More

New England Cod Crisis Has No Easy Answers

AP    
First Posted: 01/01/12 12:06 PM ET Updated: 01/01/12 05:52 PM ET

BOSTON (AP) — In an industry where agreement comes slowly, the sudden prospect of huge fishing cuts to protect New England's codfish inspired a quick consensus: Scores of fishermen will be ruined if those cuts are passed.

But it's not clear how or if that pain can be avoided, weeks after new scientific numbers indicated cod in the Gulf of Maine is much weaker than thought.

"We really haven't heard of something that works right now," said Gib Brogan, of the environmental group Oceana.

Fishery science and law present major obstacles to preserving both cod and fishermen.

The law requires scientists to set a limit on how hard fishermen can fish for any species. If they exceed it, they're illegally overfishing and regulators are charged with "immediately" stopping it. That means, given the grim new estimate of cod's health, fishermen would have to accept a debilitating cut of about 90 percent in their cod catch next year, and there's little wiggle room to avoid it.

Meanwhile, the new data — though attacked from the outset by skeptical fishermen — has survived an initial review, and scientists say it likely won't change much. Several lawmakers, starting with U.S. Sen. John Kerry, are now asking the U.S. Commerce Secretary to order a new assessment of the cod's health in hopes of getting better data, but prospects are uncertain.

Still, there's optimism a solution can be found, if only because the alternative is devastating cuts that could sweep away remaining fishermen from Provincetown to northern Maine.

"I'm not a betting man, but I'm optimistic to a fault," said fisheries scientist Steve Cadrin, who works at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. He added, "Someone up high (in government) is going to have to make a bold move to allow a common-sense solution."

For centuries, Gulf of Maine cod has been the key species for small-boat fishermen on day trips from northern New England ports, including historic Gloucester. In 2010, cod brought in $15.8 million, second-most among the valuable bottom-dwelling groundfish species fishermen have long chased, such as flounder and haddock.

Cod's future looked great in 2008, when a major assessment indicated the Gulf of Maine species was headed for full recovery.

But the new data, released this fall, said cod was actually so badly overfished that even if fishermen completely stop catching it, it can't recover to a federally mandated level of abundance by a 2014 deadline.

The new numbers are still being verified. If they hold up, onerous cutbacks on the cod catch are certain, and that would also mean tight limits on many other valuable groundfish off New England, to protect the cod that swim among them.

But cod aren't scarce and anyone who fishes the Gulf of Maine knows it, New Hampshire fishermen David Goethel said. He said the gap between the new estimate and reality demands a complete reworking of the new cod assessment, just as lawmakers have requested. That includes rethinking the numerous assumptions that go into the various population models, including such complexities as how well the federal boat that catches fish population samples scoops up older cod.

"We need a do-over," Goethel said.

Absent new science that leads to a drastically different outlook for cod, another hope is that regulators will interpret fishery law differently than they ever have.

Right now, fishermen are boxed in by the requirement to stay under that maximum rate at which they can catch codfish without overfishing it.

In essence, the rate allows fishermen to haul home a safe fraction of a species. But in the case of Gulf of Maine cod, the new stock estimate is so low that that fraction shrinks to a pittance the fishing industry can't survive on. And since the rate is determined by such basic biological factors as a species' growth, reproductive and natural death rates, political pressure can't do much to budge it.

But Cadrin sees one possibility for fishermen to get some help. He hopes for new flexibility in how regulators react after they determine there's overfishing on cod.

He said that regulators have traditionally acted as if the law requires them to "immediately" stop overfishing on any species, but the actual law doesn't require that — the word "immediately" is contained in a guideline to the law. Cadrin said if fishery managers want to be bold, they could give fishermen a short amount of time to stop overfishing, rather than "immediately" enforcing lethal restrictions when the new fishing year starts in May. More time would mean less severe cuts now, and a chance for more fishermen to survive.

There is some sign from the top levels of U.S. fishery management that regulators are ready to do something different about codfish, even if they don't know what.

At a quickly called meeting last month to deal with the cod crisis, Eric Schwaab, the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service spoke of undiscovered solutions outside the traditional channels of government bureaucracy.

The situation is so serious, Schwaab said, "those kind of extraordinary options ought to be on the table."

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

BOSTON (AP) — In an industry where agreement comes slowly, the sudden prospect of huge fishing cuts to protect New England's codfish inspired a quick consensus: Scores of fishermen will be ruined if...
BOSTON (AP) — In an industry where agreement comes slowly, the sudden prospect of huge fishing cuts to protect New England's codfish inspired a quick consensus: Scores of fishermen will be ruined if...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  |  Report Corrections
 
 
  • Comments
  • 117
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ANuttyReader
10:08 AM on 01/04/2012
News for the fisherman: if you fish out all the fish from the sea, then you, the fish and the world will be ruined too.

It's best to find other sources of income to supplement finishing income.
05:55 PM on 01/03/2012
Finding some financial support for the fishermen during a recovery period should be easy to do.

The title however should read overfishing may lead to financial ruin.

A lower quota is NOT the cause.
photo
baxtron
tek phlarpt
01:58 PM on 01/03/2012
Time for ALEC to propose a Freedom to Fish Act. After the collapse, blame liberals.
12:31 PM on 01/03/2012
And once the fish were gone, the losses would be much bigger! But hey!...let us go on depleting the Earth and when the day comes that we have nothing left to eat, don't complain. The same happened with the cod stocks in Eastern Canada. Fish until you drop!
12:29 PM on 01/03/2012
Cap and trade has been an EXCELLENT free market solution to a wide range of problems involving excess. Our government needs to sell "cod fishing rights stock" at open auction to the highest bidders. The number of fish that can be caught in any given year is then established as "X number of fish per share of stock". Fisherman can buy and sell the shares of stock freely at whatever they want to bid between themselves for the shares. Alternately our government can buy up stock shares instead of setting a limit on the number of fish that can be caught per share. Our government buys up shares to prevent anyone from fishing against those shares as necessary. When the cod populations rise again, our government simply re-sells the shares back to the highest bidders.

Some yearly licensing fee per share should also go to pay our government to enforce against poaching/cheating. Most of the money to enforce against poaching should "try" to come from catching poachers/cheaters by confiscating their boats and selling them, or other schemes like that. In instances like this, the penalties imposed on law breakers should take into account the cost of enforcing the laws. That reduces the problem of people ignoring a law simply because they know the law is expensive to enforce.
01:27 PM on 01/03/2012
Fisheries are a public resource. Consumers also have an interest in a sustainable, reliable source of healthy food. Cap and trade, like so many other capitalist schemes that look good on paper, fails horribly with 1. the great inequity of wealth currently in place in the US and 2. the bizarre US tax system that can actually reward failure by using write-offs. So I can see a scenario where wealthy corporations buy all the shares, then don't fish them in order to produce a tax-write-off loss. Or buy shares and then force fishermen to fish for them (if they want to fish at all) at slave wages. I'd like to see a link to successful examples of cap and trade. Do any of them apply to public resources?
photo
baxtron
tek phlarpt
01:54 PM on 01/03/2012
create a monopoly fish exchange. when's the bailout part?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
westcoastsc
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhe
10:40 AM on 01/03/2012
Simple, subsidize their incomes for a little bit less than they would get from fishing for six months and every month after that give them a little less money, and then a little less, until the fish come back or they get another job.
11:22 PM on 01/02/2012
Time to find another line of work.
photo
TSRVT
Cantankerous New England curmudgeon
10:43 PM on 01/02/2012
For anyone with a brain there is no conundrum here.
10:10 AM on 01/03/2012
The belief that intelligent people with good intentions can't disagree...lovely.
photo
TSRVT
Cantankerous New England curmudgeon
10:35 AM on 01/03/2012
There is nothing here to disagree about! You keep harvesting at these levels and the code will disappear permanently. The need for strict regulations is obvious, be it a complete moratorium or a rigid quota with REAL penalties for transgressors.

Now get over your petulant self.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Theo White
08:44 PM on 01/02/2012
One need only look at the last two year industry self imposed Pacific salmon fishing industry shut down, a direct result of a Bush determination of a refusal to follow the recommendations of the Fish and Game on water allocations. Mother Nature always wins. Why do people refuse to accept facts until it is to late?
photo
baxtron
tek phlarpt
01:56 PM on 01/03/2012
because they love freedom, and possible starvation, but not in that order.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Left on Red
Micro Bio 201 T-Th 1 - 2:30 Lab W 1-5 Dr. Price
05:32 PM on 01/02/2012
Tough choice, no cod because of overfishing and little hope of repopulation, or no cod because of regulations and a hope of repopulation. Hummmmm.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Theo White
08:47 PM on 01/02/2012
Regulate or watch the industry become another extinct business.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael J OConnell
Enduring curiosty and quest for rationality
05:06 PM on 01/02/2012
Cod is the least of our worries. What will we do when ocean acidification kills off the bottom of the food chain taking the rest of life in our oceans with it? It is already happening.
04:26 PM on 01/02/2012
All the fishermen will surely be ruined if the fish go extinct due to overfishing.  If we want SOME fishermen to still have jobs, we must conserve the fish population by limiting fishing.
photo
mlaiuppa
Pres. Sarcasm Society. Like we need your approval.
02:41 PM on 01/02/2012
Ruined now or ruined later.

If the cuts aren't maintained, then the fishermen will overfish the cod to extinction and be ruined a few years down the road, PLUS they'll never have cod to fish again.

So what do you want? Do save the cod for future, regulated fishing or to fish them all out now and never have them again?
photo
boxjelly
I AM THE 99% SALT WATER ORGANISM!
04:03 PM on 01/02/2012
Their methods for stock status assessment are skewed
photo
TSRVT
Cantankerous New England curmudgeon
10:44 PM on 01/02/2012
Link? And not some ridiculously skewed one, please. Show me some science.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wally Parnel
02:34 PM on 01/02/2012
Doubt the shortage is immediate, as I have never seen situation, where the fishereman did not know this was coming because of dwindling catches. Wonder why they did not impose “catch quotas” before now ?????
03:03 PM on 01/02/2012
Yeah, it's pretty amazing that it took most East coast fisheries to grasp the essential importance of quotas. It took a federal law to force it on them (2010). They had a lot of other rules (trip limits, area closures) but it was pretty clear these weren't working. In the meantime, Alaska has had quotas for 30+ years and is recognized world wide for its healthy fisheries. Some fishermen did get hurt with consolidation of some of the fleets, but the fish stocks are healthy and barring some ecological disaster (which I wish I could say is unlikely) the great-great-grandchildren of current Alaskan fishermen could still making a living fishing.
06:50 PM on 01/02/2012
Nicely said and how true. Also to anybody who does purchase seafood who is interested in responsible harvests I would strongly recommend only buying seafood from either Canadian or American fisheries for they are the only ones actually interested in being responsible.
02:05 PM on 01/02/2012
Overfishing will put fishermen out of business forever.