Way to go?

An over view of the Catch Shares management system introduced in almost half of the USA's fisheries - their tangible results in terms of raising catches and stock levels speak for themselves - is this a lesson to be learned here in the UK and EU?

However, never does politics miss an oppoortunity to fly in the face of common sense it seems as the latest fishing industry vote in the House of representatives would seem to indicate!

"In a disappointing move for the environment and the fishing industry, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a rider that would effectively ban new federal catch shares for fisheries in the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico. That, despite the picture described below:

Thanks in large part to catch shares, many fisheries in the United States have been turning a corner after decades of overfishing, massive job losses and closures. Fish caught in catch shares currently account for about half of the value and over three quarters of the volume of commercial landings in federal waters.

With catch shares, fishermen are allocated a secure amount of fish they can catch throughout the season. The alternative is to control fishing by setting limits on when fishermen can fish, how much they can catch within a period of time or what kind of gear they can use. This approach can bring unintended consequences, such as depleted fish populations, a race to fish, economic hardship, decreased safety and the forced dumping of fish overboard that die. Keeping catch shares as an option has been supported not only by several environmental organizations, but also by fishing organizations representing thousands of American fishermen, the Bush and Obama administrations, interest groups from across the political spectrum and many scientists. Catch shares have had an impressive track record in the U.S. For instance, since the implementation of the first catch share program in the Gulf of Mexico in 2007, for Red Snapper, the species has rebounded and in 2010 the fishermen were allowed to catch 39% more. In addition, the price fishermen have received for red snapper has increased 40% and they can now fish year-round instead of just for 52 days."

Courtesy of John Mimikakis writing for on the EDF web site.

All this on the back of a warming story covered by the Boston Globe yesterday:

A large cod catch unloaded in South Boston. (Dina Rudick/ Globe staff )

I’ll have the cod, please!

If you care about the future of wild fish stocks and fishing families, there is an easy way to protect both when you shop or eat out: Buy New England-caught cod, flounder, haddock and other groundfish. That’s because after decades of decline, these iconic fish — the backbone of a centuries-old industry — are now being managed sustainably under a two-year-old program called catch shares. It may seem like being a conscientious seafood lover is a no-win proposition these days, with fishermen on one side and well-intentioned retailers and conservation advocates on the other. Consumers rightfully want their purchases to reflect their beliefs. But at the same time, turning your back on responsibly caught, local fish can be an unintended blow to fishing communities up and down the New England coast.

For years, Environmental Defense Fund’s (EDF) Seafood Selector — along with similar guides from other conservation organizations — recommended avoiding some of the most popular fish caught in US waters, including New England. Atlantic cod and haddock, Gulf of Mexico red snapper and grouper, and Pacific rockfish were once categorized as unsustainable choices, largely because of unworkable fishing regulations that had devastating impacts on fish and fishermen alike. Red snapper populations crashed in the northern Gulf of Mexico, and the major Pacific rockfish fishery was declared a federal disaster by the Secretary of Commerce in 2000.

The New England groundfishery has been rocked by crisis after crisis for decades. These fisheries were subjected to an ever-changing set of rules attempting to limit how much fishermen could catch by restricting their time at sea, where they could fish at different times of year, and setting use-it-or-lose-it trip limits on key fish stocks. This was all in an attempt to keep stocks at stable levels, but perversely led to increasing waste of perfectly marketable fish and escalating uncertainty about what was really happening at sea. Hemmed in by ever-shortening seasons, fishermen in these fisheries had no choice but to venture out in bad weather and fish even when they knew they would haul up fish that was out-of-season or undersized. Fishing laws of the time required fishermen to shovel those fish back overboard even though most were already dead.