Fishing for Answers

Depending on whom you listen to, the world’s oceans and the fish that live there are either in crisis and a major change in policy is needed or they are recovering nicely and current conservation measures are working. Recently, assessments of fish stocks and ocean health have leaned heavily toward the crisis side.

Last week, the Pew Oceans Commission, a group of fishermen, scientists, conservationists and government officials, warned that too many fish are being caught and that fish habitat is rapidly being destroyed by development and contaminated runoff from cities and farms. The report comes after an assessment, published in the journal Nature last month, that the world’s oceans have lost 90 percent of their large, predatory fish such as cod, tuna and flounder.

The same week, the National Marine Fisheries Service released its annual assessment of U.S. fish stocks. It painted an overly rosy picture. 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 cheered. The news from the U.S. government’s ocean fishery watchdog agency, however, was not all good. Five species were added to the overfished list and 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 species.

Clearly, more – and better – information is needed. As Pat White, a Pew Commission member and executive director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, put it: “We know more about the surface of Venus than we do about the floor of the ocean.” Marine studies account for only 4 percent of research dollars spent in the United States, although oceans cover far more area than land. In 2001, the United States spent about $3 billion on ocean management compared to $10 billion on managing federal lands and $14 billion on space exploration.

The commission wisely, if unrealistically, called for a doubling of funding for ocean research to $1.6 billion. This is good news for universities and colleges in Maine that, due to their proximity to the coast, are well positioned to benefit from increased marine research spending. The University of Maine, for example, should play a larger role in stock assessments and modeling.

On the management side, the commission recommends the creation of a Cabinet-level agency to focus exclusively on marine issues. Currently, ocean policy is spread among a myriad of agencies, including the Department of Commerce, which oversees NMFS. Clearly, a department more concerned with the quantity of products that are bought, sold and shipped is not the right agency to oversee oceans, where conservation must be balanced against consumption.

Although much effort has been made to regulate fishing, as the Pew commission points out, there are many other threats to marine ecosystems. Rampant coastal development, for example, has vast negative repercussions for sea life and the men and women who make a living from the ocean. The use of the oceans as a dumping ground, whether intentional or not, has caused much damage and must be further addressed.

Far from providing all the answers, the Pew commission report is the beginning of the latest opportunity for discussions about how best to preserve and protect the nation’s oceans. It is an opportunity that shouldn’t be squandered.