START A PETITION 27,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
2,577,741 people care about Environment & Wildlife

Yes, We Restored Fish in Our Seas, But That Doesn’t Mean Our Work is Done

Yes, We Restored Fish in Our Seas, But That Doesn’t Mean Our Work is Done

This is a guest post from The Pew Charitable Trusts

A September 11 congressional hearing on the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act examined a new report from the National Academies on the law’s effectiveness in rebuilding depleted fish populations. As a member of the peer-review panel for the report, I can attest to the amount of work that went into this study, which clearly recognizes our nation’s overall success in restoring fish stocks. However, I also have serious concerns that some of its findings could lead some members of Congress to support new loopholes that could weaken our nation’s primary fisheries management law.

Released the week prior, the report reviews U.S. fisheries management since 2006. It rightly states that the current legal requirements have, “resulted in demonstrated successes in identifying and rebuilding overfished stocks.” The study also affirms that we need to prevent fish populations from becoming depleted in the first place. Such careful management would require fisheries’ managers to monitor the health of these fish stocks and decrease the amount of fishing if numbers decline below healthy levels. This approach would avert situations in which rebuilding is needed.

The progress noted in the report reinforces what many policymakers already know. Changes made to the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996 and 2006–including establishment of timelines to rebuild depleted fish populations and requirements to set annual science-based catch limits that prevent overfishing–are working. Thanks to these policy tools, 33 depleted fish species have been restored to healthy levels since 2000. Northwestern Atlantic sea scallops, Gulf of Mexico red grouper and Pacific lingcod are among those that have rebounded under the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s rebuilding requirements.

Such prudent fisheries management is good not only for these fisheries but also for the communities that rely on fishing for their livelihoods. Economists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Fisheries Service estimated in 2011 that rebuilding all depleted U.S. fish stocks that year would have generated an additional $31 billion in sales, supported an additional 500,000 jobs and increased the revenue that fishermen receive at the dock by $2.2 billion. The financial benefits of healthy fisheries for coastal communities are huge.

Just ask Captain John McMurray of Oceanside, NY. One of thousands of anglers who can speak to the effectiveness of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, McMurray is the owner and operator of “One More Cast” Charters and a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council. At a July 23 hearing he told members of the Senate Commerce Committee that the Magnuson-Stevens Act’s fish rebuilding requirements are working for both his business and his community. McMurray added that recreational fishermen operating along the mid-Atlantic coast caught 21 million pounds of summer flounder in 2011, up from 2.7 million pounds in 1989. That’s nearly a 700 percent increase.

The new National Academies report makes the same case, but unfortunately several areas of the report are problematic. For one, it places short-term economics above potential long-term damage to marine ecosystems, arguing that forgoing efforts to restore depleted species would be an acceptable trade-off for greater access to healthier ones. In other words, the report suggests more flexibility to allow overfishing of a severely depleted population such as Georges Bank cod in order to ensure that commercial fishermen can catch more of healthier fish stocks in the same area such as haddock and pollock in New England. This is akin to robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Moreover, despite the proven success of the rebuilding requirements, the report suggests retreating from the mandatory rebuilding timelines and targets that have restored fish populations. This would be a return to the short-term thinking that has plagued U.S. fisheries management for decades where everything was negotiable.

The combination of these shortsighted approaches is likely to result in depleted fish populations and degraded marine ecosystems that will eventually be unable to support the fish that coastal communities depend on.

Fisheries around the nation are rebounding, thanks to the rebuilding requirements of 1996 and the annual catch limit requirements of 2006. Congressional leaders should keep those successes in mind as they look to amend the law. Any changes should build on those accomplishments, not undercut them.

Read more: , , , , , , ,

Photo credit: Jason Arnold

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

49 comments

+ add your own
9:31AM PDT on May 20, 2014

thanks for sharing :)

4:59AM PST on Nov 5, 2013

Thank you The Pew Charitable Trusts, for Sharing this!

5:37PM PDT on Sep 21, 2013

When all of the radioactivity from Japan hits, the only fish left alive will be radioactive...real good for the fishing industry.

2:26PM PDT on Sep 21, 2013

You know what's scariest about this whole scenario? The fact that the US is SOOOOO much better than anyone else when it comes to protecting and rebuilding fish stocks. The Canadians and the Europeans are awful when it comes to this, and we won't even mention the Asians.

3:41PM PDT on Sep 19, 2013

ty

7:01PM PDT on Sep 17, 2013

Thanks

3:15PM PDT on Sep 17, 2013

Short term vision causes more issues then it solves. There are more then commercial fishes in the oceans...they need to live also.

3:01PM PDT on Sep 17, 2013

Yes, our work is far from done, but we will continue to do it!

1:09PM PDT on Sep 17, 2013

Sorry, but I've found myself very skeptical of governmental/agency/peer reviewed reports; many of which have a poor record of misleading the public in general. A rosy scenario for the oceans? I seriously doubt it.

1:05PM PDT on Sep 17, 2013

Fish are sentient creatures, and our fellow vertebrates. It is unethical to end their lives prematurely, and especially to make them suffer stressful and painful deaths. The two ways in which Americans kill fish are extremely painful: hooks wound the fish horribly; nets impose great stress on them, and then the fish suffer an awful drop in pressure as the nets are hauled quickly to the surface; in both cases the end comes with asphyxiation in the open air.

As for the environmental ethics aspect: There is no such thing as a "sustainable fishery." We don't know enough about marine ecosystems to be able to say that catching so many fish and no more will not adversely affect a network of species.

"Restored to healthy levels" is a false euphemism. "Healthy" in this expression means only that there will be more fish to catch the following year. It says nothing about true health: the long-term health of the fish's ecosystem, and of that particular species of fish. Fishing in any one season may put to death some of the more promising individuals in a population, and so set back the evolution of the species.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Care2 - Be Extraordinary - Start a Care2 Petition
ads keep care2 free
CONTACT THE EDITORS

Recent Comments from Causes

Sherry B... You're the one who's spewing, and none of it has any bearing in truth. I've read the Bible…

I certainly never said that GMO's degrade the soil. They don't. Organic regulations are still not the…

meet our writers

Lindsay Spangler Lindsay Spangler is a Web Editor and Producer for Care2 Causes. A recent UCLA graduate, she lives in... more
ads keep care2 free

more from causes




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.