A fisherman’s enormous catch recently ignited a debate over whether fishers should be allowed to keep bycatch that is caught and landed without the proper permit, which would have allowed the fishing vessel to legally keep or sell the catch. Unfortunately, small-government advocates pounced and argued that the seizure was yet another example of federal government overreach and mismanagement. However, small-government advocates are either naive or are ignoring a plethora of facts and issues.
Basically, if commercial fishing vessels fish in state or U.S. federal government waters, then these fishing vessels are required to hold a permit. The permit allows the fishing vessels to use certain gear, in certain areas, to fish for, catch, land and sell certain species. For example, a fishing vessel with a groundfish permit to catch cod, haddock, and certain flounder species with a bottom trawl net can’t keep a bluefin tuna, an endangered, pelagic species, that is caught with the fishing vessel’s bottom trawl net — unless, for some reason, the permit authorizes the fishing vessel to keep the tuna. The purpose of utilizing permits is to control the number and types of fish caught in order to avoid overfishing and the economic collapse of fisheries.
Recently, a bottom trawler owned by Carlos Rafael landed a bluefin tuna weighing an incredible 881 pounds. However, since his fishing vessel’s permit didn’t allow him to keep the bluefin tuna, which was caught in his bottom trawl, the boat owner, unfortunately, had to surrender his tuna over to the feds. The commercial fishing vessel, apparently, did have a permit to keep a bluefin tuna caught and landed on a rod and reel.
Of course, debate ensued regarding whether the fishing vessel should have been forced to surrender its valuable catch, which was sold for “less than $5,000.” I believe that Monica Allen, the deputy director at NOAA Fisheries public affairs, put it best:
“We’re leaders among 45 countries in the conservation of this fish. Failure to enforce the regulations would damage our credibility internationally,” Allen said. There are not enough bluefin for those fishermen who target it as their sole focus, she added. “If trawl fishermen were allowed to keep bluefin, even when caught accidentally, that would create an incentive. If the stocks are rebuilt, this could actually become a way to catch them.”
Rafael, however, dismissed this logic out of hand. “That makes no sense, and I think that shows what they know about these fish,” he said.
Of course, seizing the bluefin tuna makes sense. If one fisher, who doesn’t have the proper permit, is allowed to keep a bluefin tuna, then more fishers would want to keep a tuna that was caught and landed without the proper permit. Furthermore, it would be a nightmare for enforcement and for efforts to conserve species that are severely depleted. Also, allowing a fisher to keep a tuna, if he or she doesn’t have the proper permit to do so, would make a mockery of the regulatory system. Obviously, such a move would also be unfair to fishers that have had their catches seized in the past or who have been fined in the past or who have had to discard bycatch overboard in the past.
No one, I imagine, wants to regulate commercial fishing, but the practice is inherently unsustainable, so regulations and plans are required. It’s true that there are many fishers that are conservation-minded, but it still takes cooperation between fishers, fishery managers, fishery observers, regulators (and regulation), and scientists to produce a sustainable fishery. No group can do it alone.
Sources:
