A sweeping study of 78 fisheries concludes that market-based “catch share” programs help alleviate a vexing problem: the panicky “race to fish” that shortens seasons, harms fish populations, and imperils the safety of commercial anglers. The study was published in Nature, as Congress considers whether to limit these programs’ expansion.
As FERN described in a 2016 story about Gulf of Mexico red snapper, traditionally managed fisheries are often cursed by the “tragedy of the commons.” When a regulator sets a collective catch limit—without doling out individual shares — commercial fishers often barrel out to sea on the season’s opening day, scarfing up as much catch as possible before the total quota is reached.
“Fishermen don’t have as much time to choose where they’re targeting fish, and they don’t have as much time to deploy their gear carefully,” says Martin Smith, an environmental economist at Duke University and an author of the Nature study. “That can mean catching more non-target species. It might also mean increases in discards.”
What’s more, short seasons pressure fishermen to work in dangerous weather and promote a cycle of glut and scarcity rather than a steady supply of fresh fish.
Catch shares — such as the Individual Fishing Quotas (IFQs) held by the Gulf’s roughly 400 commercial red-snapper fishermen — are designed to solve these problems by enabling fisherman to spread their individual allowances throughout the year. They can restrict their trips to good weather and take more time to find areas dense with mature fish. Whether this consistently works has, until now, been unclear: Research has focused on individual fisheries, where the results can be skewed by changes in markets, technologies, and fuel costs.
The Nature study took a more comprehensive approach, matching 39 U.S. catch-share fisheries with 39 U.S. and Canadian fisheries that use other management systems. (Gulf red snapper, for example, was paired with Gulf vermilion snapper.) Taken together, the authors say, they provide “strong evidence” that catch shares slow the race. “The results are particularly strong, and very consistent, for the snapper-grouper complex in Gulf of Mexico,” Smith says.
Catch shares have long divided fishermen. Some commercial operators credit them with restoring stability and accountability to threatened fisheries. “Just being able to plan my business efficiently makes a big difference,” says William “Bubba” Cochrane, a snapper fisherman in Galveston, Texas. Since Gulf snapper IFQs were launched in 2007, they’ve helped reverse the population freefall that began after World War II. “[Now] I have a real business that’s actually worth something, that I can pass down to my son.”
Critics note that catch shares tend to consolidate the industry, driving smaller fishermen out of business. FERN explored that issue in a another story, “The Codfather,” on the consolidation of the New England fishery. Because they can be bought and sold, shares sometimes fall into the hands of out-of-towners who rent them out and can be concentrated if limitations are not put in place. “Sea lords, snapper barons, whatever you want to call it: It’s people that are becoming enriched by sitting back and doing nothing off a public resource,” Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA) told a New Orleans TV station in February.
These shortcomings have made catch shares the target of congressional criticism. House Resolution 200, introduced in January and sponsored by Rep. Don Young of Alaska, would bar federal fisheries councils in New England, the mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico from approving new catch shares unless a majority of permit holders agree in a referendum.
Smith, the economist, says the issues are complex, and that a management system might hurt individual operators and help the local economy. “Fishing communities are under real pressure,” he says. “If we can sell more fresh product by having a steadier supply and avoiding market gluts, that’s going to benefit communities.” Weighing the gains and harms is tricky, he adds, because the issue has become polarized and mired in one-dimensional rhetoric.
“I’m certainly not arguing that catch shares are a panacea,” he adds. “But critics who say, ‘Show us the evidence that these policies really function the way they’re supposed to’—this is evidence.”
Correction: This story originally said that all 78 fisheries studied were in the United States. This is true of the 39 catch-share fisheries, but several of the matched controls were in Canada.