Pink plus or minus.

Counting the Fish in the Ocean

I’ve primarily stayed clear of discussing fisheries issues on this blog. Mostly because the issues are so deeply complicated that they deserve more than passing lip service or emotional platitudes. But I’ve been knee deep in commercial fishing for five months now, sitting in meetings with environmental groups and government agencies, listening to charter boat captains and recreational fishermen, and watching salty sea dogs lament what they see as the end of a way of life and an end to coastal fishing communities.

The end is coming in the form of catch shares, a government-sponsored fisheries management program that is designed to eliminate half the fishing vessels from the ocean and consolidate the fishing industry into a handful of companies, essentially privatizing our natural resource by means of a cap-and-trade system that monitors fishing in terms of quota, or catch shares.

This program was largely designed based on theories that claim our oceans are nearly depleted of life. This theory made it’s biggest splash in a 2006 Science magazine paper, which even went so far as to give the end of the oceans a date: 2048. Being a society that loves doomsday predictions, that number has stuck with us. That theme has since largely informed our national oceanic policy, lead largely by the Environmental Defense Fund. The term used to argue this doomsday prediction was “scientific consensus.” Sounds pretty scary.

What is also scary and what isn’t being discussed is our government’s solution to this problem by means of privatizing a public resource. Much as agribusiness has virtually eliminated the family farm, our government now wants to eliminate family fishing. All in the name of “scientific consensus” and a number: 2048.

But let’s look at “scientific consensus” and at this number a little more closely.

Atlantic cod, for example, cited by many often as the posterchild for overfished species, is expected to be fully rebuilt by next year, according to Tom Nies, chief fishery analyst of the New England Fishery Management Council. The rest of the atlantic groundfish stocks are at different points of recovery. The same is true of our pacific oceans, which arguably have been better managed from the outset. Of the 87 species of groundfish managed on the pacific coast, only 4 are considered overfished. All of which are on the road to recovery.

Part of the problem in all of this is that the measurements that our “scientific consensus” tools use are primarily stock assessment protocols that assume if a fish isn’t being caught it means it isn’t in the ocean. Yet the very fish that science claims are being depleted are intentionally not being caught by the industry because the industry wants to rebuild them. They are being intentionally avoided.

One fisherman made the analogy of our government’s current stock assessment efforts to a US Census Bureau estimating population by not including urban areas.

Ultimately, it’s in the best interest of all who work in the fishing industry to maintain a healthy ocean. Both economically and culturally, the ocean is the foundation of many families who fish for a living.

I’m not saying that the fishing industry doesn’t need some kind of regulation. But currently, it is one of the most regulated industries in the world. To say that we are going to suck all the fish out of the ocean if we don’t essentially put the control of all aspects of fishing into the hands of a few big corporations and the US government is disingenuous at best. It not only ignores the profound and significant investments and improvements in fishing practices that have already been made, but it assumes that people are incapable of making informed, educated choices without the hand of Uncle Sam providing the proper paperwork and processes.

And it’s not just people in the fishing industry that are seeing major recovery without the implementation of broad sweeping catch share programs.

Jim Balsinger, former assistant administrator of NOAA in charge of the fisheries noted that cod populations in the Gulf of Maine have tripled since 1994 largely because of efforts made by fishermen.

And if it’s sustainability that is of concern, we should all be proud of the fact that 85 percent of the world’s certified sustainable fish is caught in US waters.

University of Washington fish management professor, Ray Hilborn, respected globally for his understanding of oceanic science,has argued that some leaders of the scientific fisheries community touting the inevitable collapse of the fisheries are practicing “faith-based science.” He further added that these claims are made often “not for their scientific merit, but for their publicity value.”

Going back to that original 2048 date, in an email that was sent to the Seattle Times, the author of the paper wrote that he put in the doomsday date as a “news-hook.” As a PR person, I get that game very well. And it’s cheap.

So if we are to have a real, honest discussion about the state of our ocean and it’s relative proximity to depletion or abundance, does it not makes sense to consider some input from professional fishermen who have generational involvement with fishing? Is it wise to take control out of the hands of the very people who have already demonstrated not only a willingness but a unique ability to update sustainable fishing practices and build stocks of challenged species? Should we just sit back and let the US Government put hundreds of fishermen out of business while they implement an unproven catch share program that will consolidate our fleet, eliminate the small boat captains from being able to pass on their legacy of fishing to their children, and virtually decimate the small coastal towns like Fort Bragg, California, and others from being economically viable?

Fishing is still a multi-billion dollar industry that is currently spread amongst a host of different interests and participants. Will it be made better if we consolidate those dollars into the pockets of a few corporate interests? Or will we lose the very innovation that has already helped to rebuild challenged fish stocks?

It’s worth asking. And it’s worth questioning our national policy on fishing and any one who touts doomsday predictions of our oceans.