Let Us Eat Fish

By RAY HILBORN

Published: April 14, 2011

Yuko Shimizu

THIS Lent, many ecologically conscious Americans might feel a twinge of guilt as they dig into the fish on their Friday dinner plates. They shouldn’t.

Over the last decade the public has been bombarded by apocalyptic predictions about the future of fish stocks — in 2006, for instance, an article in the journal Science projected that all fish stocks could be gone by 2048.

Subsequent research, including a paper I co-wrote in Science in 2009 with , the lead author of the 2006 paper, has shown that such warnings were exaggerated. Much of the earlier research pointed to declines in catches and concluded that therefore fish stocks must be in trouble. But there is little correlation between how many fish are caught and how many actually exist; over the past decade, for example, fish catches in the United States have dropped because regulators have lowered the allowable catch. On average, fish stocks worldwide appear to be stable, and in the United States they are rebuilding, in many cases at a rapid rate.

The overall record of American management since the mid-1990s is one of improvement, not of decline. Perhaps the most spectacular recovery is that of bottom fish in New England, especially haddock and redfish; their abundance has grown sixfold from 1994 to 2007 . Few if any fish species in the United States are now being harvested at too high a rate, and only 24 percent remain below their desired abundance .

Much of the success is a result of the Magnuson Conservation and Management Act , which was signed into law 35 years ago this week. It banned foreign within 200 miles of the United States shoreline and established a system of management councils to regulate federal fisheries. In the past 15 years, those councils, along with federal and state agencies, nonprofit organizations and commercial and sport fishing groups, have helped assure the sustainability of the nation’s fishing stocks.

Some experts, like of the University of British Columbia Fisheries Center, who warns of “the end of fish,” fault the systems used to regulate fisheries worldwide. But that condemnation is too sweeping, and his prescription — closing much of the world’s oceans to fishing — would leave people hungry unnecessarily.

Many of the species that are fished too much worldwide fall into two categories: highly migratory species that are subject to international fishing pressures, and bottom fish — like cod, haddock, flounder and sole — that are caught in “mixed fisheries,” where it is impossible to catch one species but not another. We also know little about the sustainability of fish caught in much of Asia and Africa.

The Atlantic bluefin tuna is emblematic of the endangered migratory species; its numbers are well below the target set by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, and the catches in the Eastern Atlantic are too high. Many species of sharks also fall into this category. Because these stocks are fished by international fleets, reducing the catch requires global cooperation and American leadership. But not all highly migratory fish are in danger; the albacore, skipjack and yellowfin tuna and swordfish on American menus are not threatened.

Managing the mixed fisheries in American waters requires different tactics. On the West Coast, fish stocks have been strongly revived over the past decade through conservative management: fleet size reductions, highly restrictive catch limits and the closing of large areas to certain kinds of nets, hooks and traps. Rebuilding, however, has come at a cost: to prevent overharvesting and protect weak species, about 30 percent of the potential sustainable harvest from productive species (those that can be harvested at higher rates) goes untapped. A similar tradeoff is going on in New England, where the management council, made up of federal and state representatives, restricts the harvesting of bottom fish like cod and yellowtail flounder in both the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank, off Cape Cod. In trying to rebuild the cod, regulators have had to limit the catch of the much more abundant haddock, which are caught in the same nets.

The Magnuson Act regulating federal fisheries has been successful, but it needs to be revised. The last time it was reauthorized, in 2006, it required the rebuilding of overfished stocks within 10 years. That rule is too inflexible and hurts fishing communities from New England to California. A better option is to give the management councils greater discretion in setting targets and deadlines for rebuilding fish stocks.

We are caught between the desire for oceans as pristine ecosystems and the desire for sustainable . Are we willing to accept some depleted species to increase long-term sustainable food production in return? After all, if fish are off the menu, we will likely eat more beef, chicken and pork. And the environmental costs of producing more livestock are much higher than accepting fewer fish in the ocean: lost habitat, the need for ever more water, pesticides, fertilizer and antibiotics, chemical runoff and “dead zones” in the world’s seas.

Suddenly, that tasty, healthful and environmentally friendly fish on the plate looks a lot more appetizing.

Ray Hilborn is a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on April 15, 2011, on page A27 of the New York edition.

LETTERS How Healthy Are Our Fisheries?

Published: April 20, 2011

Monika Aichele

In “ Let Us Eat Fish ” (Op-Ed, April 15), Ray Hilborn writes that studies showing a worldwide decline in fish stocks are exaggerated and that most fish stocks are stable.

A patient in critical condition can also be stable. We reached “peak fish” in the late 1980s despite the continuous expansion of fishing grounds, and fishermen are losing their jobs because of the of stocks.

The spectacular recovery of fish inside marine reserves highlights the declines elsewhere. I have seen the decline in fish abundance myself while diving for 25 years worldwide.

Fisheries that are well managed can rebound, but these are still only a small percentage of fisheries worldwide. Let’s replicate the few success stories and improve the toolkit for managing fisheries to rebuild fish stocks and provide jobs and food security. But we should not use a few successful examples to pretend that everything is fine.

ENRIC SALA Washington, April 17, 2011

The writer, an ocean fellow at the National Geographic Society, is a co-author of “Impacts of Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services,” a 2006 study cited in the Op-Ed article.

To the Editor:

Ray Hilborn deftly dismantles the questionable science behind predictions of oceans without fish. His insight that there is little correlation between how many fish are caught and how many exist applies to Atlantic bluefin tuna. With the bluefin’s extensive migration and depth range, long life and unpredictable behavior, catch statistics can’t capture its real abundance.

So are bluefin really on the brink of extinction? What we and fishermen see — increasing availability of juveniles, shifts in distribution away from New England fisheries and resurgence elsewhere — suggests that bluefin may soon join the list of species on the rebound. That is, if the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas’ member nations stay the course.

MOLLY LUTCAVAGE Gloucester, Mass., April 15, 2011

The writer is director of the Large Pelagics Research Center and a research professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

To the Editor:

Ray Hilborn says that ecologically conscious Americans can eat fish with a clear conscience. But it isn’t just an ecological question. There is no humane slaughter requirement for fish.

Fish caught in nets by trawlers are dumped on board the ship and allowed to suffocate. Impaling a live bait fish on a hook is a common commercial practice, used in longline fishing with hundreds or even thousands of hooks. Gill nets — walls of fine netting — often snare fish by the gills. Many suffocate because with their gills constricted, they cannot breathe. Or they may stay there for many hours before the nets are pulled in.

We would not accept any of these methods of killing pigs or cows. Why are we indifferent to the suffering of fish?

PETER SINGER Princeton, N.J., April 15, 2011

The writer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University.

To the Editor:

Ray Hilborn is right to praise the United States. It does a much better job managing its fisheries than do most other countries. Indeed, it would be wonderful if other countries had legislation similar to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that would compel them to rebuild the overfished stocks of Europe, South America, Africa and Asia. And it would be great if other leaders followed the example of President George W. Bush, who created a system of marine protected areas in the Pacific Ocean, for which he will be rightly remembered.

We agree that regulating and rebuilding fisheries is a good thing. Let’s not weaken Magnuson-Stevens, and let’s try to get similar legislation elsewhere.

DANIEL PAULY Vancouver, British Columbia, April 17, 2011

The writer is a professor of fisheries at the University of British Columbia and principal investigator of the Sea Around Us Project.

To the Editor:

I enjoyed a brief euphoric moment while reading “Let Us Eat Fish” until I was awakened by reality. I very much agree with Ray Hilborn’s premise that we should eat fish — but we’d better choose the fish that we eat with the greatest care.

I even agree that New England haddock is one example of a success story. New England haddock, looked at by itself, is well managed and prosperous. But that is not a healthy stock because it is living in an unhealthy ecosystem where so many of the cod and halibut the haddock should be swimming with are no longer there.

One of the persistent mistakes of both biologists and fishery managers is to look at the problem species by species rather than as an ecosystem. As Darwin noted, it takes a lot of other species to maintain a healthy species.

We cannot afford to follow Mr. Hilborn’s advice and “accept some depleted species.” We have to fix the problem before the whole system collapses.

MARK KURLANSKY New York, April 18, 2011

The writer is the author of “World Without Fish” and “Cod.”

To the Editor:

Ray Hilborn’s suggestion that we should accept some “depleted species” as the price for long-term gains in the number of fish available for human consumption is alarmingly short- sighted. Mr. Hilborn reasons that if we can’t eat fish, we will eat more beef, chicken and pork, causing much greater environmental degradation than fish consumption.

While he is certainly right about the destructive force of animal agribusiness, the idea that our food choices are limited to animals is a myth that will lead to further degradation not only of the environment but also of human health and global food equity, as well as animal suffering. In order to face a future with ever-increasing billions of us alive on this planet, humans must return to eating a plant-centric diet.

MARIANN SULLIVAN New York, April 15, 2011

The writer is co-founder of Our Hen House, an animal rights organization, and an adjunct professor of animal law at Benjamin N. Cardozo and Brooklyn Law Schools.