2014 benchmark stock assessment for menhaden shows no problems

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

Menhaden Defenders and the overall Menhaden Coalition still has work to do. We can not back off promoting conservation and moderation of catch of the "most important fish in the sea" until we have a balanced population at historic ABUNDANT levels from Maine to Florida!

No consistent with national guidelines. Some would argue that there has never been "overfishing." The last stock assessment did not pass peer review and was discarded as not being worthy of being called management advice.

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

No consistent with national guidelines. Some would argue that there has never been "overfishing." The last stock assessment did not pass peer review and was discarded as not being worthy of being called management advice.

The science and decisions between the "rejected" assessment and the two actions since then are not the current question and you know that. Also, I am not making an overfishing argument, that is a bit foolish considering the recent science. I would point you at the year class data from the assessment as the biomass is made up of some strange year class distribution. The stock is better but not even close to what standard science considers robust. But this is all side conversation again not germain to the coming debate.

My point is that the response to this assessment should be about bringing some more fairness/balance in the allocation of the overall harvest. The reduction industry has already telegraphed it wants to roll back catch limits for its own sector. Do you think 80% of the sustainable harvest should be allocated to one company for one purpose while only 20% is allocated to the rest of the nation aka the bait sector and recreational harvest?

Have you even read national Standard 1?

Many a court has affirmed that MSY does not mean a stock should benefit only one company or one sector?

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by BasicPatrick

My point is that the response to this assessment should be about bringing some more fairness/balance in the allocation of the overall harvest. The reduction industry has already telegraphed it wants to roll back catch limits for its own sector. Do you think 80% of the sustainable harvest should be allocated to one company for one purpose while only 20% is allocated to the rest of the nation aka the bait sector and recreational harvest?

In theory I would agree with you, but as a practical matter all of the northeastern states have given the bait/recreational sector free rein to catch as much as they can. None of the northeastern states have curtailed their catch, all of them have treated the entire bait/recreational sector as "bycatch" to avoid having to restrict the catch.

So I might turn the question around to; "is it fair than only one sector of the fishery has been restricted while the other sectors have been been given free rein to catch whatever they can"?

Personally I would much prefer an open discussion as to what is the "proper" distribution of the catch, rather than the subterfuges used in the past. Hopefully, this stock assessment, which shows that the sky really isn't falling will give us the latitude to have that discussion.

[BasicPatrick]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

Personally I would much prefer an open discussion as to what is the "proper" distribution of the catch, rather than the subterfuges used in the past. Hopefully, this stock assessment, which shows that the sky really isn't falling will give us the latitude to have that discussion.

I could not agree more. Make no mistake about it, we all know the monitoring, reporting, by catch loophole and other parts of the plan regarding the bait sector are a joke.

[Stewie]

Thank you Patrick, for what you do.

[numbskull]

Set your goals low enough and you can reach them. The fishery manager's creed.