Fisheries CPR Paper
by
The Professor
Pew_Report
In May, 2003 the Pew Oceans Commission published a report on the health of the world oceans. It consists of 18 experts who are scientists, lawmakers, and industry representatives.
Other threats the report mentions are:
1) loss of coral reefs due to ocean temperature rise
2) changes in atmospheric circulation that disrupt normal patterns of upwelling.
The following is a summary of some of the most important recommendations of the Pew Report:
To restore the fisheries, the management of access to fishing areas and catch limits is recommended. Also, limits to bycatch and regulations on fishing geat that could damage the ecosystem habitat.
To preserve coastal regions, non=point source pollution must be controlled and critical habitat preserved from development.
Cleaning coastal waters requires laws or more effective enforcement to control point and non-point source pollution and invasive species.
Regarding aquaculture (fish farms), a national policy based on sound conservation principles needs to be developed.
The_Controversy
It is not surprising that the fishing industry has attacked this report. It proposes new responsibilities and regulations that it would rather not have to respond to. Restrictions on access, marine reserves, fishing gear limitations, etc. cause the fisherman's life to be harder and may impact their income.
The arguments put forth by the National Fisheries Institute are mainly:
1) US fisheries are healthy, according to NOAA, UN, and other organizations.
2) Current fisheries management is working remarkably well.
3) Pew Commission's findings on overfishing are not supported by facts. In fact, progress is being achieved in maintaining and rebuilding fish stocks and that a 2002 NOAA report states that overfishing is occurring in less thatn 10% of US fisheries.
4) We don't need an independent national oceans agency because it adds cost and unnecessary bureaucracy.
5) A unified ocean posicy is already in place. We don't need another one.
6) New marine reserves should be located based on facts, not randomly designating certain areas of the sea as no take zones (did Pew recommend this?)
7) Re catching non-target species (by-catch), the industry is making great progress. New net designs have resulted [:(Cmnt by william prothero: The points lost in this section are because of incomplete summary of the NFI objections. ):] .
My_Analysis
The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) strongly disagrees with the Pew Report in item 3 [:(Cmnt by william prothero: The controversy should have been summarized at the start of this section. ):] .The best data on this subject comes from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)report: "Implementing the SFA: Reports, Plans & Studies, 2003". This is the most recent data available on the health of the fish stocks. It focusses on species that are of interest for commercial fishing. On page 8, the report states:
* The number of stocks for which the fishing mortality rate exceeds the overfishing threshold decreased from 66 in 2002 to 60 in 2003.
* The number of stocks found to be not subject to overfishing increased from 208 in 2002 to 232 in 2003.
* The number of stocks for which harvest rates are unknown or for which overfishing thresholds are not defined decreased from 658 in 2002 to 617 in 2003.
According to the above numbers, the percentages of "stocks" that are over-fished decreased by 9%. The number of stocks found not to be overfished increased by 11%. This is a good direction. The National Fisheries Institute presents the numbers in the most optimistic way possible. {link: F-LincodSpawn.jpg}Figure 1 shows an example for a "recovering" fishery, ling cod. The upward trend could indicate a successfully recovering fishery, but the precipitous decline since 1973 dwarfs tge recovery. The NMFS report is oriented toward commercial fisheries, and doesn't address the ecological system that supports healthy fish stocks. The NFI assertions mention 5 success stories and claim Alaska as a success to, but those fisheries have never been over-fished. However, the New England groundfish increase of 150% is very misleading, because the base number is so small.
The problem is now, as you kind of indicated, we have 5,000 square miles of ocean that's closed to fishing in New England. We have 20,000 square miles of ocean closed to fishing off our Pacific coast. That is not an indication of a healthy fishery, and some of these stocks will take decades to bring back (PBS report, 2003).
A UPI article (5/14/2003) quotes a study by Canadian ressearchers (who they do not name) asserting that there was a 90% decrease in the population of large ocean fish, from tuna to cod, since the commercial fishermen took to the seas. This time period covers 47 years for 62 predatory species.
"Since 1950, with the onset of industrialized fisheries, we have rapidly reduced the resource base to less than 10 percent -- not just in some areas, not just for some stocks, but for entire communities of these large fish species from the tropics to the poles," said study co-author Boris Worm of Dalhousie and the University of Kiel in Germany (UPI article, 2003).
Here is my analysis of the situation.
1) The NFI pick a smaller number of success stories to present an optimistic view.
2) NFI uses misleading percentages to imply great success.
3) Data on marine biomass is lacking. This is the critical number that is needed to decide whether the oceans are truly being "fished out" by commercial fishing.
4) It is common to criticize methodology because there are errors. Errors always exist and sometimes even data with large errors can give important indications of problems.
5) Government intervention is costly for the fishing industry. They want to avoid it.
"We have forgotten what we used to have," Jackson said. "We had oceans full of heroic fish -- literally sea monsters. People used to harpoon 3-meter-long swordfish in rowboats." (UPI article, 2003).
6) I find the claims that the largest adult fish are gone, very credibl [:(Cmnt by william prothero: This section didn't lose too many points, but the quotes and supporting evidence is quite weak. ):] e.
Sustainability
Sustainability means that a resource is being used at a rate where it can be harvested at that rate for a long period of time. For the fisheries, this means that fish grow each year to replace the ones that are fished out. If the population is falling, it will eventually die out completely.
The ordinary citizen can:
1) donate or become involved in organizations that support policies you agree with.
2) in restaurants, only eat fish that are fished sustainably. Don't order chilean sea bass and orange roughy, two overfished species.
3) write letters to your legislators and advocate for a responsible, sustainable, clean ocean environment.
References
Panetta, 2003. America's Livign Oceans, Charting a Course for Sea Change, Report of the Pew Oceans Commission.
UPI Article, 2003. http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030514-014438-1306r
Figure 1. Biomass of Ling Cod. This shows an upward trend in biomass, beginning in 1998. {fig: F-LincodSpawn.jpg}