Mr. Daniel Furlong
Executive Director
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
Room 2115 Federal Building
300 New South St.
Dover, DE 19904

Gentlemen:

We must comment on the Draft Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan that we feel has missed a very important aspect of needed multispecies management in both the New England and Mid-Atlantic regions. In fact, this aspect is so significant, that we urge the Councils to seek further guidance from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center before adopting this plan that unintentionally ignores scientific advice and warnings given since the early 1990s that are just as germane now (perhaps more so) during these critical stages of decision-making for groundfish rebuilding (e.g., Gulf of Maine cod).

The draft plan alludes to this aspect. On page 14 it states:

But the plan doesn't adequately describe scientists' concern about this competition or predation. For the Councils' benefit we review that concern since it is the heart of our argument that the Councils need to reconsider the wisdom of rebuilding dogfish to high levels of abundance.

Refer to a spiny dogfish assessment conclusion made at the 18th SAW (December 1994):

Note that Bigelow and Schroeder in their famous text, Fishes of the Gulf of Maine, highlighted dogfish appetite:

Scott and Scott (Atlantic Fishes of Canada) made a similar point:

Murawski and Idoine in their 1992 paper, "Multispecies size composition: A conservative property of exploited fishery systems?" cited a conclusion of Grosslein, Langton, and Sissenwine (In "Recent fluctuations in pelagic fish stocks of the Northwest Atlantic, Georges Bank region, in relation to species interactions, 1980"). That conclusion was:

Murawski and Idoine suggested:

Murawski had made this point in his 1991 paper, "Can we manage our multispecies fisheries?" He stated:

In another 1991 paper, "Impact of predatory fish, marine mammals, and seabirds on the pelagic fish ecosystem of the northeastern USA," Overholtz, Murawski, and Foster concluded:

Other NEFSC notables, Mayo, Fogarty, and Serchuk made a similar point in their 1992 paper, "Aggregate fish biomass and yield on Georges Bank, 1960-87." They concluded:

.........................................................................................................................

Furthermore, Gabriel in her 1992 paper, "Persistence of demersal fish assemblages between Cape Hatteras and Nova Scotia, Northwest Atlantic" noted:

DMF has its own reference regarding this subject. The "Special Report of the Department of Natural Resources Relative to...the Control and Eradication of Dogfish...," January 1964, written by Fairbanks, Hutton, and Wilbour, was submitted to the Legislature as a response to "An Act authorizing and directing the Division of Marine Fisheries to establish and maintain a dogfish nuisance control and eradication program." One element of the bill was:

That report began by citing the "Dogfish Problem."

Of note, Fairbanks et al. stated:

They recommended:

These prescient researchers also suggested:

Why do the Councils want to rebuild dogfish "competitors and predators" to 440 million lbs. (200,000 mt)? The answer seems simple enough. It’s the stock size that supposedly will maximize average recruitment and can be used as a proxy for Bmsy.

According to the Draft Plan, the report of the 26th SAW (March 1998) indicated the total adult spiny dogfish stock in 1997 was at 280 million lbs. (127,000 mt); therefore, the Council is obliged to rebuild dogfish as required by the Sustainable Fisheries Act, and the Council has 10 years to do it. With this proxy, abundance would be somewhat above the minimum biomass threshold of 220 million lbs. (½ 440 million lbs.). However, remember that total biomass (all sizes) in 1997 was high. Total biomass has been stable at about 1,322.2 million lbs. (600,000 mt), according to the 26th SAW.

We now have the irony of having to rebuild adult dogfish to 440 million lbs. even though by doing so we could impact our efforts to rebuild groundfish, especially cod, if we are to rely on NEFSC scientific advice. The draft plan is silent on this issue. It shouldn't be. This is a single species plan with significant multi-species implications. Even the dogfish fishermen who attended the hearings understood this simple fact. After listening at the Mass. public hearings to Council staffer Rich Seagraves state that NMFS had designated spiny dogfish as overfished, one fisherman shook his head and responded:

We suspect Congress never considered the implications of rebuilding all stocks to Bmsy. Ecosystem issues might not have been raised or received enough attention. Furthermore, if Congress ever discussed sharks, it probably did so with the more glamorous sharks in mind, e.g., blues and makos, not dogfish.

Again, why rebuild to 440 million lbs.? Another reason is that the reproductive capacity of the stock has been reduced. The 26th SAW stated:

We assume NEFSC scientists still support the statements and conclusions they've made and published in the early 90's? Or have they changed their minds? Note the "Special Comment" in the SARC 1998 report:

This comment seems to conflict with Center past pronouncements. The Center should reconcile these seemingly contradictory conclusions, especially since in August the New England Council decided to add another Plan objective: "Manage the spiny dogfish fishery so as to minimize the impact of the regulations on the prosecution of other fisheries, to the extent practicable." We argue that a closure of the dogfish fishery for nine years after the 1-year exit fishery and rebuilding adult dogfish biomass to 440 million lbs. (200,000 mt) likely will impact groundfish fisheries since dogfish are major competitors and predators of groundfish. This strategy will not minimize the impact of dogfish regulations on the prosecution of other fisheries..." Competition/predation will work against groundfish rebuilding, hence, against groundfish fisheries. The Councils should not disregard NEFSC scientists' past advice. We would prefer a lower biomass target.

But first, where did the 440 million lbs. originate? The 440 million lbs. calculation is not in the report of the 26th SAW. It’s found in the June 1998 report, "Evaluation of existing overfishing definitions and recommendations for new overfishing definitions to comply with the Sustainable Fisheries Act" (Applegate, Cadrin, Hoenig, Moore, Murawski, and Pikitch).

Note that this report’s calculation of 440 million lbs. as the biomass target refers to the target as adult (greater 80 cm) female biomass. The Councils refer to 440 million lbs. of adult males and females. This discrepancy should be explained. The 440 million lbs. was derived from a Ricker stock-recruitment model fitted to spawning stock biomass and recruitment observations from the NMFS spring survey. It is the female biomass estimated to produce the highest average recruitment over time.

Also, keep in mind that dogfish biomass is estimated by a swept-area method. According to the 18th SAW:

What are the implications of this underestimation of juvenile and adult biomass, inherent in the swept-area technique, on stock-recruitment calculations, and on resulting target SSB for adult females?

Is it sensible to do away with a directed fishery for dogfish providing economic benefits to commercial fishermen who are trying to cope with reduced groundfish and the regulations to rebuild depleted stocks? These fishermen will lose their fishery and markets. The plan is quite specific on this point:

Comment at both Massachusetts public hearings supported this warning. At least one fisherman said:

But, as these fishermen lose their markets and the income from dogfish, other fishermen not targeting dogfish still will catch dogfish and discard this bycatch in large amounts. Bycatch and discard of dogfish taken by otter trawlers targeting groundfish (e.g., cod and flounders) exceeds the quota proposed for the directed fishery. According to the draft plan, in 1997 about 17.5 million lbs. of dogfish were discarded (otter trawls and gillnets) with 9.9 million lbs. of this total not surviving. From 1989-1997, the highest discard was 25.6 million lbs. with 14.0 million lbs. not surviving. We argue that this scup-like situation for dogfish justifies our not penalizing dogfish fishermen, especially those who have been willing to get into the fishery and who have been creative in doing so.

According to the Draft FMP, Massachusetts’ average annual landings from 1988-97 were 18.9 million lbs. N.C. was second at 5.7 million lbs. We accounted for 53% of total landings. During this 10-year period our landings ranged from a low of 4.9 million lbs. (1989) to 28.8 million lbs. (1995). Landings were 27.0 million lbs. in 1996 and 21.8 million lbs. in 1997. N.C. landed 13.2 million lbs. in 1996 and 7.6 million lbs. in 1997.

The Plan describes the importance of dogfish to Mass. ports in 1997. Plymouth, Scituate, and Chatham were prominent. In Plymouth and Scituate about 75% of total value of landings was from dogfish; about 93% total lbs. Dogfish are trucked to New Bedford for processing. In Chatham dogfish made up 21% of value and 74% of total pounds.

Dogfish have filled a niche in Massachusetts, and we don’t want this fishery to be done away with by regulation. We certainly realize there is a need for regulation and resource protection. Fishing mortality appears to have risen from low values (less than 0.10 or 9% exploitation) to a high value of about 0.40 (32% exploitation) in 1997. Recruitment (dogfish less than 14" or 36 cm) appeared very low in 1997. Nevertheless, the price to pay set by the Plan is too high and unreasonable. We feel this way because:

(1) there is a very large, and increasing biomass of 14-31" (36-79 cm) dogfish "in the wings" (Refer to figure D24);

(2) total biomass is stable at about 1,322.2 million lbs. (600,000 mt) (Refer to figure D23); and

(3) discards in non-directed fisheries are very high with there being no Plan strategy to reduce this discard. Note that the Plan proposes F to be 0.03 for the remaining 9 years which will be unlikely since bycatch/discard is a major problem (e.g., according to 26th SAW, discards from other fisheries, particularly by otter trawlers targeting groundfish, contribute an unknown, but substantial fraction of total mortality: minimum estimate of 55.1 million lbs. was discarded in 1993 with 29.8 million lbs. killed).

If the Councils decide to proceed with their preferred alternatives, then consider the following. The Councils propose that in the first year of the plan (beginning sometime in 1999), the commercial quota for the fishery along the coast will be 22 million lbs., split seasonally with 57.9% for May through October and 42.1% for November through April (1990-1997 record). In Massachusetts our landings rise sharply in May and stay high through October (1988-97 unpublished NMFS weighout data). See table 25 in the draft plan. Note that substantial landings occur in April; therefore, it's likely that Mass. will lose these landings since April is the last month of the Nov-April quota period. Of course, if the plan is adopted as is, this might be a 1-year problem because the first year is the last year for a directed dogfish fishery. The 22 million lbs. is for an "exit" fishery.

We suggest the Councils adopt another proxy for Bmsy; otherwise, both will be wedded to an ill-advised management approach and rebuilding strategy for all the reasons stated above. Of course, this is the challenge. What options do we have? We have been given only one: 440 million lbs., a figure that has not had SARC review.

We suggest the Councils adopt a quota of somewhere between 15-20 million lbs. for the first three years of the Plan. This range encompass the long-term potential yield for dogfish of 15.5 million lbs. (7,000 mt) that scientists believe can be achieved with F=0.11 at 70 cm (28") size-at-entry. The is the Councils’ Frep value, and the proxy for Fmsy is 0.11. See page 15 of draft plan. F is now estimated to be at 0.30 with age at entry being 70 cm.

This quota represents a significant cut in 1996 commercial landings of 60 million lbs. (27,241 mt). Adult biomass is now at 280 million lbs. At first blush, one would think that 1999 landings of this magnitude (e.g. 20 million lbs.) from a biomass of 280 million lbs. of adults shouldn't have much of an impact. An analysis is in order.

Our position is justified by the very large biomass of prospective recruits (14-31"). This biomass has grown from about 220.4 million lbs. in 1968 to about 881.6 million lbs. in 1997! Our position would be different if future prospects looked poor; they don’t. Witness the stable recruitment from 1986-1996 (figure D24), except for lower values in 1995 and 1997 balanced by recruitment in 1996 and skyrocket recruitment in 1994.

During the first few years of the Plan with annual quotas of perhaps 20 million lbs., we will have an opportunity to sample catches of the directed fishery to obtain biological information for improved assessments and requested by the SARC (research recommendations). The 26th SAW recommended additional work on the stock-recruitment relationship, effects of environmental conditions on survey catch rates, etc. (Refer to SARC March 1998 report). Of note, according to the January 1998 "Advisory Report on Stock Status" for the 26th SAW:

The Center for Marine Conservation (CMC) is championing the cause of dogfish. See the CMC "Tricks and Treats for Atlantic Sharks" news release of October 27. CMC referred to dogfish as "imperiled" and "seriously depleted." CMC also noted the recent ASMFC Jekyll Island decision for member states to implement shark fishing measures compatible with federal regulations. Regarding dogfish, CMC stated,

The Councils should encourage CMC to temper its position and support our alternative justified by other important "ecological" considerations, i.e., predation and competition. Refer to the CMC November 5 "Ocean Action Alert: Join the Cape Shark Crusade." CMC accuses fisheries managers of "stalling" and proposing a plan that allows for "rampant overfishing to continue for more than another year, risking population collapse."

Another aspect of dogfish management for CMC and the Councils to consider is the ASMFC Horseshoe Crab FMP. According to the ASMFC Plan, horseshoe crabs eggs and larvae are a seasonally preferred food for a variety of invertebrates (such as loggerhead sea turtles) and finfish, including spiny dogfish. Most intriguing is the horseshoe crab’s important ecological role in the food web of migrating shorebirds especially in the Delaware Bay Estuary, the largest staging area for shorebirds in the Atlantic Flyway and the second largest site in North America. The Plan cites research indicating that over 1 million migratory shorebirds:

During this staging period, shorebirds acquire 40% or more weight gain largely due to feeding on abundant horseshoe crab eggs uncovered by successive waves of nesting crabs and erosion from storms.

More dogfish might translate as fewer crabs and eggs resulting in less food for migratory shorebirds and endangered sea turtles. The more we learn about marine food webs, the more we realize unintended consequences of our management actions.

Consider ecosystem structure and ask for NEFSC advice regarding the importance of dogfish predation and competition. The NEFSC has made some powerful statements about impacts of dogfish on groundfish populations (pelagics too). The Council should remember all that has been written and said about the impact of booming elasmobranch populations on commercially important species (perhaps ecologically important horseshoe crabs too).

Declining dogfish abundance should not be viewed with alarm, but as a welcomed assist to the Council’s groundfish rebuilding efforts that are becoming increasingly difficult, i.e., Gulf of Maine cod. Remember that we’re not talking about a collapsing dogfish stock. Far from it. We have a very large, and increasing biomass of 14-31" (36-79 cm) dogfish; and total biomass is stable at about 1,322.2 million lbs. (600,000 mt). Suffice it to say, we need to be aware of important SARC/SAW conclusions about dogfish stock status, reproductive capacity, etc, and we need to keep a watchful eye with vision made sharper by the collection of critical data for improvements in assessments challenged by dogfish life history.

Be especially sensitive to the scup-like management dilemma both Councils face with dogfish. Discards in non-directed fisheries are very high with there being no Plan strategy to reduce this discard. The Plan proposes fishing mortality to be 0.03 for the remaining 9 years. Achieving this extremely low F will be unlikely since bycatch/discard is a major problem (e.g., minimum estimate of 55.1 million lbs. was discarded in 1993 with 29.8 million lbs. killed).

We argue for a quota of about 20 million lbs. for the directed dogfish fishery for the first three years of the plan. Quotas for the years thereafter can be developed during year 3. During the first few years of the Plan with annual quotas of perhaps 20 million lbs., we will have an opportunity to sample catches of the directed fishery to obtain biological information for improved assessments and requested by the SARC (research recommendations). The 26th SAW recommended additional work on the stock-recruitment relationship, effects of environmental conditions on survey catch rates, etc.

We recognize we haven’t suggested any alternative to the Bmsy proposed in the plan. There needs to be more discussion and analyses. Nevertheless, with dogfish, the Councils have an excellent opportunity to delve a bit deeper into ecosystem management and, of course, to give further thought to the true meaning of multispecies management.

Furthermore, we will need a continuing dialogue with NMFS that will have to deal with any joint Council decision to deviate from SFA requirements in the interest of groundfish rebuilding. NMFS should be just as challenged as the Councils especially since its scientific branch (NEFSC) has been so aggressive in its concern about the effects of large populations of elasmobranchs on groundfish populations and groundfish management.

Sincerely yours,

Philip G. Coates
Director