New Catch Limits to Preserve U.S. Fisheries
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-01-10/new-catch-limits-preserve-us-fisheries
The U.S. is imposing new catch limits on both commercial and recreational fishing. The rules will apply to more than 500 species of fish and are the result of a multi-year effort on the part of lawmakers from both parties, environmentalists, and some industry representatives. Supporters claim the overall program is an enormous achievement that will help sustain many fish populations for years to come. But there are critics: The limits, they say, will be based on inaccurate and out-of-date data and exclude critical forage fish and habitats. In addition, some who depend on fishing for their livelihoods say they'll suffer: Please join us for a conversation on the effort to preserve U.S. fisheries
Guests
Juliet Eilperin
environmental reporter, The Washington Post, and author of " Demon Fish: Travels Through the Hidden World of Sharks."
Eric Schwaab
assistant administrator for fisheries,National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
John Connelly
president, National Fisheries Institute
Jim Donofrio
Recreational Fishing Alliance
Vito Giacalone
chairman,governmental affairs, Northeast Seafood Coalition
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Diane,
I just picked up the show. If the issue has already been covered please, disregard.
A Tuna just sold for $750,000.00 in Japan. It seems clear that only a few people will be able to afford fish in their diet soon if we do not slow down the fishing.
Please ask your guests what they think about that.
Thank you Diane.
I love your show!!
Can someone expound on why Alaska is so far ahead of the rest of the country in their fisheries science? Could it be the fisheries science centers that they have created and why can't we use this as a model for the rest of the country?
Is the science used to set these limits peer-reviewed?
I live on a middle-sized river that is too polluted to provide a steady diet for fishermen. Around here there were many restaurants called
"fish camps." In recent times these outlets have had increasing trouble and expense obtaining seafood. As more heavily breaded offerings displaced named fish on their menus the public was becoming more concerned about a deep fried diet and exactly what seafoods they were consuming. Soon all these generic deep fry restaurants may be gone. When people become concerned about feeding tuna to their cat because of mercury poisoning anyone can tell the oceans are in trouble. Industry management of fluctuating fish stocks is unlikely to work in this polluted world. We can't even track the isotopes from Fukishima when they are swimming international waters at up to 40 miles per hour and can go anywhere. Diane has covered the downside of fish farming previously.
Excellent observation Karim.
I'm near Charlotte and was discussing the Catawba.
My family is active in watershed protection.
Haven't we canoed together?
Can't help but wonder what Ron Paul would think of our government regulating the fishing industry. Does not seem to fit the Libertarian model.
Mike Sullivan
Fort Wayne, In
Mike, one reason that Alaska's fisheries are so healthy is that the state constitution requires that they be managed for sustainability. Another big reason is that Alaska pioneered the use of "catch share" fisheries management, a rational, quota-based system of management that results in both economic and environmental sustainability. In the case of Alaska's amazing salmon fisheries, of course, pristine freshwater habitat plays a big part as well.
who is on these fishery councils that set the fishing limits? is there anyone who actually fishes?
There was just a question about discarded bycatch from a former Alaskan commercial fisherman. On the West Coast, where catch share management for groundfish just passed it's first-year anniversary, "regulatory discards" have been reduced from 20-30% of overall trawl catch to just 1%. This is a major point of pride among fishermen. (And I speak as someone who fished professionally for 27 years in Alaska.)
Yes, Floridagal, many members of regional fishery management councils are themselves fishermen - both recreational and commercial. You can look them up online quite easily, by googling "regional fishery management council."
I was listening to your show about the internet and privacy. Years ago I read a science fiction short story about a guy who tried to invent a time machine. He succeeded in inventing a machine that let him look into the past something like 48 hours. He was never able to get it any farther back than that so he sold the rights to his machine.
The company that bought it saw the tremendous potential in being able to market the activities of the average consumer and began selling the machines to business all over the world. What they didn’t realize was the eventual fishbowl effect. No one had secrets from any one anymore. You could watch everything from your neighbors having sex to the operations of the military in the most private inner chambers of government. And forget about corporate espionage or cheating on your taxes or your spouse.
This story was written during the cold war with communism and before the age of the internet. Sadly I don’t remember the title of the story or the author. Strange how modern life strives to imitate what was once science fiction.
A quick numerical correction. Mr. Connelly described the size of the Alaskan pollock fishery as '100 million metric tons', but the actual harvest weight is typically just over 1 million metric tons (mmt) annually. (source: NMFS)
For perspective, the global marine fisheries landings have stagnated at around 80 mmt since the 1990s, meanwhile aquaculture production has increased about 2 mmt annually and reached 55 mmt in 2009. (source: FAO SOFIA 2010)
Great show, pleased to see national coverage of fishing issues.
I am happy to see that this issue is being addressed as the result of our actions will likely impact generations to come more heavily than our own. That being said, as a lifetime fisherman and conservationist myself, I think it is important to stress the fact that much of the data collected to date is incorrect, taken from the commercial sector how understate their "bag" if they report it at all. It is the fishermen's duty themselves to adopt more conservative techniques and to use innovative tackle that helps target species more precisely. Forcing fishermen to report catch, shutting down sectors, and setting more stringent limits will frustrate the laboring men, exacerbating the situation.
In my opinion, the companies who develop tackle have a responsibility to provide tools that a fisherman can use to, for example, reduce by-catch fatality (a major contributor to fishery closures and limitations). A new device I read about in the Miami Herald called the SeaQualizer does just that. The device enables fishermen to more effectively release bycatch caught in deep water that suffer from barotrauma. The industry needs devices like this more than it does closures and limitations.
Just my two cents. Thanks Diane.
The one thing not pointed out in this program is that by instituting a certain number of fish the companies may catch, they will abide by that "catch" number. HOWEVER, they use those huge trawling nets, and just throw back the fish that are over the quota - but now DEAD. We need to reduce the size of these nets - and come up with another way to ensure the fish do not die before being returned to the water. People simply need to eat less - the restaurants throw out enough food to feed an entire third world country.
Valid point that supports my argument that the tools need to be updated if not reinvented all together. Trawler nets with overflow spillways maybe? I dont think each boat will be limited to a certain number as much as the fleet will be limited to a number and when it is reached the season will be closed, like the crab boats in Alaska. That is my understanding.