- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The difference in the pollock and cod fisheries, and the reason the pollock fishery hasn’t died out, is that the pollock fishery is well managed. In the reading it stated that no annual harvest of pollock has ever surpassed the maximum sustainable yield. Meanwhile where cod are concerned, they continued to increase fishing efforts despite the numbers saying that cod were crashing. In addition, the managers of the pollock fishery are much more intune to what is happening with the fish and what the fishery needs, while the managers of the cod fishery were unaware and aloof. However, there are some similarities in the fisheries. Both pollock and cod had similar levels of abundance before people started fishing them, and had some similar patterns throughout their history. Both pollock and cod experienced population swings, with a large population for a few years and a depleted population in years following. Both had similar economic impacts. Many people around the world relied on cod for their livelihood, and many people rely on pollock for the money and resources they need. The difference in the success of the fishery, comes back to how the pollock are well managed and the cod were not. The troubling issue with the current pollock industry is that, the patterns in growth and crashes in the population from year to year, are similar to the population swings seen in cod towards the end of the successful fishery.
I agree that the Alaska Pollock fishery had been managed far better than the Northern Cod fishery. However, I think that this is mostly because the managers of the Alaska Pollock fishery learned from the mistakes of the Northern Cod fishery’s managers. Had the collapse of the Northern Cod fishery not happened, or happened latter, the Alaska Pollock fishery would have collapsed the same way the cod did.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.