Fishing about and about fishing
TRAWL FLOGGING AGAIN
From time to time that or other NGO is waking up to blame the trawling industry for “bulldozering” the sea bottom and “devastating” bottom habitats. With some exceptions, such alarmist outbursts usually stem from either ignorance of the trawling practice and conditions, or from outright spite. They keep misleading the public at large and frustrate the industry.
What can one say to innocent public bombarded by articles in press, TV shows and radio broadcasts that tell of the terrible trawls that destroy habitats and kill off bottom species, bringing about a calamity on our seas and oceans? These campaigns are not about overfishing. They’re about stop fishing.
In April 1998, I wrote on this page: “The simple truth is that trawling grounds cover considerable parts of our planet's continental shelf. Each year trawlnets pass over any point of these grounds a few to tens of times and the trawl fishery yields continually and for many decades over a quarter of tonnage and much more in money terms of the world's 80-90M mt marine fish landings. How in the world can continually "destroyed", "devastated", "crushed", and "scoured" habitats produce such yields year after year, decade after decade, and even generation after generation?”
I also wrote: …” frequently fished sea bottom ceases being "virgin" and becomes a demersal fishery ecosystem with fishing an inseparable component, and undergoes a permanent (though mostly not irreversible) ecological change due to both, the effect of fishing gear on the bottom and the intensive harvesting of demersal biota. Trawling grounds represent, therefore, ecologically modified habitats…” …” hence fishing excludes the option of conserving sea-bottom habitats in their virgin form”.
In 2002, the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) published a 125-page report entitled ”Effects of Trawling & Dredging on Seafloor Habitat” (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. - www.nap.edu). NRC is one of the 4 components of the U.S. National Academies – the highest scientific authority of the nation.
The report was written by the NRC Ocean Study Board’s Committee on Ecosystem Effects of Fishing with 12 respected members chaired by John Steele of the Woodshole Oceanographic Institution based in Massachussetts.
Well, how could the anti-trawling buffs know what they’re talking about, if such learned committee itself concluded that much more information is needed to draw scientifically sound conclusions? There’s lack of data on the distribution of habitat types and of the exerted effort, on the effect of trawling on the overall productivity of the various bottom dwellers, and on how often and to what geographic extent trawling and dredging occur in different types of marine habitats. There’s also a regional variation in reporting methods.
The Committee is of the opinion that while trawling could be destructive in ecologically vulnerable habitats, some especially sandy habitats, in areas that are subjected to naturally high levels of disturbance habitats are resilient to the effects of trawling.
Thus, the Committee’s main recommendations focus on further research and data collection, and on the need for developing a habitat classification system and standardized criteria for the designating and management of “essential fish habitats” (EFH) and “habitat areas of particular concern” (HAPC). Another important recommendation is that new management plans should be supported by the results of monitoring and evaluation of the consequences of the existing management measures.
Moreover, any management should be tailored to specific habitats and fisheries, through a balanced combination of effort reduction, gear modifications and restrictions, and closing off habitats that are damaged by even minimal fishing. So much for the NRC committee’s conclusions and recommendations. There’s a whale of difference between the NRC report and the anti-trawling campaigners slogans.
Nonetheless, I’m missing in the NRC report the recognition of the fact that what trawling is doing to trawling grounds is somewhat similar to what farming is doing to farmed (and thus permanently changed from their primeval state) areas on the continent. Like bad farming that is overexploiting the soil is bringing about desertification, overfishing can lead to stock depletion. Trawling with heavy gear on coral reefs can be compared to farmers destroying unique forest habitats to clear plots for farming.
No doubt, there’re areas that should be declared marine nature reserves or “marine protected areas” (MPA). In many marine areas the bottom character precludes any trawling. Such non-trawlable bottom may extend over substantial sections of the continental shelf, and represent natural choice for accommodating MPAs. Trawling skippers are usually aware of the biogenic value of such grounds, and enjoy their productivity while fishing in their close neighbourhood, but avoiding trawling on them proper.
Mr. Olaf Olsen, who used to be the Faeroese Minister of Fisheries and more recently the Managing Director of the Faeroese Beta company, gave me access to the 25-years detailed data of the Beta’s fleet trawling operations. It appears that Beta’s 8 pair trawlers along with 22 others have been trawling continually over a fishing area of about 3,000 sq.km. Those trawlers have been covering (sweeping? bulldozering?) annually an area of some 26,000 sq.km. I estimated that at least for 25 years every point on the fishing ground was trawled over some 8-9 times/year, in average. In 2003 they had record catch-per-day and some of the best total catch from that area.
Notwithstanding with the necessary taking care of reefs and other peculiar biogenic habitats, it must be recognized that it is impossible to attain at the same place and time both productive fishery and ecologically unmodified bottom ecosystem. Trawl-fishery that produces sustained yields over many years doesn’t destroy but rather rationally exploits its fishing grounds.
Some of the hot adherents to the habitat devastation by trawlers obsession may be ignorant of the fishing realities. They may be excused. But those marine biologists who should know better but keep propagating the sea bottom devastation nonsense owe us all a lot of explanation.