Flexibility in fisheries management

(from the June, 2006 issue of National Fisherman)

Those organizations that are devoted to convincing anyone who will listen that all of our oceans’ ills should be blamed on commercial fishing are hard at work in Washington, trying to remove the last vestiges of flexibility from our fisheries management system, With war chests bulging with foundation dollars, as I write this they are hard at work on Capitol Hill. They’re there selling the idea that what little latitude still remaining in the fisheries management process should be removed, that those people who have an actual, on-the-water grasp of what fishing is all about be barred from the decision making process, and that fisheries management should be done by filling-in-the-blanks and driven by statistics and rigid time frames.

To anyone not well acquainted with the vagaries of nature, oceanography, sun spots and the host of other variables that can affect fish stocks, this probably seems like a reasonable idea. If we know how many fish should be in the ocean and how many aren’t there because fishermen are killing them, then all we have to do is adjust the latter to control the former. And we can set a realistic time frame in which to build the stocks back to where they should be. All we need to do this is a few scientists, a few statisticians, a few bureaucrats, a bunch of observers to ensure that the fishermen aren’t cheating, and a bunch of foundation money to spend on PR and lobbying and litigation. There’s no need for fishermen in the system because inherent conflicts of interest dictate that they are incapable of making reasoned decisions.

Sounds nice, doesn’t it? And if we knew how many fish of each species there were in the ocean, if we knew and could control (or if not control, then at least predict the effects of) all of the factors significantly impacting on those fish, and if we could understand all of the interactions in our ocean ecosystems, it might even work.

Unfortunately, about the only thing we know is what the commercial harvest is, and that’s about all that we can easily control. We don’t have a clue about what the recreational anglers are catching, we don’t know how many of them there are and we sure can’t regulate what they catch. We inflict the residues of our modern existence on our inshore and near shore waters in increasing amounts every year as we continue to trade productive wetlands for commercial and residential development. As far as knowing how many fish there are out there, did you ever wonder why the fisheries folks are the only scientists who hardly ever accompany their published “numbers” with an indication of how precise they actually are? And it’s only been in the last few years that we’ve even begun to recognize the importance of natural “cycles” on fish stocks.

What would the logical outcome of this almost overwhelming lack of knowledge be if, as desired by the ENGOs (that’s Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations for those of you not in the know), it were the sole basis of fisheries management decisions? If we removed any subjective judgment from the process? Let’s consider a hypothetical fish species: an estuarine spawner just starting on the downward leg of a 50-year population cycle. For the past 10 years it’s been at high levels of abundance (though not as high as it should be because we’ve done such a good job of building around, playing on and flushing into those estuaries). But, as its population cycles downwards, that would automatically trigger regulations reducing fishing effort. How about if the reduction in fishing effort doesn’t compensate for the natural population decline and falling recruitment due to habitat degradation? It gets reduced again next year, and the following year, and the year after that…. And with a mandatory 10 year rebuilding period, with no flexibility in the system, and with no one in the system who can see through the statistics, what’s going to be left of the fishery?

If the displaced fishermen are lucky, they and their boats can move into another fishery. If not, hey – anything that reduces capacity is a good thing, isn’t it? And there’s always a ready market for the property commercial docks sit on. So what if it’s more condos and tee shirt shops? So what if, once gone, waterfront fishing infrastructure is never coming back.

And if anyone in the management establishment, realizing that it isn’t fishing that’s driving the fishery, tries to interfere, there are those buckets of foundation dollars waiting to pay for the ENGO lawyers to go to court again to “save the commercial fishers.” Someone’s gotta be able to afford to live in those new condos.

Nils E. Stolpe