Lee Crockett leads Pew’s efforts in Washington, D.C. to establish policies to end overfishing and promote sustainable fisheries management.
This post is the second in a series, "Overfishing 101." Read the first post here.
Fish are an essential component of life in the world’s oceans, with the state of their populations serving as a bellwether of the health of ocean life overall. Unfortunately, many species around the world are in trouble.
Pollution, habitat destruction and overfishing (removing fish from the ocean faster than they can reproduce) have impoverished our oceans. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported recently that nearly a third of the Earth’s fish populations are overexploited, depleted or recovering from depletion.
All too often the discussion around the issue of overfishing has been limited to a small group of stakeholders such as fishermen, conservationists and scientists. To help open up this debate to the broader public, I've developed a short series nicknamed "Overfishing 101." In this post, I'll take a look at some of the basics of why all Americans should care about how our ocean fish are managed.
Overfishing is a problem that affects the entire marine environment, extending far beyond just the species being caught. For example, in the Caribbean, depleted parrotfish numbers have been directly linked to the declining health of Caribbean coral reefs. Parrotfish eat organisms such as algae that grow on corals, ingesting bits of hard material in the process, which is excreted as white sand. Without this species, however, algae take over corals, killing the tiny organisms.
Today, 40 ocean fish populations managed by the U.S. government—including Caribbean parrotfish—are subject to overfishing. In New England, recent federal assessments found that 10 of 20 groundfish populations—species that live near the ocean floor such as cod—are subject to overfishing. And nine populations in the South Atlantic—the majority of which are types of snapper and grouper—are also suffering from overfishing. To make matters worse, these are long-lived fish that reproduce slowly, and populations would take decades to recover.
On the other hand, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) the economic value of ending overfishing and rebuilding all of our depleted U.S. fish populations could add up to $31 billion in sales and support 500,000 new jobs. But to achieve the benefits of healthy fish populations, we must set firm catch limits that are based on science, and those limits must be enforced.
While many fishermen understand and support the need to sustainably manage fisheries, some within the industry balk at the limits necessary to achieve sustainability. They have begun lobbying Congress to revise the current laws and regulations. Weakening existing standards, though, would impair the health of our marine ecosystems for decades to come, making recovery harder and more expensive.
For example, lax management of South Atlantic red snapper allowed chronic overfishing for 50 years. This has reduced the breeding population to 11-14 percent of what scientists consider a healthy level. To reduce the number of red snapper taken, fisheries managers were forced to impose a moratorium, stopping all fishing for South Atlantic red snapper until the species makes measurable progress towards full recovery.
Weakening federal laws that govern the management of our ocean fish would not only have implications for commercial and recreational fishermen, but also countless others who depend on the bounty of our oceans for a livelihood and for recreation.
In my next post, I'll explore how U.S. ocean fish populations are managed and why. And in subsequent parts of the series, we'll examine why good science is so important to rebuilding depleted fish populations.