JohnR
01-16-2002, 01:32 PM
I got this off of MSBA's listserver, which in trun was from today's Boston Globe - http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/016/editorials/Curbing_the_catch+.shtml :
Curbing the catch
1/16/2002
COMMERCIAL fishermen are highly motivated and innovative when it comes to nearly every challenge at sea save one - preserving fish populations at levels healthy enough for sustainability. Unregulated and unrestrained, the average dragger would, as the old salts say, ''fish your eyeballs out of their sockets.''
Naturalists, therefore, need to be equally tough-minded and relentless. In late December, a consortium of five environmental groups, including Oceana and the Conservation Law Foundation, proved their mettle in court by convincing a federal judge that overfishing continues to deplete stocks of groundfish in the New England fishery. The court held that federal fishery managers, notably the National Marine Fisheries Service, have failed to prevent overfishing and fallen down in their efforts to assess and minimize bycatch - the inadvertent catch and discard of nontargeted species. Tomorrow, the environmentalists are scheduled to recommend solutions to the court.
New Englanders are respectful of their 1,400 groundfish trawlers and the rugged men and women who battle the elements at sea only to face equally stubborn middlemen and processors ashore. But the longterm ecological health of the fisheries trumps the immediate economic concerns of individual fishermen. Congress enacted the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996 precisely to prevent the kind of overfishing of cod, yellowtail flounder, haddock, and a dozen more species that continues unabated in New England waters. Yet sound ocean management is still nowhere to be seen.
No one is precisely sure how much fish, dead or dying, is tossed overboard each year by New England fishermen who can't keep them due to quota systems. But the tonnage must be considerable. A July 2001 article in the journal ''Science'' suggests that overfishing is more likely to cause the collapse of coastal ecosystems than either pollution or global warming.
More observers will be needed aboard New England fishing vessels to determine the extent of the problem. And more sophisticated equipment will be needed to reduce the bycatch, especially of juvenile fish. Regulators must also look carefully at the concept of no-take zones that prohibit commercial and recreational fishing in order to guard spawning areas.
The politics of the industry is as slippery as a main deck covered with fish slime. The New England Fishery Management Council, an industry-dominated group that advises the National Marine Fisheries Service, balked during much of the local debate on sustainable marine resources. Just last month it failed to file a groundfishing plan for next season. The fisheries service stood by haplessly.
Biodiversity demands that there be no safe harbor for overfishing in New England.
This story ran on page A12 of the Boston Globe on 1/16/2002
Now I don't consider myself a "Naturalist" and I know I'm not a commercial fisherman, so where does that put my thinking?
Obviously, a better way of dealing with bycatch is needed as what's there ain't working in most fisheries (BTW - Commercial Striper Rod&Reelers don't produce bycatch - although 40 fish/day in Mass is pretty high from a pure fishing standpoint :rolleyes: ). I think most everyone agrees that the current management systems aren't working but what do you think about when someone says "Regulators must also look carefully at the concept of no-take zones that prohibit commercial and recreational fishing in order to guard spawning areas"?
Or what about "More observers will be needed aboard New England fishing vessels to determine the extent of the problem. And more sophisticated equipment will be needed to reduce the bycatch, especially of juvenile fish."?
Anyone have an objective opinion on this Science Journal?
Curbing the catch
1/16/2002
COMMERCIAL fishermen are highly motivated and innovative when it comes to nearly every challenge at sea save one - preserving fish populations at levels healthy enough for sustainability. Unregulated and unrestrained, the average dragger would, as the old salts say, ''fish your eyeballs out of their sockets.''
Naturalists, therefore, need to be equally tough-minded and relentless. In late December, a consortium of five environmental groups, including Oceana and the Conservation Law Foundation, proved their mettle in court by convincing a federal judge that overfishing continues to deplete stocks of groundfish in the New England fishery. The court held that federal fishery managers, notably the National Marine Fisheries Service, have failed to prevent overfishing and fallen down in their efforts to assess and minimize bycatch - the inadvertent catch and discard of nontargeted species. Tomorrow, the environmentalists are scheduled to recommend solutions to the court.
New Englanders are respectful of their 1,400 groundfish trawlers and the rugged men and women who battle the elements at sea only to face equally stubborn middlemen and processors ashore. But the longterm ecological health of the fisheries trumps the immediate economic concerns of individual fishermen. Congress enacted the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996 precisely to prevent the kind of overfishing of cod, yellowtail flounder, haddock, and a dozen more species that continues unabated in New England waters. Yet sound ocean management is still nowhere to be seen.
No one is precisely sure how much fish, dead or dying, is tossed overboard each year by New England fishermen who can't keep them due to quota systems. But the tonnage must be considerable. A July 2001 article in the journal ''Science'' suggests that overfishing is more likely to cause the collapse of coastal ecosystems than either pollution or global warming.
More observers will be needed aboard New England fishing vessels to determine the extent of the problem. And more sophisticated equipment will be needed to reduce the bycatch, especially of juvenile fish. Regulators must also look carefully at the concept of no-take zones that prohibit commercial and recreational fishing in order to guard spawning areas.
The politics of the industry is as slippery as a main deck covered with fish slime. The New England Fishery Management Council, an industry-dominated group that advises the National Marine Fisheries Service, balked during much of the local debate on sustainable marine resources. Just last month it failed to file a groundfishing plan for next season. The fisheries service stood by haplessly.
Biodiversity demands that there be no safe harbor for overfishing in New England.
This story ran on page A12 of the Boston Globe on 1/16/2002
Now I don't consider myself a "Naturalist" and I know I'm not a commercial fisherman, so where does that put my thinking?
Obviously, a better way of dealing with bycatch is needed as what's there ain't working in most fisheries (BTW - Commercial Striper Rod&Reelers don't produce bycatch - although 40 fish/day in Mass is pretty high from a pure fishing standpoint :rolleyes: ). I think most everyone agrees that the current management systems aren't working but what do you think about when someone says "Regulators must also look carefully at the concept of no-take zones that prohibit commercial and recreational fishing in order to guard spawning areas"?
Or what about "More observers will be needed aboard New England fishing vessels to determine the extent of the problem. And more sophisticated equipment will be needed to reduce the bycatch, especially of juvenile fish."?
Anyone have an objective opinion on this Science Journal?