April 19, 2016 — In the sustainable fisheries conference held at Rhode Island College last week, audience members were asked various demographic and opinion questions about the ocean, fisheries, and management that were tabulated and presented on the spot. Unscientific, yes, but very interesting. The question of whether the groundfish fishery is sustainable was asked of the audience before and after, and the results suggest that some opinions were changed — for the positive — by the two hours of discussion.

When asked who would be best to regulate the fishery, the answer showed the thoughts of those in the audience based on biases and attitudes, but there is only one answer to that question. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, passed by Congress and administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is the fishery’s manager, and that won’t change.

One very important part of that manager’s charge is ensuring both conservation and economic goals are considered in its management.

One policy tool for those goals is at-sea monitoring, which aims to provide accurate data on what is caught and what is thrown back. Accurate assessments support effective management and more successful fishing. It has been a point of contention for several years, as the cost of monitoring is to be borne by the industry, not the regulator. Cost aside, monitoring can help fishermen.

Hauling up less abundant species like Gulf of Maine cod or yellowtail flounder creates a dilemma for the fisherman. His options are to throw legally landed fish back into the ocean to avoid the choke species mechanism that limits the harvest of abundant stocks, or to take the fish back to port to be counted against the quotas, and hasten the day the fishing season comes to an end.

Read the full editorial at the New Bedford Standard-Times