of the size and health of the current mackerel stock.

Unfortunately, according to the survey, the news is not good. The stock has apparently been overfished for the past eight years. Although the mackerel stock tripled between 2014 and 2019, it is said to be only 24% of the target biomass of some 180,000 metric tons.

So now, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC), the board that develops management plans in federal waters off New York down through Virginia and which is responsible for Atlantic mackerel management, is tasked with creating a rebuilding plan, which is called the “Atlantic Mackerel Rebuilding 2.0 Amendment.”

According to the MAFMC, a 70% reduction in commercial landings and a 50% reduction in recreational landings will likely be needed in order to rebuild the mackerel stock within 10 years.

Needless to say, fishermen from Massachusetts through Maine were blindsided by the news. There were plenty of mackerel along the New England coast in 2021, and there have been for the past few years, so everyone was mystified as to how the survey could indicate there was a serious problem. plenty of mackerel right along the coast but explained that in offshore areas the survey ships did not encounter very many mackerel where they had found them during previous surveys, nor did they find the amount of eggs and larvae they had in the past.

That triggered a lot of speculation that perhaps the offshore mackerel stock may have moved north or east due to the warming of Gulf of Maine waters over the past few years, as has happened with other fish species. Some fishermen questioned the timing of the survey samplings, saying that if they had been performed during other months the results may have been different.

Since the first article on the subject appeared in Making Waves, and after a number of public hearings in April, MAFMC has proposed that commercial mackerel cutbacks include a 3” minimum net size for trawl vessels, and a reduced overall annual quota. Recreational measures would consist of a 10- or 15-fish bag limit per person per day (including mackerel used as bait and/or chum) which is expected to reduce the recreational catch by 10% to 30%.

The management plan and the above catch reduction proposals triggered a torrent of response from recreational anglers and for-hire operators. The Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Association, based in Plymouth, MA, drew up some representative comments and recommendations (listed below) and submitted them to MAFMC on April 30th.

• The observations of the recreational and commercial fisherman in state and federal waters from Maine to south of Massachusetts is that there has been no lack of mackerel, from small to large, in these waters in the past several years.

continued from page 5 Mid-Atlantic region may well be due to stock relocation to cooler waters rather than poor stock status. Northerly shifting stock would be consistent with the movement of multiple other saltwater species.

• As a result of a lack of mackerel in Mid-Atlantic waters, a separate bag limit is recommended at the approximate 41 degrees latitude line. A liberal bag limit north of latitude 41 degrees would be reflective of the significant biomass and shifting stock and the use of mackerel by the recreational, for-hire and commercial fleet.

• In general, most anglers support a 15-fish per person bag limit for use of mackerel as bait to target striped bass and bluefin tuna. This, however, does not accommodate for-hire operators who catch and keep live bait in a bait pen at the dock to use for upcoming trips. As a result, a separate for-hire or possession bag limit is recommended for the for-hire fleet. We also question the 100% mortality assumption that, based on our observations, is actually significantly less and more in the range of 15%.

• The present bag limit does not reflect the use of mackerel as chum. There is an accommodation suggested that if one has a payment receipt for a “flat” of mackerel on the boat, the flat could exceed the 15-fish bag limit if used as chum. However, this does not reflect the fact that many anglers catch and use mackerel as bait on a particular trip and/or freeze them for use on a later trip. As a result, there needs to be an accommodation for use of such by anglers and for-hire operators.

• We recommend that NMFS, as well as each affected state, educate the public about state and/or federal permitting and reporting requirements when recreational, for-hire, or commercial fishing.

• Since the commercial herring quota has been significantly reduced, fewer mackerel are being caught as bycatch. This has contributed to a significant reduction in commercial mackerel landings. This is likely the main source of the 184% increase in the stock biomass since 2014.

• Continued flawed Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) results regarding recreational landings distorts MRIP recreational data. The National Academy of Science’s recent MRIP review would suggest that this MRIP data needs to be reassessed and revised for it to be at all reflective of the New England fishermen’s experience.

• As set forth above, the recreational and commercial sectors rely on mackerel for live or fresh bait to catch striped bass, bluefin tuna, and other species. Many anglers also rely on mackerel for a day of fishing, especially with kids, where they can catch mackerel when few other species are available.

• There are also those, particularly from economically challenged communities, who catch mackerel in order to feed their families and who will no longer book trips on for-hire vessels with a 15 fish bag limit in place. We know that recreational landings are a fraction of the total commercial landings. However, with current flawed MRIP landing data, even this reality may not appear evident.

• The current means and methods associated with the spring and fall trawl surveys to effectively land mackerel are questionable, and as a result, NMFS also relies on egg larvae surveys, using the combination of both surveys to assess the status of the stock. There is a lack of egg larvae surveys in state waters, so there is no data on the stock size to support our observations of the tremendous biomass of mackerel in state waters. The survey limitations and ongoing fall and spring survey locations in combination with a shifting stock and changes in the location and timing of where the mackerel are currently found negatively impacts the results and does not capture the actual biomass in US and Canadian waters.

• As a result, we recommend that the for-hire fleet that presently is required to record landings, releases, and details of each trip via eVTRs, be part of the process. We encourage NMFS to identify the details needed to assist in the stock assessments via eVTRs concerning the timing, location, and any interaction with egg-bearing mackerel observed during each trip. We have observed the change in timing, spatial distribution and extent of mackerel in our waters over many years now (especially in state waters) that is not reflected in the stock assessment.

• Unquestionably, there is no lack of mackerel in state and federal waters from Maine to Massachusetts. Implementing measures that would impact New England fishermen without consideration of their input will most certainly create a loss of support and confidence in fisheries management.

• Future stock assessments should consider alternatives that are less reliant on MRIP data such as the use of the Harvest Control Rule or Management Strategy Evaluation to assess stock status.

• Future recreational measures, if any, need to reflect the historically low recreational catch in relation to the commercial catch.

RFA hopes that MAFMC will take these comments, concerns and suggestions into serious consideration when crafting the management plan. MAFMC will take final action at their June 2022, meeting, with plan implementation scheduled for January of 2023. The public comment period closed on May 9th, but RFA members can follow the process by visiting MAFMC’s web site at www.mafmc.org.