Farmers let fields lie fallow every few years. What if we managed fisheries in a similar manner? For example, instead of closing the red snapper fishery once the stock assessment indicated a problem (reactionary), what if there was a regular closure for a season every x number of years to give the stocks time to rebuild? Using the red snapper as an example: Let’s say the regulations allowed the harvesting of red snapper (with appropriate size and harvest limits) for four years straight, then the fifth year would be a zero-harvest year. After the year of zero-harvest, the four years of harvesting red snapper would begin again. Every fifth year the red snapper stocks would have a year to rebuild. I’m not saying the 4 years of harvest to one year of no harvest ratio is the right ratio, but you get the concept. Maybe it’s 3 years on-one off, maybe it’s seven on-two off. I know that all species don’t reproduce at the same rate, but that’s where biologists can help determine the proper rotation cycles.
Why can’t we start this plan now with species that aren’t in trouble yet? Why should we wait until there is a problem? If the species under zero-harvest restriction are rotated, we’d still be able to harvest 80% of the species in any given year. For instance one year red snapper, black drum, and whiting might be on the no-harvest list. The following year dolphin, flounder, and spadefish might be on the no-harvest list. We probably should think about the stuff these fish eat too. Maybe menhaden, mud minnows, shrimp, etc. should be off limits on a rotating basis as well.
I’m not suggesting adding this on top of the complex mess of regulations we have now, I’m talking about an overhaul of the process of fisheries management so that it is 90% proactive and 10% reactive. It seems crazy to wait for a problem. All too often, governments take the same approach in water management, waiting for near-drought conditions before they implement outdoor watering restrictions. Like cars, boats, wives, and houses, maintenanc