In the dark about sustainable fishing levels

Did you know that offshore fish stocks that are either experiencing overfishing (the annual rate of catch is too high) or are overfished (the population size is too small) are at all-time lows?

According to the latest NOAA Status of U.S. Fish Stocks report, of the 308 fish stocks managed by the eight regional fishery management councils with a known stock status, 92 percent are not experiencing overfishing and 84 percent are not overfished. In the South Atlantic region (the Carolinas, Georgia and east Florida), out of all the stocks managed, only six species (all in the snapper-grouper fishery) are either experiencing overfishing or are overfished.

While all of this is good news, there is some bad news concerning fish stocks.

Of the 469 stocks managed by the fishery councils, the status of 161 stocks is unknown for lack of stock assessments, the basic scientific tool used to determine sustainable fishing levels. In the South Atlantic, of the 59 species in the snapper-grouper fishery, the stock status is unknown for 76 percent or 45 species. Additionally, the status is unknown for important top-water species like dolphin (mahi) and wahoo.

For stocks with an unknown status, the only way to set an annual catch limit is to use historical landings, which has no real scientific basis, and can unfairly penalize fishermen with artificially low catch limits.

Adequate resources are not being devoted by NOAA into stock assessments. Over the last 10 years in the South Atlantic, an average of only three stock assessments have been conducted per year.

Not only have many stocks never been assessed, assessments of economically important species can be too far in between. An example is black sea bass, which was in a rebuilding plan and went six years between assessments. Many believe the black sea bass stock was rebuilt early, but because assessments are required to change the annual catch limits, fishermen could not take advantage of the rebuilt stock

Great post!

100% agreement!

Interesting post.

The only way I can address this issue is what I observed occurring in the waters surrounding the offshore islands in Southern California back in the late 1970’s. I was operating a dive/sportfishing charter boat (up to 40 passengers) when the federal government claimed fisheries management responsibilities over the waters surrounding Anacapa, Santa Crus, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel Islands.

After islands “fell under” federal management, all commercial activities (gill netting, trapping, etc.) were suspended within a one mile zone around all the islands. Sportfishing/sportdiving were not affected.

The commercial interests pushed the California Dept. of Fish and Game to sue - and they did. The court battle lasted almost seven years before the commercial interests prevailed.

The result? The year BEFORE the commercial guys were let back in - lobster, crab, abalone, scallop and fish populations soared. My charter customers could not believe the quantities of game.

A year later - the stocks were soon depleted again.

Today, due to the environmentalists creeping into control (into CA), most fishing activities are highly restricted for the sportfishing
industry.

illigitimi non-carborundum . . .