The journal Science published the study which mirrors Pew’s desire to impose Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and opposition to Freedom to Fish acts. These Freedom to Fish acts require proof that recreational fishing caused a problem before any MPAs could be imposed.

There really isn’t anything surprising in the article, as marine conservationists don’t deny the impact of millions of anglers catching a few fish each on various stocks. However, the authors don’t seem to understand that anglers, with their inferior equipment, can only have significant impacts when species are abundant.

Commercial fishing, on the other hand, can further deplete even stressed populations by concentrating effort on their wintering concentrations.  Offshore trawlers did this with summer flounder, scup and black sea bass, which can be netted in huge quantities along the edge of the continental shelf in winter.

PEW’S ‘NUMBERS CRUNCHERS’ KEEP BUSY.

What is surprising is the obvious prejudice of the authors who fudge the facts in order to prove a point, even when their statistics fail to do so. Indeed, at times it seems they have very little background in the subject and are just interested in number crunching.

They start out by stating, “by 1996, it was clear that removing the foreign fleets had not sufficiently affected conservation, and amendments to the Magnuson Act more strongly emphasized reducing the pressure on American Fleets. In the years following the amendment, public attention focused on stock depletion, bycatch and habitat damage caused by commercial fisheries, with little attention paid to the recreational sector.” It may come as a surprise to the public that the high minimum sizes, minimum bag limits and short seasons they’ve been subject to for many years is something which has just occurred.

The authors then claim, “the perception that recreational fishing had little influence on stock declines derived from estimates that it contributed only 2 percent to U.S. landings. But marine recreational fishing effort has increased by over 20 percent in the past 20 years, rivaling commercial fisheries for many major fish stocks, including summer flounder and red snapper.” That increase in effort is hard to believe, given the many party and charter boats, which have gone out of business during the same period. While the public used to land about 80 percent of the flounder well over 20 years ago, they presently are limited to a mere 40 percent by regulation - you don’t have to be a scientist to understand that 40 percent doesn’t rival 60 percent!

PEW’S REAL GOALS BECOME EVIDENT.

The article also states, “current management of recreational fisheries focuses on controlling the landings of individual fishermen without restricting the number of individuals allowed to fish. In this open access scenario, control is limited to bag limits and size limits, which increases regulatory discards, thereby increasing fishing mortality and sub-lethal effects on growth and reproduction.” This is exactly the sort of elitist attitude, which is typical of the environmentalists who control Pew. Too bad this is the United States, and a democracy. It’s a shame we have all those citizens who think they really have a right to harvest a public resource rather than just conceding it to special interests. The authors also seem to be totally unaware that based on scientific studies, anglers are penalized in their regulations for release mortality.

They then make the amazing statement, “current regulatory methods have done little to constrain recreational fisheries.” Have these people been living on Mars? Minimum sizes are now so high that poor fishermen have little opportunity to land legal fish, though that’s a good thing as far as the elitists are concerned.

Are they also completely unaware of the severe economic impacts on recreational fisheries and the business’ dependence on one of the country’s most important recreational activities? Are they ignorant of the great comebacks in many important recreational fisheries, such as striped bass and summer flounder, or the improved status of species, which have received protection from commercial fishing in various states?

IN CONCLUSION, PEW GETS THE PRESS

The authors conclude, “the fact that recreational fisheries tend to take top-level predators, that the volume of their landings rival commercial landings in many major stocks, and that there are no commercial fisheries remaining for several species suggests that recreational fishing can have serious ecological and economic consequences.” Pew Trusts got what it wanted, but the authors of this article disgraced themselves with such an obvious puff piece for their money.

If they had simply presented the figures and left out all the elitist rhetoric, we could all agree on the last sentence: “If the goal of fishery management is to sustain viable populations and ecosystems, then recreational as well as commercial fishing require effective regulations.” Which is exactly the way the system attempts to operate at present!