Tom Lalley

Amanda Leland and I were guests on Moir’s Environmental Dialogues the other day.  The host, Rob Moir is the president and executive director of the Ocean River Institute.  Rob has had an illustrious career as an educator, scientists and environmental activist and wanted to hear from EDF about catch shares.  This is an important time for fishing as a new catch shares policy gets underway.

Dr. Doug Rader spoke to scientists, policy analysts and conservationists at WWF’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. as part of the Kathryn Fuller Science for Nature Fund seminar series.  Dr. Rader spoke about how ever-stringent and complicated measures to control pressure from fishing has failed to stem the tide of collapsed fisheries around the world and in the U.S. , and how fisheries managed under catch shares have a significantly better record of preventing fisheries collapse. Watch the video!

EDF Chief Oceans Scientist, Doug Rader

The track record for catch shares in fishery management is abundantly clear: better science for managers and better access for fishermen.  Certainly, “science vs. catch shares” is a false choice – catch shares provides the best chance to achieve high-powered science while getting fishermen back on the water and back to work. 
Here’s why.

Science in Fisheries Management

Irrespective of the type of management being used, federal law and regulations require that fishing levels be set to both prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, based on the best available scientific information.  The total fishing mortality for all fishing sectors (commercial, charter boats and private anglers), including both landed and discarded dead fish, cannot by law exceed “overfishing limits” identified by fisheries scientists.

Two kinds of information are used to assess fish stock conditions and set the overfishing limits, fishery-independent data (collected directly by scientists to judge stock conditions), and fishery-dependent data (sampling of fish caught by fishermen, and affected by the fishing mechanism and regulations, typically using catch monitoring or catch accounting methods).  Each type provides different, valuable information about what’s out there, and what is caught.

When there are lots of data of both types, and they are collected using robust methods, the uncertainty in the biology is greatly reduced and we have a much better understanding of what’s happening.  When data are poor in one or both categories, there is a higher level of biological uncertainty, and less confidence that managers understand what’s really occurring in the fishery.

Under federal regulations, biological uncertainty must be subtracted from the overfishing limits to create lower “allowable biological catches” that cannot be exceeded by managers. 

In addition, there is often considerable uncertainty in estimating how a proposed management system will work to achieve allowable biological catches.  Management uncertainty (how well management measures like bag limits, size limits, closures, or catch shares perform in actually hitting management targets) must be subtracted from allowable biological catches in setting “annual catch limits” for fisheries or fishing sectors.

Thus, all types of uncertainty must be accounted for.  The greater the total uncertainty, the lower the allowable catch levels can be—and the less fish for fishermen to catch, for any given stock condition. 

Finally, the levels of fishing allowed for overfished stocks are also set based on how fast those stocks are able and required to rebuild.  In nearly every case, the regional fishery management councils have allowed the longest legal rebuilding time, with the lowest allowable probability of actually rebuilding, given the biological uncertainty involved (50% probability, established in the courts and now by regulation), and the highest legal landings, even though that slows down rebuilding. Read more »

Amanda Leland, EDF Oceans Program - National Policy Director

Fishermen are here in Washington, D.C. this week to express their concerns with fisheries today—and they have good reason to be frustrated. Even after decades of regulations aimed at restoring fisheries big problems still exist.

Today over 60 federal fish stocks are overfished or have overfishing occurring, resulting in declining catches and shrinking revenues.  We must rebuild these fish populations to restore vibrant fishing communities, because economic recovery requires biological recovery.  But, the key is picking the path that makes common sense.  

Until recently, fishery managers didn’t see a good choice.  Controlling overfishing has usually meant shrinking fishing seasons or even implementing closures, approaches that have serious economic impacts. For example, in the New England groundfish fishery significant reductions in resource abundance, allowable catches, and the number of active vessels reduced total fishing days by about half between 1995 to 2008 (Green, 2009; Thunberg, NEFSC, pers. comm.).  Commercial and recreational fishermen in the Southeast U.S. are just beginning to feel the cost of a closure on red snapper.  If better management options don’t surface soon, these impacts are expected to continue for the foreseeable future and grow as other regional fisheries close down too.

In contrast, catch share management can deliver increased prosperity, sustainability, and flexibility.  Instead of pushing fishermen off the water to restore the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, fishery managers worked with commercial fishermen to develop a catch share program, which has increased dock-side prices, decreased bycatch and helped end overfishing (Steele 2008).  Red snapper populations are now rebounding, meaning more fish for everyone, including recreational fishermen.  

In the commercial Alaska halibut fishery, catch share management has extended the fishing season from less than a week to more than eight months each year, allowing fishermen to have more full-time work as well as flexibility in deciding when to fish (NOAA Fisheries 2009).  These and other catch share programs stand out as the few bright spots in fisheries today. 

Transitioning to catch shares now is a necessary and worthwhile investment, because it can solve the overfishing problem, while boosting profits and improving jobs for fishermen.  In addition, over time catch shares can reduce and stabilize the overall federal investment needed to support fishing jobs: catch shares shift some management costs to fishermen once they are economically-viable again.  I believe there are solutions for recreational fishing too—solutions that help keep fishermen on the water through better scientific data and tools to make sure that the amount of fish caught stays within limits.

Fishermen continue to suffer from the collapse of fish stocks around the country.  Putting off rebuilding is not the answer as it only continues the downward spiral that has been putting people out of work for decades.  Instead Congress should invest in a durable solution that restores economic, cultural, and biological prosperity to our nation’s fishing communities.

Works Cited

Green, A. (2009, May 30). Move to redefine New England Fishing. The New York Times, pp. A18.

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Red Snapper Closure. Federal Register Vol. 74 Issue. 232. 12/02/2009.

NOAA Fisheries Service. (2009). Catch Share Spotlight No. 1: Alaska IFQ Halibut and Sablefish Program.

Steele, Phil. (2008, November 17). An Overview of the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper and Grouper/Tilefish IFQ Programs. Southeast Regional Office (SERO) National Marine Fisheries Services.