Subsidies, efficiency, and fairness in fisheries policy

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  05 Apr 2019:
Vol. 364, Issue 6435, pp. 34-35
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw4087

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: “Subsidies, Efficiency, and Fairness in Fisheries Policy,” 5 April 2019

    In view of the already demonstrably destructive activities currently in play on the high seas, I would like to register my strong objection to the proposed rule of the NMFS aimed at further increasing the capacity of commercial fisheries (Martin D. Smith, “Subsidies, Efficiency, and Fairness in Fisheries Policy,” 5 April 2019)— and through the expansion of taxpayer-generated subsidies no less, adding insult to injury.

    While I realize that current practices are common knowledge among those who work within fisheries circles, reading the literature as an outsider whose primary concern is the integrity of the Biosphere—what remains of it—I find it shocking that, for example, global tuna biomass has been “halved in half a century,” with populations declining by an average of 60%, and certain species much more than that—coupled with the fact that the “maximum sustainable yield” is still being treated as a management target rather than an upper limit even as such exploitation drives “steep population declines” in tunas while endangering a variety of “bycatch” fishes, seabirds and turtles (Juan-Jorda et al., “Global population trajectories of tunas and their relatives,” 2011). In an interview last year with Yale 360, “A Global Ban on Fishing on the High Seas? The Time Is Now,” Daniel Pauly called the global industrial fishing industry “a Ponzi scheme,” fishing down one unexploited region of the sea after another until, as is happening now, the fish have nowhere to hide, no...

    Show More
    Competing Interests: None declared.

Stay Connected to Science