Overfishing isn’t good for fish stocks.
The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization has
observed that
“Overfishing transforms an originally stable, mature and
efficient ecosystem into one that is immature and stressed. This happens in various ways. By targeting and reducing the abundance of
high-value predators, fisheries deeply modify the trophic chain and the flows
of biomass (and energy) across the ecosystem.”
People who hear the term “overfishing” have an instinctive
understanding of what it means—taking too many fish for the health of a population—although
many slightly different definitions of “overfishing” exist. It is said to occur
or
Here in the United States, where all fishing in federal
waters is governed by the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, that law includes a definition of
overfishing based on the health of fish stocks. Pursuant
to Magnuson-Stevens,
“The terms ‘overfishing’ and ‘overfished’ mean a rate or
level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to
produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis.”
Such fishing mortality represents the aggregate number of
fish killed as a result of fishing activity, whether such activity is recreational
or commercial in nature, and whether the fish killed are harvested, represent
dead discards or otherwise die as a direct result of fishing efforts.
Even so, in the minds of many people—and certainly in the
minds of many, and probably most, anglers, overfishing is something done by the
commercial fleets. Often, such attitudes
are justified; as
noted by National Geographic magazine,
“large, profit-seeking commercial fleets were extremely
aggressive, scouring the world’s oceans and developing ever more sophisticated
methods and technologies for finding, extracting, and processing their target
species. Consumers soon grew accustomed
to having access to a wide selection of fish species at affordable prices.
“But by 1989, when about 90 million tons (metric tons) of
catch were taken from the ocean, the industry had hit its high water mark, and
yields have declined or stagnated ever since.
Fisheries for the most sought-after species, like orange roughy, Chilean
sea bass, and bluefin tuna have collapsed.
In 2003, a scientific report estimated that industrial fishing had
reduced the number of large ocean fish to just 10 percent of their
pre-industrial population.”
Perhaps because of the obvious damage done by the industrial
fishing fleets, anglers have rarely admitted or willingly accepted their role
in overfishing fish stocks. That can
frequently be seen in the language used by various recreational fishing
organizations. The Coastal Conservation Association,
arguably the largest anglers’ rights group in the country, proudly proclaims in
its origin story that
“CCA began in 1977 after drastic commercial overfishing
along the Texas coast decimated redfish and speckled trout populations. 14 concerned recreational anglers created the
Gulf Coast Conservation Association to combat commercial overfishing. [emphasis added]”
"The world of modern fisheries management is a complex
and oftentimes contentious environment.
Many of our favorite recreational fisheries are imperiled due to habitat
degradation and commercial overfishing.
Sadly, recreational fishing interests often take a backseat to
commercial fishing practices. The reason
for this is simple. Commercial interests
are much better represented on management and political levels. Recreational fishing as an ecologically
friendly and economically viable alternative to unsustainable commercial
fishing is a relatively new concept.
Thus, it is vital that recreational anglers are during the fisheries
management decision making process.
Fisheries managers need to be shown that recreational fishing is a growing
and vibrant entity of its own that has considerably participation and economic
impact globally. This cannot be done
without active participation and interaction with fisheries management. [emphasis added]”
While its impossible to disagree with the notion that
recreational fishermen should be more involved with the management process—after
all, the primary purpose of this blog is to encourage salt water anglers to do just
that—it’s clear from the selections quoted above that angling organizations tend
to present at least one aspect of the management process in black and white
terms: Recreational fishing is always a
good thing, while commercial fishing is bad.
And it’s very possible to disagree with that.
While CCA is always proud
to describe its role in ending the commercial fishery for redfish (more
properly, “red drum”) and speckled trout in Texas, it never mentions the
fact that recreational
red drum and speckled trout harvest along the Texas coast is now so high that such
stocks may no longer be able to naturally replace all of the fish removed from
the water by anglers. Instead of
reducing recreational landings to naturally sustainable levels,
“The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department’s marine hatcheries
produce juvenile red drum, spotted seatrout and southern flounder for stock
enhancement. Stock is the release of
hatchery-reared juvenile organisms into the wild to supplement the existing
population. It serves as a tool used by
TPWD to manage the marine fishery along the Texas coast to ensure that harvest levels are
sustained and stocks are replenished.
[emphasis added]”
Thus, despite CCA's willingness to criticize commercial
overfishing, it seems unwilling to admit that recreational anglers can
overfish and cause harm to stocks, too; instead
of working to reduce recreational harvest to naturally sustainable levels, it
instead champions the use of artificially-reared fish in order to keep the
recreational kill high.
And just as the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department has
adopted the more benign-sounding “stock enhancement” as a euphemism for “fish
stocking,” CCA, along with other industry and anglers’ rights organizations,
have developed their own euphemism for recreational overfishing.
They call it “access.”
References to greater “access” to fish stocks abound in
press releases and other promotional efforts in support of the so-called “Modern
Fish Act,” more properly called the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management
Act. For example, a statement on the
website of the American Sportfishing Association, which represents the fishing
tackle industry, says that such legislation
“would improve public access to America’s federal waters,
promote conservation of our marine natural resources and spur economic
growth. [emphasis added]”
It would do that by, among other things,
“allowing alternative management for recreational fishing, …smartly
rebuilding fishery stocks, [and] establishing exemptions where annual catch limits
don’t fit.”
Right now, federal recreational fisheries, like commercial
fisheries, are managed with annual catch limits designed to prevent
overfishing, and require stocks to be rebuilt promptly, and within a time
certain; the law requires fishermen to be held accountable if they overfish a
given stock.
So in order to “improve…access,” the Modern Fish Act would allow
“alternative management” that does not necessarily require annual catch limits,
promptly (or, perhaps, ever) rebuilding fish stocks or holding recreational
fishermen accountable for their overages.
In other words, it would “improve…access” by allowing
anglers to overfish.
To get a good idea of how that works, it’s only necessary to
look at what happened to Gulf of Mexico red snapper last summer.
Because
of long state-waters seasons, where anglers were expected to land about 81% of
their overall quota, the initial federal-waters red snapper season lasted only three
days. Anglers
whined loudly about the season, even though it was necessary to prevent them
from overfishing.
“the approach will necessarily mean that the private
recreational sector will substantially exceed its annual catch limit, which
was designed to prevent overfishing the stock,”
and predicted that
“this approach may delay the ultimate rebuilding of the stock
by as many as 6 years.”
“the increased angler catch will result in the overall catch
limit for this year being exceeded by 30% and 50%,”
yet they still allowed the reopening.
So did recreational fishing organizations, including those
who rail against commercial overfishing, object to the reopened season and the
inevitable recreational overfishing that would result?
Hardly.
Instead, they praised the Department of Commerce’s action.
“Anglers commend the Trump Administration and Members of
Congress for hearing our calls for more access to federal waters—and for
taking action. [emphasis added]”
“to improve recreational red snapper access after a record low
three-day federal season was announced earlier this year. [emphasis added]”
After a
group of Louisiana chefs wrote an op-ed piece opposing the Modern Fish Act,
a representative
of the Coastal Conservation Association’s Mississippi chapter called the letter
“hogwash” and claime that
“the chefs are associated with the Gulf Restoration Network,
which is an environmental group (there are others) intent on restricting
public access to public resources (fisheries under federal management)… [emphasis added]”
He went on to say make the statement that
“[the Coastal Conservation Association] contends that the
recreational angling community is more committed to conservation of fishery
resources than any proprietary group that exists in the marine world.”
Let’s think about those two claims for a minute.
The Gulf Restoration Network says that
“The health of Gulf fish are at risk because of overfishing
by commercial and recreational fishermen.
The lack of scientifically based catch limits created significant
problems for the Gulf. Catch limits that
were too high led to the decline of many fish populations including red snapper
and goliath grouper…
“…To ensure that the Gulf supports healthy fish populations
now and in the future, we support science-based management of fish.
·
GRN works with Gulf and national partners to set
annual catch limits that rebuild fish stocks and prevent current and future
overfishing,
·
Focus on the ecosystem as a whole, including
stronger protections for fish habitat and better management and conservation of
forage (or small “bait” fish) species that feed larger fish and other predators,
and
·
Ensure a sustainable future for Gulf fish.”
“action to extend the Gulf of Mexico red snapper season is a
welcome boon to anglers…
“…anglers are right to be encouraged by the willingness of
this Administration and the snapper fishery.
This alone is a tremendous achievement.
“The recreational angling community should feel vindicated,
and we should take heart that after years of being systematically sidelined by
NOAA Fisheries, our efforts to encourage our elected officials in Congress to
engage on this man-made management disaster are yielding results…”
So, asking the most obvious question first, who is really “more
committed to fisheries conservation”:
The anglers of CCA, who cheered when the Department of Commerce allowed
them to overfish red snapper in the Gulf, or the Gulf Restoration Network,
which fights for annual catch limits that would prevent such overfishing?
At the risk of offending some folks that I know, I’d have to
say that the Gulf Restoration Network wins that one…
But it’s probably the second question that deserves more
attention. What does CCA—and the Center
for Sportfishing Policy and all of the other groups that support the Modern
Fish Act and criticize current federal management efforts—mean when they say
that managers are “restring public access to public resources” when they manage
fish stocks?
The answer to that one can be found in the fact that they hailed the increased
“access” to red snapper that resulted from last summer’s reopened season, even
though it also was expected to cause them to overfish their quota by thirty to
fifty percent.
Which leads to another, and most significant, question.
Had the shoe been on the other foot, and the commercial red
snapper fleet overfished their quota by a similar percentage, would the angling
groups have celebrated the fact that commercial and consumer “access” to the
resource had increased by more than thirty percent?
Or would they have complained that the commercial sector had
“overfished” by a substantial amount, and demand that the commercial fishermen
be held accountable?
We’ll never know for certain, because the commercial red
snapper fleet, unlike the anglers, have stayed within their quota for more than
a decade. But I think that we can all
guess how the anglers would have reacted.
And that, in the end, tells us two things.
It tells us who is “more committed to the conservation of
fishery resources,” because a committed conservationist holds the health of the
resource paramount, and is willing to make sacrifices to assure that such
health is maintained.
And it tells us that the various angling groups who talk
about weakening federal fisheries laws know that overfishing is a bad thing. So when they overfish, exceeding the annual catch
limit and impeding the recovery of an overfished stock, they call it “improved
access” in a clumsy effort to disguise what they’re doing.
Perhaps it’s an effort to conceal it, most of all, from
themselves, and prevent them from looking in the mirror and having to admit
that they’re not the good guys anymore.
Because overfishing is bad, no matter what you call it.
And it’s not something that a “good guy” would do.
No comments:
Post a Comment