New York Times – editorial response

In response to an editorial in the New York Times today headlined “A Milestone In Fisheries Management,” we have submitted the following letter to the editor:

Dear Editor:

NOAA Fisheries’ proud proclamation to have put catch limits in place for all stocks under management would be wonderful news, if it had any roots in fact or could possibly translate into any good result. Unable to muster the science to manage to the threshold specified by the Magnuson Stevens Act, NOAA Fisheries declared victory without even running the race. It put a catch limit on every stock under management. On paper. And environmentalists cheered.

The agency’s approach to fisheries management is strikingly similar to the one that gave the public Prohibition in the 1920s, and the results are likely to be the same. Prohibition, which made criminals out of ordinary citizens overnight, didn’t work because it was promoted by a small, hardcore group of extremists who didn’t drink alcohol. The idea was to control excessive use of alcohol so they prohibited it completely as if that would do the trick. Here they have claimed to prohibit overfishing by putting in annual catch limits with no data to establish them, determine if they have been exceeded or even what impact they have on the stock or overfishing.

With Prohibition, the country turned itself inside out, spent billions of dollars on a misguided campaign and took more than 10 years to correct its course. By proclaiming the fisheries equivalent of “Mission Accomplished,” NOAA Fisheries has committed itself to similar management by illusion.

Sincerely,

Ted Venker

Conservation Director

Coastal Conservation Association