Overfishing -- taking fish from our oceans faster than they can reproduce -- has plagued fisheries for decades. South Atlantic red snapper, for example, have been subject to overfishing since the 1960s. Congress first attempted to deal with this problem in 1976 when it passed the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, now called the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
Although federal law has held fishery managers responsible for ending overfishing since 1976, earlier versions of the MSA lacked hard deadlines and included loopholes that let managers set catch levels far higher than those recommended by scientists. Chronic overfishing devastated U.S. fish populations. This led to smaller catches and lower revenue.
So in 1996, Congress established a 10-year target to restore depleted populations to healthy levels. Unfortunately, the need for firm rebuilding timelines has not been embraced by some in the fishing industry, and they are now pressing Congress to add "flexibility" to the regulations.
Fishery managers are required by law to prevent overfishing and to help populations recover so that they increase to a size that will support the largest sustainable catch -- a goal that benefits everyone, particularly fishermen. Therefore, if fishing interests succeed in preventing depleted, yet important, fish populations from rebounding, then we all (fishermen and conservationists alike) lose.
Time and again, we have heard short-sighted calls for flexibility in the timelines for rebuilding overfished populations. Responding to this intensely localized pressure, some members of Congress have introduced bills that would exempt fisheries from certain requirements. These proposals would create loopholes in the MSA and increase fishing pressure on diminished populations, jeopardizing their ability to recover and delaying critical economic and ecological benefits to fishing communities.
Making a bad idea worse
Efforts to delay rebuilding plans are not only a bad idea, they're also unnecessary because the law already allows for target exceptions in special circumstances. Obviously, exhausted fish populations could rebound in the shortest amount of time by simply closing that fishery, but this would pose severe economic hardships on fishermen. Therefore, the law uses a 10-year target for most populations to return to healthy levels -- a time period that most scientists calculate is more than sufficient for a majority of fish populations rebound (PDF).
The law also lets managers exceed the 10-year target in certain well-justified cases, including:
This 10-year target is just that -- a target. In many cases, a fish population can rebound in less time, but fishery managers still may set a 10-year rebuilding goal, more than the minimum needed, to lessen the impacts on fishermen and fishing communities. And on the other hand, if a fish population is biologically incapable of returning to healthy levels within 10 years, fishery managers may use a specific formula to calculate how much time would be needed to restore the population to a healthy size. In those cases, if justified by science, rebuilding timelines can stretch for decades.
Instead of seeking to weaken the current 10-year rebuilding goal in U.S. law, Congress should try to find ways to increase the quantity and quality of data so that we can make the most informed decisions possible. It is science that allows managers the flexibility to adjust management measures to account for variations in the species under federal management.
In my next post I'll explore the economic benefits of ending overfishing and why we can't quit just when the current law is beginning to work.
Dr. Andrew Weil: Pregnant? Eat Fish!
David Helvarg: A Year After BP -- From Greenwashing to Bluewashing
Danielle Nierenberg: Fishing for Sustainable Practices to Conserve Fisheries
Hilary Kramer: The Economics of Fishing Subsidies -- Destroying a Vital Global Enterprise
U.S. seeks to change overfishing standards - US news - Environment ...
Has overfishing ended? Top US scientist says yes
Steve Murawski: Overfishing To Stop In U.S. For First Time In A ...
As a proud California Salmon Troller, I usually refer folks to the NMFS Overfishing Map which shows that there is zero "overfishing" going on in West Coast Waters - even though there are some "overfished" species on our coast too.
Good fisheries management is crucial to rebuilding and maintaining our fisheries at sustainable levels, but even more important along our coast is to curtail other factors that hold our fish/fisheries back from achieving their full potential: "overfarming", "overdrafting of water", "overuse of chemical fertilizers/pesticides", ... pollution from other sources such as municipalities, oil industry, power industry, copper in brakepads that ends up in the water every time someone slows down their vehicle, just to name a few.
What we do on land has much greater impact on our fish stocks than anything we could do out there on the oceans under current regulations.
If we stopped fishing altogether today, tomorrow there would be no more salmon, no more herring in SF-Bay, Dungeness Crabs and Halibut would find our estuaries inhospitable, because fishermen would not speak up for these animals any longer.
In order to protect fish, one must also protect and cherish the diversity our fleet has today. Thousands of small businesses that reap a living from multitudes of species protected by our government as PUBLIC-TRUST RESOURCES.
Since farming fish is a waste of time because the quality of wild fish is incomparable to farmed, there really is no other way to help the wild populations rebound other than cutting down on commercial fishing for a few years. It’s a necessary sacrifice we can all make to help ensure the survival of fish and ourselves. I am sure everyone who is anti government will just make the argument that this is government trying to run our lives but what they fail to understand is that regulations like these are meant to help us.
as a commercial fisherman, I actually AM interested in the long term sustainability of our fish-stocks. My fishing income feeds my family and keeps a roof over our heads, I don't want to see that go away. I also have more invested in my boat than some have in their houses. If I (or some other greedy fisherman) caught all the fish today, what would I do with my boat tomorrow? It would be utterly worthless.
That said, I still want to thank you for being a supporter of sustainable fisheries.
this is only one problem that needs addressing !!!!...overfishing, clear-cutting timber, exploiting resources, etc, began when columbus and his goons landed !!!!!!...ever since this time-frame, the people who have settled here have followed suit !!!!!!
over-fishing has caused the weak and older fish to have to do the breeding due to the younger and stronger be caught and eaten or used for fertilizer.
there is a DVD available, "America Before Columbus" it is a must watch !!!!!! it will explain and show how/why this country was destroyed so quickly.