I see a distrust of the IFQ system from the author but about the only reason the Alaska groundfishing industry is sustainable is because of IFQs. Based on historical catches, each boat or company gets a slice of the pie, which is calculated each year to reflect the best numbers on the maximum sustainable catch. This allows the fisherman to fish whenever he or she wants without those famous "derby days" such as we see in the salmon fishery.

The linked article to the Atlantic cod fishery was not fair because that industry was wiped out many decades ago, and IFQs had nothing to do with it. You have to have a sustainable fishery and some very good numbers before even thinking about an IFQ system. At best, Atlantic cod should be restricted to the recreational and maybe small commercial hook and line folks - and yes, a few are coming back although very slowly because of competition from dogfish (another issue).

I think that IFQs are a great idea if the numbers have the best science. Plus, any by-catch is not wasted but counts toward the IFQ poundage, a nice twist that reduces discards. In most cases, the bad things that came out of NMFS was not the IFQ concept but the political numbers - numbers that the scientists could not support. This is a very serious accusation against the NMFS, since they had control of the fisheries since Magnuson was implemented by Congress. Let's put the blame where it belongs - on the NMFS and not the poor fisherman.  -sammie

Onward through the fog

Provided that the owners have a standard share of common sense, the rule ought to work.  But by the same token, cold-blooded common sense would instruct most owners/entrepreneurs that good stewardship is the way of a fool, when a resource is plainly unsustainable -- as is the case with fisheries.  Instead, the cold-blooded wise man thinks: Let me grab as much of this disappearing resource as I can, any way I can, this year; and as for making a living next year, when the resource is all gone, I'll worry about that later.

Cf. the phenomenon of the increased marketplace value of wild animals, whether living individuals or body-parts as "trophies," etc., once the animals' species is officially declared "endangered."

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

Any commercial fisherman must now notify the NMFS before landing at the dockside. The fish house must keep records of everything and if there are any problems, the fish cops nail BOTH the fisherman and and wholesale seafood processor.

Most catches are indeed inspected as to species, poundage, and any size limits by state and federal officials. It is one of the most regulated industries in the nation.

Where do you get the idea all the sudden that the fishermen would regulate themselves? You show both a misunderstanding of the industry as well as a horrible prejudice.

And who said that IFQs allowed some relaxation in any rules? If anything, there are MORE rules such as GPS monitors and more observers than ever.

If anything, the IFQ system should reduce catches in two ways:  (1) by-catch is included in the IFQ tally and (2) if a boat has a little left in its IFQ allotment, it would be uneconomical to go back to sea to catch a very small load.

I have no idea why you folks blindly repeat stereotypes and the "fish rapers of the sea." True there are bad actors just as there are bad environmentalists! Je t'accuse!

Onward through the fog

I am not such an optimist either, as the NMFS has been to over-shoot or undershoot what is called the Total Allowable Catch, or TAC. This number might be expressed as "x million pounds of species y for the current year." Surveys, computer models, and annual carryover (any over-fishing from the previous year) then go into the new TAC. So if that number it too high or too low, either the fish or the fishermen suffer.

The results so far are very uneven.

There seems to be some major BS flying around the media that under the IFQ system, the fishermen would manage their own fisheries and do a better job than the government because if they over-fish, they will work themselves out of a job - possibly permanently. This is technically known as "a crock." The NMFS has absolutely no intention of letting fishermen manage anything of their own except in cases of aquaculture and fish farming (a different subject but it was in the NYT article by Bittman, who like me thinks they are horrible although for shellfish I disagree).

The IFQ system was merely a way to weed out the small players in the game, those that had traditional permits but only used them rarely. This tended to aggregate the permits to those boats and captains with historically high catches. Many independent, small guys HATE the IFQ system for that reason - they lost thousands in when the old permits expired.

The sister program to the IFQ was the boat buy-back program, where NMFS would purchase the boat, permits, and gear in a kind of auction and pay cash to the permit holder - to scrap the boat. It is not as well known and wasn't funded all that great, although a few hundred boats did go that way.

Neither program to limit fishing has had much effect, either, as the historical catches reported by NMFS bounce around 9.2 to 9.5 billion pounds a year since 2001. This means that there has been some consolidation in the fishing fleet, where less boats are catching more fish! Nothing is perfect, I suppose.  -sammie

Onward through the fog

As Biod said, enforcement is a fundamental problem here.  One of the things we learned early in law school is that without an effective enforcement mechanism, laws and settlements are useless.  Observers on fishing boats often look the other way due to intimidation.

The U.S. spends far too much money on a military that is used to enforce U.S. business interests around the world.  Instead of continuing to allow this immoral, illegitimate pursuit, these people should be used to enforce fishing regs, for example.  Of course, this isn't what the ruling class wants, but it would be a good solution.  Despite the baloney spouted by the fishing industry, as put forth by Sam Wells, there is no effective enforcement of fishing regulations.

Wolverine - I do not represent or do any lobbying or contracting for the "fishing industry." I am trying to bring some clarity to some remarks that seems to have been made by some hippie greenies that do not have the benefit of any facts, knowledge, or experience in that area.

For example, several have stated as fact that fishery observers are corrupt and that there is no real enforcement, which are such downright uneducated statements they are hilarious and not worth taking seriously.

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with folks who don't know the the politics, economics, sociology, technology, and history about the commercial marine fisheries of the United States. However I will say that as more and more fishermen are run off the water by draconian regulations, high costs, and low dock prices, you'll get your wish eventually. We just won't have a fishery anymore except a few boats up in Alaska.

No, instead you'll be eating mislabeled and possibly toxic imports and farm raised fish that tastes like pooh and creates worse pollution than catching wild fish - if you care to eat the stuff at all. There is no "fish lobby" but you can trust that we'll have plenty of industrial beef, chicken, and pork which you can run away from and be a self-satisfied "vegan." Gosh what a great country!

Onward through the fog