The Horseshoe Crabs of Delaware Bay
|
Over a year has passed since the alarm was sent out about the crash in the numbers of horseshoe crabs and shorebirds on the shores of New Jersey in the spring of 1997. Much activity has gone on in the last year to enact stricter regulations for the harvest of horseshoe crabs by the states of the mid-Atlantic with some successes and some failures. Another spawning and migration cycle has also passed which showed some improvement over 1997 but still reflects reduced numbers over the longer term. People concerned about the welfare of the shorebirds need to stay involved and voice their opinions to ensure that appropriate regulations are put into place to prevent the fisheries from over-harvesting the crabs. The following paragraphs detail some of the recent events. Current Regulations: A number of successes have occurred on the regulatory front as stricter harvesting rules have been put into place in New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland (see ASMFC Horseshoe Crab Management Plan summary of current regulations). There remains a large loophole because of the lack of regulations in Virginia. Virginia does not restrict landings of horseshoe crabs caught in federal waters (3 miles out and beyond) and so the efforts to reduce the harvest of horseshoe crabs by the other states could be thwarted by fishermen harvesting crabs in federal waters and landing them in Virginia. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is requesting that people write to the Governor of Virginia and to the Commissioner of the Virginia Marine Resources Commission to express their concerns about the impact of the lack of harvesting regulations. See ABC's summary of the regulatory processes of the past year and a sample letter to express concern over Virginia's failure to enact regulations. Altantic States Management Plan: The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has developed a fisheries plan for the horseshoe crab. The Stock Assessment Committee concluded that the horseshoe crab population was stable even though they admitted that data collection was inadequate and rejected the inclusion of studies that showed declines. The Technical Committee recognized the inadequacy of the data and concluded that the population was stable or in decline. They requested that a peer review panel go over the stock assessment to address a number of concerns and report back with their findings in September 1998. The plan lists a number of management options available to maintain or curtail current commercial harvest of horseshoe crabs. They range from no restrictions to complete moratoriums. The preferred alternative is to adopt Option 2 which sets a harvest cap 25% below the reference period landings for each state and prohibits harvesting between April 15th and June 15th. The reference period landings are determined by each state as the best estimate of the harvest level between 1995 and 1997 but because of unreliable data some states just use the harvest numbers from 1996 which had the highest harvest numbers in recent history. It was after these large 1996 harvests that numbers of horseshoe crabs fell dramatically on the New Jersey shores in 1997. This cap would actually be less strict with respect to total numbers than the regulations already in place in New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. It does however eliminate any harvesting during the spawning period which is stricter than the current regulations in New Jersey and Delaware. ABC and other environmental groups have expressed concern over what is being used to determine the reference landing numbers. ABC would like to see the 1990 numbers used and others have proposed numbers determined by landings numbers averaged from 1990-1996. If the 1996 numbers (the highest in recent history) are to be used ABC would like to see a cap 70% below these numbers rather than the 25% currently proposed. The plan requires states to monitor the harvest and the population of horseshoe crabs. Workshops will be run this winter to provide training for the states on a set of monitoring programs. This will establish consistent standards for data collection across the states. The monitoring includes taking censuses of spawning crabs and measuring egg density in New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland. The plan is currently in the public comment period. Concerned individuals can get a copy of the plan from and return written comments to either: Tom O'ConnellPublic Hearings about the plan may be requested in each state to solicit public reaction. Concerned individuals should watch for public notices of these hearings and attend them to express their opinions. These hearings will most likely be scheduled for September of 1998. The results from the public comment period and the reviewed stock assessment will be incorporated into the plan. The plan will then be submitted to the Management Board which will then vote whether to accept it. This is scheduled to take place in October of 1998. Shorebird/Horseshoe Crab Numbers: The shorebird numbers along the Delaware Bay were in general up in 1998. The distribution of birds around the Delaware Bay was also more even in 1998. Poor weather made spawning on the Delaware shores difficult for horseshoe crabs and so more crabs spawned on the New Jersey shores compared to 1997. The aerial surveys of shorebirds in 1998 showed that the numbers of Red Knots and Ruddy Turnstones were above the 10-year average but Semipalmated Sandpipers were well below the average. The unusual availability of food in marsh flats away from the surveyed beaches this year may have accounted for the decrease in Semipalmated Sandpipers. Early numbers on the horseshoe crab egg densities indicate improvement over the last 2 years but they remain well below the numbers recorded in the late 1980's. The improved numbers in 1998 are encouraging but are by no means an indication that the threat is past. The improvement in the shorebird and horseshoe crab numbers have been used by the fishermen to argue for reduced regulations. People concerned about shorebirds and the horseshoe crab need to express their concern to continue to influence the political regulatory processes in favor of continued effective regulation. Table of Contents |