Regional Fishery Management Councils Research Articles

An Ecosystem is Not a Monument, and Other Challenges to Fishing in the 21st Century

The continental shelf of the United States was once the preserve of commercial fishermen. This is no longer the case. The exclusive economic zone is increasingly becoming the focus of other economically powerful, sometimes incompatible uses, including green energy, shipping, communications, mining, military exclusion zones, and conservation regions. These other uses generally have fixed boundaries. The distribution of fished species moves in relation to warming of shelf waters, presenting challenges to both federal regional fishery management councils and industry alike. There is need for continued engagement between user groups with respectful use of guiding science and legal structure to ensure reasoned access for all, and stability for economies that are reliant on ocean shelf resources, including the fishing industry.

Using a tier classification system to evaluate the quality of bycatch estimates from fisheries

Bycatch continues to be a challenge to sustainable fisheries management (The term “bycatch” in this paper covers discards and does not include retained incidental catch). Bycatch estimates can inform stock status determinations by improving understanding of fishing mortality, and help managers monitor the effectiveness of regulations. Assessments of the quality of bycatch estimation programs and procedures are necessary to evaluate the precision and limitations of their results over time. NOAA Fisheries experts used a “Tier Classification System” (TCS) to compare the quality of fish bycatch data and estimation methods for U.S. commercial fisheries in 2005 and 2015. The TCS included criteria related to data adequacy and analytical approaches. A comparison of U.S. fishery tier scores demonstrated that most fisheries were classified into higher tiers in 2015 compared to 2005 due to factors including improved sampling design. In addition, this comparison identified region-specific trends (e.g., mostly improvements occurred for Alaska fisheries with more mixed results for Greater Atlantic fisheries). The improvements in bycatch data quality and estimation methods in the United States are a result of financial investments in observer programs by NOAA Fisheries and industry partners, as well as effective conservation measures implemented by regional fishery management councils and NOAA Fisheries. The TCS was also used to assess bycatch data and estimation methods in all of Australia’s fishery jurisdictions for the decade 2010–19, illustrating the international applicability of the method. Overall, Australian state fisheries scored lower than federally managed fisheries in both the United States and Australia, reflecting the fact that the latter fisheries tend to be larger (and more valuable) than those in state jurisdictions, with a larger investment in observer programs. A comparison of tier scores and estimates of discards by fishery may provide a useful input for decision-making processes regarding allocation of resources to improve bycatch monitoring.

Integrating Stakeholders’ Perceptions into Decision-Making for Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) is a more holistic alternative to single-species management. Currently, all eight regional Fishery Management Councils in the U.S. are carrying out EBFM planning or implementation. However, uncertainty exists on what principles and strategies are most effective to implement EBFM. In this study, council members in the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Councils were interviewed on their perceptions of EBFM and aspects related to its implementation. Results of these interviews were used to develop a survey to assess fishers’ opinions and investigate their levels of acceptance of concepts prioritized by council members. While in general, council members emphasized considerations of the ecosystem as characterizing EBFM, fishers focused on aspects of social impacts and fishers’ participation in decision making. Results of this study provide important information about the perceptions of different stakeholders on the implementation of EBFM in the Northeast U.S and can be used to guide EBFM implementation and facilitate communication between stakeholders by elucidating on priorities and areas of convergence and divergence of ideas. This research also tested a two-step approach to integrate multiple stakeholder input to assess and evaluate knowledge to inform EBFM decisions that are adaptive and context specific.

Ecosystem‐Based Fisheries Management for Social–Ecological Systems: Renewing the Focus in the United States with Next Generation Fishery Ecosystem Plans

AbstractResource managers and policy makers have long recognized the importance of considering fisheries in the context of ecosystems; yet, movement towards widespread Ecosystem‐based Fisheries Management (EBFM) has been slow. A conceptual reframing of fisheries management is occurring globally, which envisions fisheries as systems with interacting biophysical and human subsystems. This broader view, along with a process for decision making, can facilitate implementation of EBFM. A pathway to achieve these broadened objectives of EBFM in the United States is a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP). The first generation of FEPs was conceived in the late 1990s as voluntary guidance documents that Regional Fishery Management Councils could adopt to develop and guide their ecosystem‐based fisheries management decisions, but few of these FEPs took concrete steps to implement EBFM. Here, we emphasize the need for a new generation of FEPs that provide practical mechanisms for putting EBFM into practice in the United States. We argue that next‐generation FEPs can balance environmental, economic, and social objectives—the triple bottom line—to improve long‐term planning for fishery systems.

Essential Fish Habitat Regulation in the United States: Lessons for High Latitudes?

Commercial fisheries in the United States are managed by eight regional fisheries management councils operating under the authority of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, Department of Commerce) and governed by the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act and accompanying federal guidelines. The Act mandates that NMFS identify essential fish habitat (EFH) for fish stocks and minimize, to the extent practicable, adverse effects to EFH through the councils’ fishery management plan development and revisions process. The statute and regulatory guidelines implicitly assume that NMFS and councils have the scientific information necessary to make informed EFH designations for all commercially harvested species, assess the realized or potential threats to EFH, and have the management tools to protect EFH. Further, the interpretation and implementation of several important, but ambiguous, terms in the guidelines are left to NMFS and the councils. Our thesis is that these factors (specifically, insufficient information support and regulatory ambiguities) can and are resulting in inconsistent and potentially sub-optimal fish habitat management throughout the country. As we enter an era of increased climate variability these factors may be having a disproportionally high impact in higher latitudes where change is expected to be more rapid. Here we provide a brief history of essential fish habitat regulations, explain the issues arising from the state of the science and regulatory ambiguities, and conclude with a discussion of the implications and recommendations for United States high latitude EFH management.

Limited-access Privilege Programs in the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries

The use of limited-access privilege programs (LAPP’s) in fi sheries management offers an incentive for collaborative management while also addressing economic incentives. This paper provides an overview of the development and use of limited access privilege programs by looking at a review of potential benefi ts and the arguments against them. It focuses on examining Introduction A catch share program is a generic term associated with fi shery management strategies that allocate a specifi c percentage of the fi shery catch to individuals, cooperatives, communities, or other entities. It includes more specifi c programs such as Limited Access Privilege Programs (LAPP’s). The Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (later renamed Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act and then Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) created a new national program for the conservation and management of marine fi shery resources. Fishery Management Plans (FMP’s) were to be developed by eight regional fi shery management councils and implemented by NMFS. In 2006, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (hereafter referred to as the Reauthorization Act), urged regional councils to use more LAPP’s in federal fi sheries management (NMFS, 2007). LAPP’s had also been specifi ed as a priority in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan1 and Executive Order 12866, signed by President William J. Clinton in 1993, which established the guiding principles agencies must follow when developing regulations. In 2005, under President George W. Bush, NMFS pledged to double the number of fi sheries managed under LAPP’s (from 8 to 16) by 2010. In 2010, the Obama administration solidifi ed its commitment to catch shares by issuing a Catch Share Policy (NOAA, 2010) to provide guidance and support on the design, implementation, and monitoring of catch share programs. This policy provides a foundation for facilitating the widespread consideration of catch share fi shery management plans (FMP’s) while enabling local fi shermen and communities to be part of the process. This article explains what LAPP’s are, how they work, and what benefi ts and costs can be expected from their implementation. First, a brief history of fi sheries management helps explain how LAPP’s evolved. This is followed by an explanation of the economic incentives behind LAPP’s, in the context of two fi sheries in the U.S. Mid-At1The plan, subtitled The Bush Administration’s Response to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, is available online at http://www.cmts. gov/downloads/US_ocean_action_plan.pdf. lantic Region—the Atlantic surfclam/ ocean quahog, Spisula solidissima/ Arctica islandica, fi shery and the tilefi sh (also known as the golden tilefi sh), Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps, fi shery. Limited-Access Privilege Programs Prior to 1976, U.S. marine fi sheries were managed in a completely openaccess environment, with few restrictions placed on foreign or domestic fi shermen or their activities. Competition among fi shermen under open-access conditions creates incentives for the industry to expand, over-exploit, and eventually deplete the resource (as described by the popular phrase “tragedy of the commons”), resulting in overcapacity and overfi shing (Anderson and Holliday, 2007). With the passage of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, fi sheries management began to evolve, using various combinations of input and output controls. Input controls were put in place to restrict vessel activity in various manners, by regulating the type and/or amount of gear, or by restricting fi shing areas or fi shing times. Output controls were also established that aimed to limit the amount of catch or harvest in a fi shery, such as limits on a total allowable catch (TAC) or individual trip catch. These too had a downside. A hard TAC (a predetermined catch level that is paired with a within-season closure provision) implemented for a fi shery as a whole often leads to heightened competition to catch as much fi sh as possible before the annual limit is reached; a “derby fi shery” in which there is a “race to fi sh.” Gear restrictions and trip limits the historical context of two specifi c applications in the Mid-Atlantic—the Atlantic surfclam, Spisula solidissima, and ocean quahog, Arctica islandica, fi shery, and the tilefi sh, Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps, fi shery. Structural components of these programs are presented along with a description of notable changes in these two fi sheries since the implementation of LAPP’s.

Stock Complexes for Fisheries Management in the Gulf of Mexico

AbstractThe Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 2006 required that regional fishery management councils implement annual catch limits and accountability measures for all federally managed stocks by 2011. Many managed species are data limited and no formal stock assessment has been done for them. One possible approach to managing unassessed species is to assign them to assemblages that are managed as units. The utility of this approach was evaluated using fishery‐dependent and fishery‐independent data from the Gulf of Mexico. Multivariate statistical analyses revealed several consistent assemblages among the 42 reef fish species managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. Pearson correlation matrices, nodal analyses, and a weighted mean cluster association index integrated results across cluster analyses and provided additional guidance regarding the placement of rare species into groups. Productivity–susceptibility analysis and life history were also considered, as differences in productivity, vulnerability, life history, and other population‐dynamic parameters for the species within complexes might imply different population responses to a similar change in fishing mortality. Identified linkages between species also provide guidance for the impacts of regulations on multispecies fisheries.Received December 31, 2014; accepted February 18, 2015

Forecasting for Recreational Fisheries Management: What's the Catch?

AbstractThe Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006 required regional fishery management councils to implement annual catch limits (ACLs) for nearly all stocks under U.S. federal management. Since 2011, the number of stocks requiring ACLs (and monitoring) has increased nearly 10‐fold, with strict accountability measures requiring either in‐season quota closures or shortening of subsequent seasons to avoid ACL overages. Robust forecasts of landings can also provide a projected baseline for evaluation of proposed management alternatives. We compared generalized linear models (GLMs), generalized additive models (GAMs), and seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) models in terms of fit, accuracy, and ability to forecast landings of four representative fish stocks that support recreational fisheries in the southeastern United States. All models were useful in developing reliable forecasts to inform management. The GAMs provided the best fit to the observed data; however, the modeling approaches of the SARIMA model and GLM provided the best forecasts for most scenarios. The SARIMA model and GLM also provided the best predictions of the seasonal trend in landings, a desirable feature for in‐season quota monitoring. The SARIMA model was more sensitive and the GLM was less sensitive to recent trends, providing a useful “bookend” for forecasts. The time span of input data affected forecast accuracy from all model types considered. This study suggests multiple forecasting models should be investigated and performance metrics carefully selected and evaluated, as no single model is likely to perform best for all stocks of interest.Received December 18, 2014; accepted April 20, 2015

Lessons from a career in fisheries science‡

AbstractThis article summarizes some of my accomplishments during a 45-year career in fisheries science that ranged from conducting fish stock assessments, working for an international marine science organization, and managing a variety of scientific projects and activities, to finally serving as a scientific editor. In doing so, I have tried to focus on lessons learned. Starting my working life as a high-school math teacher, I soon opted for a different career, returned to the university, and received a PhD in fisheries biology. The first 15 years of my career were at the Woods Hole Laboratory of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) doing fish stock assessments, where my main interest was Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus). Until the USA declared a 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in early 1977, the focal point of my work was the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF). Lasting friendships with scientists from other countries developed during the ICNAF meetings and continued for years thereafter, some to the present day. During 1977–1985, my assessment activities were confined to domestic fisheries and interactions with regional fishery management councils, where I found that a cooperative attitude and the use of non-technical language made a positive impression and helped build trust. Involvement in ICES assessment working groups led, in 1985, to being appointed Statistician in the ICES Secretariat in Copenhagen and the start of an 8-year life in the international community that culminated in becoming General Secretary. Some major changes in ICES in which I was intimately involved are discussed. After my return to the USA in 1994, my career included managing a variety of activities and projects in Woods Hole and at NOAA/NMFS headquarters in Silver Spring, MD (where I was NMFS liaison to the National Sea Grant Office), finally concluding, after my retirement from NMFS in 2004, with continued engagement in fisheries science as an editor for ICES. Having benefited from experiences in science and administration and the lessons learned therein, it is a pleasure, via this article, to offer advice to young scientists contemplating potential paths to pursue in their careers.

U.S. Fishery Management Councils as Ecosystem-Based Management Policy Takers and Policymakers

The United States has a new national ocean policy that adopts ecosystem-based management (EBM) as its first principle for managing U.S. ocean spaces and marine resources. However, U.S. laws that govern the uses of ocean spaces present a challenging tangle of authorities and mandates that do not easily facilitate ecosystem-based policies. For over 30 years, U.S. marine fisheries management has been guided by eight Regional Fishery Management Councils. Working under the many laws that guide setting stewardship priorities for ocean ecosystems, councils provide the Federal Government with advice on fisheries harvest levels, fish habitat protections, and fishing community needs. Implementing EBM for any ocean ecosystem requires a careful examination of the laws and policy processes that affect human interaction with that ecosystem. This article explores the U.S. perspective on federal ecosystem-based fisheries management, its part in U.S. national ocean policy, and how fishery management councils might position themselves as both EBM policymakers and policy takers for ocean resource management.

Investigating interest group representation on the Pacific Fisheries Management Council

A pervasive argument has emerged in debates over US ocean fishery policy that the policy-making process has generally been captured by commercial industry interests and consequently permits fishing quotas beyond sustainable harvesting levels. While it is clear that commercial interests are over-represented relative to recreational interests on the regional councils that set fishery policy, it is not clear whether commercial interests necessarily enact unsustainable policies. This paper examines the vote choices of representatives on the Pacific Fisheries Management Council by creating a spatial map of ideal point locations of voting members during the years 2006–2009 and then identifying voting coalitions. If a dominance by commercial interests leads to unsustainable policies, then it must be the case that members of this interest group vote as a cohesive and distinct bloc. In the end, however, it is shown that a geographic explanation for vote choices outperforms an interest group explanation. ► Vote choices made by members of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council are largely similar within state coalitions. ► Vote choices are largely dissimilar within interest group designations. ► Overall, state-based explanations for vote choices outperform interest group explanations. ► Arguments over reforms to the Regional Fisheries Management Councils must utilize empirical evidence.

The Magnuson–Stevens act (1976) and its reauthorizations: Failure or success for the implementation of fishery sustainability and management in the US?

Abstract The Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (1976), opened a new era of federal fishery management in the United States. It was enacted primarily to establish a system for conserving and managing fisheries in the new 200-mile (EEZ). The US assumed exclusive authority for managing all fisheries within the EEZ, except for highly migratory species such as tunas and billfishes. Within the framework of the Act, eight Regional Fishery Management Councils (Regional Councils) were created, which are responsible for preparing Fisheries Management Plans (FMPs) in federal waters under their jurisdiction. Each FMP must meet a series of National Standards (NSs) for conservation and management. The Act was reauthorized in 1996 with the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), which aimed at the fishery regulatory apparatus that was established under the original Act. This fine tuning involved increased attention to biological concerns, and removal of ambiguities within it. The Act was reauthorized again in 2007, mainly to provide for more clear directives and regulations to end overfishing. After more than thirty years since the Act was passed into law, the debate among conservationists, commercial and recreational fishery representatives, and politicians on the effectiveness of the Act in achieving its purported goals it still continues. Is the Act delivering on its promises? Do NSs reflect the most important priorities for the US fishery resources, conservation and sustainable exploitation? Do the Regional Councils represent all parties that should be involved in the fisheries resources management? The aim of this paper is to provide a critical analysis to answer these questions. This paper begins with a review of the Act and its background, followed by discussion and analysis of the Act's benefits and flaws. Finally, suggestions for the implementation of its structure and future directions in fishery management strategies are made.

Special Interest Capture of Regulatory Agencies: A Ten-Year Analysis of Voting Behavior on Regional Fishery Management Councils

This article tests capture theory by analyzing voting behavior on U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils. Some seats on the councils are reserved for state and federal agency representatives; others, for political appointees. The political appointees primarily represent special interests (specifically, commercial and recreational fishing interests); a smaller number of appointees represent public interests. We use logistic regression to model the vote of state and federal agency representatives on the councils as a function of the votes of commercial interests, recreational interests, and public interests. We find evidence that some state agencies are captured by special interests from their states, but not systematic evidence across all states. We find that state agency representatives voted with commercial interests from their own state in five of the sixteen states in our sample; with recreational interests in three states; and with both special interests in two states. These ten states support the capture hypothesis; the other six states do not. We find no evidence that federal agencies were captured on the councils. We conclude that the gubernatorial-driven appointment process leads to capture at the state level by promoting voting blocs among state agency representatives and special interests from those states. Federal agency representatives, by contrast, are better able to maintain their distance from state-level politics on the councils, and thereby enhance their ability to vote independently on fishery management measures.

Fisheries Management of Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico: A Case Study

In the Gulf of Mexico, the overfished population of red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) is a major source of revenue resulting in a dichotomy between maintaining the health of the fishery and meeting the demands of the local economies. In order to govern marine fisheries the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 was created. This act has established a 200 mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around the United States coastline and 8 regional fishery management councils whose roles are to develop fishery management plans. With the involvement of the fishers, the councils work to protect fishery resources while managing the fishery in such a way as to produce optimum benefits for society. Therefore, according to regulation, any change in the economic status of the Gulf Coast or the health of the red snapper fishery must result in a regulation change to uphold this balance. In an attempt to improve understanding of the complexity of managing a fishery, this case study illustrates the roles of the various people involved in the extensive process of regulating this red snapper fishery. It introduces the complications that arise in this process through the perspectives of biologists, policymakers, and fishers at each step along the way. By necessity, to introduce the process in a manageable way, various steps, people, and complexities in the process are either reduced in importance or not introduced. All of the people introduced in this case study are fictional, but they are based on actual individuals within the process.

Transforming reef fisheries management: application of an ecosystem-based approach in the USA Caribbean

SUMMARYFisheries in Puerto Rico and the United States (US) Virgin Islands are predominately dependent on nearshore coral reef ecosystems and have suffered from historical overfishing. The unique characteristics of reef fisheries, including strong habitat dependence, susceptibility to coastal impacts, diffuse landing sites and strong multispecies and multigear interactions suggest that standard approaches to fisheries management, especially those typically considered by the US Regional Fishery Management Councils, would not be applicable. Current management authority is split between local and federal agencies; however, there exists no uniform context and direction to current management initiatives, which results in lost efficiencies and opportunities. Proposed here is a new vision for fisheries management that takes into consideration the local ecological and socioeconomic characteristics of fishing, is compatible with regional resources and capacity, is ecosystem based and targets full stakeholder participation. Only an ecosystem-based approach can lead fisheries management out of the trap of unrealistic data collection and analysis demands, while at the same time refocusing emphasis away from attitudes and practices that promote overfishing. Management must be based on first principles regarding the desired state of the ecosystem and initiate strategies based on these principles. The key management goal is not to maximize fisheries catch, but to maintain the ecosystem in a state that will lead to sustained production. First principles would include maintaining ecosystem integrity and function, protecting all habitats and water quality, applying the precautionary approach, monitoring reference points and recognizing that production has limits. Resulting management tactics include marine reserves (to meet multiple goals), closed spawning aggregations, gear restrictions to maintain trophic balance and habitats, targeted data collection and assessments, adopting co-management practices and using ecosystem or community-based metrics. Fisheries management must fully incorporate the tools, resources and methods available within coastal zone management and other environmental agencies, while standards within those programmes must protect ecosystem health. Implementation will require attending to structural barriers inherent within existing fisheries legislation and regulations, multiple jurisdictions and the current cultures of scientists, managers and fisherfolk. Initial efforts should focus on developing a common language and frame of reference for all stakeholders.

The institutional implications of environmental ethics for fishery management in the US exclusive economic zone

Abstract The public discourse surrounding many fishery management issues suggests that ethical concerns may be an important aspect of these issues for a segment of the American public. Questions have been raised about the capacity of regional fishery management councils created under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act to be adequately responsive to different ethical values. To date, legislative efforts to broaden council membership have been unsuccessful, but pressure for institutional reform is likely to increase with the adoption of an ecosystem approach to fishery management.

Rebuilding US fisheries: progress and problems

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1996 requires an end to overfishing and the rebuilding of depleted fishery resources. Nine years later, the progress towards rebuilding overexploited marine fisheries in the United States is reviewed here. Despite the statutory mandate, overfishing and depletion of important fish stocks remains a widespread problem in the US. Sixty-seven fish stocks are currently under rebuilding plans mandated by law. Overfishing, where the fishing mortality rate exceeds the level that should support the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY), continues in 45% of the stocks managed in rebuilding plans. Seventy-two percent of these stocks are still considered overfished, with measurable abundance remaining depleted below a predetermined threshold according to the standards set by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Regional Fishery Management Councils. Only three stocks have been rebuilt to levels that should produce maximum sustainable yield. However, fish stock abundance appears to be increasing in 48% of the stocks under rebuilding plans. The clearest cause of the lack of progress in rebuilding is the failure of many plans to reduce exploitation sufficiently to end overfishing.

The Pew Report on US fishery councils: a critique from the Open Society

The Pew Charitable Trusts have recently supported a study of the regional fishery management councils responsible for managing US coastal fish stocks. The four key findings of this report may be thought of as an attempt to answer two fundamental concerns: (i) Who should make the management decisions?, and (ii) Who should take responsibility for making these decisions? This paper provides a rational reply to these concerns by negatively reforming the questions, as: (i) How do we ensure that a decision-making is not based on irrational arguments, and (ii) How do we ensure that normative goals (maximum sustainable yields, optimum yields) are not viewed as objective scientific predictions.

Strategic Interaction in United States Fishery Management Councils

A two-stage model of interactions within Regional Fishery Management Councils was developed in which management targets were set which may deviate from levels needed to achieve management policy. The first stage modeled bargaining solutions between Council members (harvesters, conservationists, and government) for management targets, and the second stage addressed litigation of those solutions. Results indicate that bargaining power favoring one constituent group could lead to Council outcomes that deviate from management policy. This, in turn, creates incentives for the aggrieved constituent group to litigate. Tradeoffs between benefits and costs of litigation and governmental strategies to address these issues are explored.

Membership of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils in the United States: are special interests over-represented?

The failure of modern fisheries management is blamed on myriad socio-economic and technical problems, but the most fundamental reason for failure might be the overwhelming dominance of extractive interests in participatory decision-making venues. In the United States, commercial fishing interests made up 49% of appointed voting members of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils between 1990 and 2001; recreational fishing interests made up 33%, and all other interests combined made up 17%. Dominance of commercial fishing representation over the ‘other’ group was statistically significant, and this unequal apportionment of interests remained statistically stable throughout the 12 years of reporting. Contemporary economic sensibilities within this ‘industry-captured’ regulatory process generate perverse incentives for management decisions that conflict with, and can undermine, national sustainability goals and standards, even when those standards are logically sound and agreed to by consensus. Positive feedbacks in the system reinforce the unequal representation of interests. The relative dominance of these interests can be adjusted through an experiment that legally mandates an apportionment formula designed to optimize the welfare and interests of the general public, thus testing the notion that increasing the relative representation of general public interests would improve the lacklustre performance of US federal fisheries management.