Download Recreational/Food Fisheries Foolishness

Food Fisheries Foolishness
For The
Navigator Magazine
Everett G. Fancey, P.Eng
March, 2016
1
According to an editorial in the Navigator, the recreational/food fishery is the elephant in
the room with respect to future cod fisheries management. The article claimed that DFO
cannot get a handle on the catch from the recreational fishery. I don’t understand.
DFO has had two recreational cod surveys done, 2005 and 2007. Both conclude, and
agree that about 1 000 000 cod were caught each season, or around a couple of thousand
metric tonnes. Pre-moratorium commercial landings are in the order of 100’s of
thousands of metric tonnes, with the 1990 landings being around 250,000 metric tonnes
(at a time of already depleted stocks). In other words, the recent recreational fishery
represents only 1% of the last real commercial activity … (not counting the minor quotas
of recent years). One per cent is less than the noise in the data. In other words,
recreational fishing for cod has no detectible effect on the cod stocks when measured
against the commercial activity or the actual cod biomass.
In the hierarchy of predation effects on the species, one would think it goes like this. The
top predator is the commercial fisher with very aggressive technology and the ability to
fish practically anywhere, anytime. Next would be the larger animals, most notably seals
which are highly skilled and also able to chase the prey. Somewhere far below these two
predators is the recreational fisher. This fisher only has a hook and line, can only fish
when the fish come near, when the weather is right, he’s got the time and he’s allowed.
Apparently, according to the editorial, the effect of the first two is definable enough for
management decisions, but not that of the recreational fisher.
The effect of six million seals though has been estimated. It is zero. I agree with that
assessment. I also believe that the impact of a few thousand hooks spread all around the
island on good weather days during the summer and fall has no effect either, and the
catch is insignificant( not even detectable with any degree of accuracy) against the actual
biomass, or the commercial catch of an active cod fisheries.
The food fishery debate is foolishness, and rural Newfoundland and Labrador is suffering
because of it.
To put it in perspective, and as stated earlier, DFO reported a million cod taking during
the 2005 recreational fishery. Is this a lot of cod? DFO also reported three million trout
caught during the 2000 trout season in NL. Ontario anglers catch close to 100 000 000
trout. The available resources (ocean vs ponds and lakes) though just do not compare.
http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/stats/rec/can/2010/RECFISH2010_ENG.pdf
I appreciate the magnitude of the reduction in cod stocks, and those of many other
species. But none of this was ever done or can be exacerbated by recreational or personal
use fishers in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are just not enough recreational fishers
to do it with the technology they use. By analogy, recreational and personal use cod
fishing traditionally could be represented as a drop in a very, very large barrel. Now it’s a
drop in a small bucket. But it’s still only a drop.
2
Paying more than a cursory or academic interest to the quantity of fish caught during
recreational and personal use fishing is simply wrong. The statistics do not support the
restrictions placed on recreational and personal use fishers. It is like working on a leaky
kitchen faucet when the pipes downstairs are broken. Available resources should be
applied to the rebuilding of the stocks in more meaningful ways. I suspect management
policies (like quota systems) that encourage high grading, and destructive technologies
(like gill nets) that change the environment have a much greater impact, than the
recreational fishery.
Unfortunately for recreational and personal use fishers, and the affected communities,
this fishery, like the leaky faucet, is highly visible and gets all the attention.
Recreational fishing for cod and other species should be promoted, both as a tourist
activity and as a source of local, healthy food. The more activity which can be generated
on the water in the bays and inlets around Newfoundland and Labrador, the better for
everyone and our economy as we try to rebuild and maintain our connection to the sea.
I think the elephant in the room is a goat. A scape goat. Why?
Quote:
The province of Newfoundland and Labrador offers almost unlimited opportunities for
residents to participate in the recreational cod fishery. http://www.dfompo.gc.ca/stats/rec/can/NLCod2007/NLCod2007Report_FINAL.pdf
3