THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, January 4, 1996 TAG: 9601040001
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A12 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 67 lines
Early in this century, ducks were commercially hunted. Scientists warned that their number was dwindling dangerously. Recreational hunters howled that commercial hunters were ruining a good sport.
Recreational hunters far outnumbered commercial ones, and many of the recreational hunters were wealthy and influential. Duck hunting, in fact, was popularly known then as the sport of kings.
At the behest of sport hunters and conservationists, Congress first limited a commercial hunter's daily duck harvest to 50, then 25, then 15, until finally, in 1929, commercial duck hunting was banned.
Many commercial fishermen fear, and many recreational fishermen hope, that a similar story will be told some day about fish.
Ideally, a way can be found to preserve enough fish to let recreational fishermen enjoy catching them while watermen make a living. Both recreational and commercial fishing are multibillion-dollar businesses nationwide.
One thing is clear from a Virginian-Pilot series on fishing last month: If fish aren't saved, everyone loses. The first order of business has to be saving the resource. But if fishing restrictions are unnecessarily strict, watermen unnecessarily suffer. Watermen differ with scientists and conservationists over which restrictions are needed.
Commercial fishermen naturally attempt to catch as many fish as they can profitably sell. There is always the sense, ``If I don't catch the fish, someone else will.'' But the days of catch-all-you-can are over. With modern fishing methods and increased numbers of boats (see editorial below), a catch-all-you-can philosophy leads to depletion of fish stocks.
A partial solution is fish farming, though it has its drawbacks: It pollutes water, has high initial costs and often requires that fish be fed fish.
Federal restrictions on fishing grounds and catches are unavoidable, but clarity and common sense are needed. Watermen shouldn't be expected to abide by constant and often bewildering rule changes.
The problem of declining fish populations is complicated because the decline is worldwide; different fish and fishing grounds are in different degrees of decline; and - as the series made clear - there is no single villain to attack.
``Everyone shares in the blame,'' reported staff writers Scott Harper and Lane DeGregory. ``Fishermen got greedy; regulators reacted too slowly with limits that were too weak; scientists were not compelling enough with their warnings; pollution of the waters increases; politicians protected the status quo; and the Third World competition has refused to play by any meaningful book of rules; and fish-finding and -catching technology improved.''
If solutions are to be found, commercial fishermen can't ignore sport fishermen. In North Carolina, for example, sport fishermen outnumber commercial waterman 175 to 1, which means sport fishermen have more votes. In Florida, where commercial interests attempted to ignore sport fishermen, the result was a sport-fishermen-backed 1994 law banning nearly all net fishing in state waters. Louisiana has a similar ban.
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission has formed eight public advisory boards to help mediate clashes between commercial and recreational fishermen. As a result, said Bill Pruitt, the commission head, Virginia has the most amicable relationship between commercial and recreational fishermen of any coastal state. Other states should follow suit.
The dismaying reality remains, however, that the very best solutions will prove painful. by CNB