Fish Tales

Study after study shows that too many fish are being taken from the world’s oceans, yet regulators continue to labor over regulations that encourage fishermen to fish as much as possible.

Now add to the evidence a study from the current issue of the journal Nature that reported 90 percent of the world’s large ocean species have disappeared in recent decades. Can you imagine the outcry if 90 percent of large land mammals were hunted and served for dinner? The problem is that fishing technology has become so efficient it takes only 15 years to remove 80 percent of more of any species from the ocean, according to the Nature article.

This dire picture contrasted sharply with the U.S. government’s own assessment of fish stocks, also released last week. The National Marine Fisheries Service cast a rosy blush on the situation. One fish stock – Gulf of Maine/ northern Georges Bank silver hake – has been rebuilt, four species were taken off the overfished list and 70 others continue to recover under federal rebuilding plans, NMFS said in an optimistic-sounding press release. Farther down in the document, the agency admitted that five species were added to the overfished list and that the status of “several” other species was changed to “unknown” due to a lack of information. The agency has no idea about the abundance or paucity of 673 fish stocks. That means that rules are written and decisions made without information on three-quarters of U.S. fish stocks.

NMFS has proposed that fishermen who aren’t able to go to sea as often as they like be able to lease their unused days to others. Last year, about 40,000 days at sea were recorded in New England. The NMFS proposal would allow fishermen to work nearly 70,000 days a year. This, of course, would mean more fish caught. It makes no sense given the growing body of evidence that humans have depleted the oceans.

Before pursing this, NMFS should focus on gathering more information. The observer program, which monitors by-catch, the capture and killing of species that are not targeted, needs more funding from Congress. Two cheaper measures would be to increase vessel monitoring to ensure that fishermen are abiding by current area closures and electronic dealer reporting to find out how many fish and what species are actually being caught.

Although much information is lacking, new rules are – and must be – written. Under a federal court order, members of the New England Fisheries Management Council are now crafting rules to regulate fishing with a goal of leaving more fish in the water. Public hearings on the proposed rules will be held this summer. If the past is a predictor, the council rules will be lenient and fish stocks will continue to dwindle. Ensuring that fishermen still have a livelihood is essential in the short term and equally important long term, which suggests greater conservation. It is no doubt a difficult balance, but regional and federal regulators must get serious about protecting what fish are left.

Canada provides a stark reminder of the cost of failure. Earlier this year, the government shut down the nation’s entire cod fishery. This isn’t a country around the globe. This is right next door.

The federal judge who required the rewriting of New England’s fishery regulations couldn’t hide her disappointment with federal regulators whom she chided for failing to meet the goals of the euphemistically titled Sustainable Fisheries Act. In the end, Judge Gladys Kessler agreed to a compromise reached by fishermen, regulators and a conservation group. But, she has warned that if the new rules she ordered don’t do enough to protect the fish, she’ll write the rules herself. That might not be such a bad thing since tougher rules are needed to preserve what ocean life remains.