[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 57 (Monday, May 2, 2011)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E771-E772]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            LET US EAT FISH

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, May 2, 2011

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I have for some time been 
pointing out the inconsistency between those who would restrict our 
ability to catch fish in a responsible way, and the argument that we 
should be encouraging the American people to eat in a healthier manner. 
In the New York Times for April 14, 2011, Ray Hilborn makes this case 
very well. As he notes, we have made great progress in reducing 
overfishing, but the law has not yet been written with enough 
flexibility to recognize that fact. As Mr. Hilborn notes, ``the 
Magnuson Act . . . 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 ten years. That rule is too inflexible and 
hurts fishing communities from NewEngland to California.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is the major reason that I voted against the 
Magnuson Act, although I agree that there were some useful things in 
it. And I welcome this very thoughtful explanation by Mr. Hilborn of 
why the time has come to provide that flexibility.
  Mr. Speaker, as he says, ``we are caught between the desire for 
oceans as pristine ecosystems and the desire for sustainable seafood.'' 
People who argue for greater and greater restrictions of fish claim to 
have the moral high ground, but they can only make their argument if 
they ignore the negative impact this has not just on the livelihoods of 
a lot of working people in the communities in which they live, but on 
our ability to make a very healthy part of a diet--good seafood--
available at prices that people of moderate income can afford.

                [From The New York Times, Apr. 4, 2011]

                            Let Us Eat Fish

                            (By Ray Hilborn)

       Seattle, WA.--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 Boris Worm, 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 fisheries 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 Fishery 
     Conservation and Management Act, which was signed into law 35 
     years ago this week. It banned foreign fishing 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 Daniel Pauly 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.

[[Page E772]]

       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 seafood. 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.

                          ____________________