May 1, 2002Real Life versus Virtual Reality
How would you feel if the government raised the speed limit to 120mph but
you weren't permitted to drive? Then you were told it may be unsafe, but
everyone must drive at two or three times the old speed limit to see what
happens? That about sums up what the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
is telling fishermen with their proposed changes to biomass targets. This is
why the Massachusetts Fishermen's Partnership (MFP) takes exception to the
revised biomass targets for groundfish recommended by the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center (NEFSC). These targets establish theoretical fishing levels
that could cause stock collapse because they exceed landing levels that are
historically sustainable.
The Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) proposal to revise biomass
targets for groundfish in New England has resulted in the doubling or more of
the original biomass targets for 5 stocks (cod, haddock and redfish). These
new levels would make 12 of the 18 groundfish stocks overfished by
definition. Rebuilding to these new levels may require that fishing stop in
the short-term, and ironically, they suggest future levels of allowable
fishing mortality which have been proven to collapse the stocks in the past.
For example, Gulf of Maine cod stocks collapsed each of the three times the
proposed new level was reached in the past one hundred years. The proposed
target for Georges Bank haddock is also higher than any level observed in the
past 70 years.
Even the March 19 "NMFS Final Report of the Working Group on Re-Evaluation
of Biological Reference Points for New England Groundfish" agrees that, "It
is possible that these stocks cannot meet long term targets without
recruitment that will rarely occur even if fishing is stopped." If the stocks
can only reach these ideal recruitment levels rarely and there is no evidence
that these levels can be maintained under current environmental conditions,
then why are the scientists creating this management crisis? Sustainable
yields should be the primary focus and are a requirement under the
Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA).
The NESFC is proposing to manage fisheries based on theory, not data. Data
collection has been very limited, and is not adequate to support the new
theoretical goals. It is very unwise to attempt to achieve maximum
theoretical yield without any evidence that these theoretical levels are
sustainable.
Telling fishermen that they must rebuild stocks to reach harvest levels
above historic sustainable maximums is sheer folly. It pulls the road to
recovery right out from under the industry, which has endured so many
restrictions and closures to get there. These speed limits have been paying
off with hard returns and rebuilding stocks. Fisheries management is not a
virtual reality computer game. When scientists insist on experimenting with
adaptive fisheries management to see how close they can get to a maximum
level before the stocks inevitably collapse, they are playing a dangerous
game with communities and human lives.
# # #
|
