Conflict in overfishing laws

The recent front-page article by Bo Petersen titled 'All fished out?' captured the mood of most in the production mode of the seafood industry.

After years of a rolling cumulative reduction in the amount of fish allowed to be taken from the ocean, local fishermen seem to have had an epiphany: No matter how much they say, write, plead or cajole, the mandated laws are written in stone and never the human element shall sway. Hold public comment sessions to cross the 'T,' dot the 'I,' and fill the square. Save the fish, consider the socioeconomic disruption then say 'government mandates' and 'best available science.,' Then move on with the reduction process.

Under the present system mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council must follow these unbendable laws when structuring plans to end overfishing and bring them back to a sustainable level.

This level is the number or weight of fish in a stock that can be taken by fishing without reducing the stock biomass from year to year, assuming that environmental conditions remain the same. Almost everyone, or those with any sense at all, knows that we must end overfishing, recover the stocks and then fish in a sustainable manner.

The conflict is in the process, not in the necessity. Following the present course will devastate the fishing industry and disrupt the lives of many people, some who for generations have been making their living from the ocean. Some were fishing before the federal government claimed the ocean past 12 miles out to 200 miles. There are not many in this category but to those who are, the present government action is an anathema.

Some who support this method of stock recovery choose to ignore the plight of those on the bitter end.

Another newspaper reporting on measures to drastically reduce the allowable catch quoted Holly Binns, manager of Pew Foundation's Southeast fishery campaign: 'I think there's a lot of reasons to be optimistic. Even though the shutdown will be painful for some, I think it's in the best interest of everyone long-term.'

That may be true in the long run, but optimistic is not what those who depend on fishing to feed their family are feeling. They are the 'painful to some.' Does 'some' mean not worthy of consideration? That statement is cold and calculating, leaving some of us wondering, 'Why can't we all just get along?'

Maybe the Pew Foundation with its resources and organizational ability can promote a win-win situation by hosting several forums or summits that would bring all stakeholders to the table with a goal of finding the best solution that truly addresses socioeconomic factors. And when that is accomplished, Pew can convince the government to incorporate those solutions into the MSA.

Frank Blum

Executive Director

S.C. Seafood Alliance

Savannah Highway

Charleston