October 8, 2015 — “Overfishing” or “overfished” are terms used when, for any reason, the stock level of a species of fish is not at a sustainable level. It doesn’t matter what the cause.

The long-term use of these terms has hurt the fishermen in the eyes of the public. The continued use of the terms insinuates that the fisherman have been somehow circumventing the laws or pirating fish. So it’s difficult to get support from politicians or the public, and it has empowered the green groups who have grown with more donations and have been more aggressive with NMFS to add more restrictions for fisherman and increase observers under the umbrella of ending overfishing, no matter what the cost or the consequences.

Because the stock is declared overfished, the solution always falls to more layers of fishing restrictions in the form of an emergency action, a framework adjustment or a full amendment, depending on the severity. There is no requirement to find out exactly what was wrong with prior plans, leaving no feedback loop to correct the problem or problems. Nobody is held accountable for their analysis, their science or their models, therefore it rarely changes and the burden is placed squarely on the backs of the fishing industry: Somehow, it is their fault, even though they fished according to what NMFS and these regulations required and landed what they were legally allowed to land.

So here we go with another framework. Is this one going to work? Why didn’t the previous dozens of frameworks work for Gulf of Maine cod? Are we doing the exact same thing over and over and expecting different results?

A good analogy for this was watching the recent Hurricane Joaquin coming across the Atlantic and hitting the Bahamas. There were several tracking models displaying what the projected track was going to be up the East Coast. I counted 10 different tracks by 10 different models. The one that was correct was the Euro model, and it was the one I saw the least. It was right, the rest of the models were wrong in there projections, but used together one could understand the scope of possibilities, and that was helpful. But if they had only shown one model and that was wrong, how helpful would that have been?

That is why the fishing industry is so frustrated. It has been under the wrong model or fishery plan for a long time now for Gulf of Maine cod. How much would you depend on the Weather Channel if they were wrong over and over because they were using the wrong model or only showing the result of one model or using the wrong data?

The fishermen are not the cause of the failure of these fishery management plans. They fish within the regulations approved by NMFS. They all have satellite tracking devices (required for all groundfish boats for more than 10 years) to show NMFS where they are fishing and they bring observers by law whenever NMFS says so. The fishery management plans fail because the plan itself is flawed in some way. The industry has been on this rollercoaster ride since the early 1990s. A better term to use next time a stock update determines a fish species is below a level required by the fishery management plan should be: The stock is mismanaged and mismanaging still occurring.

Read the full opinion piece at the New Bedford Standard-Times