Fishermen obeyed their quotas, so why did Maine cod stocks collapse?

Gulf of Maine cod are down to just 4 percent of a sustainable population, say experts. A recent study from the Gulf of Maine Research Institute explains why.

Robert F. Bukaty/AP/File
Fishermen Ed Stewart (l.) and Tannis Goodsen mend groundfishing nets on Merrill Wharf in Portland, Maine, Nov. 15, 2013. The Northeast Fisheries Science Center says research boats caught less cod in Spring 2015 than in all but one spring season since 1968.

A proactive effort by fishery managers to increase a distinct New England cod population may have actually led to the population’s precipitous decline, a new study suggests.

Dr. Andrew Pershing from the Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI), lead author of the study released Thursday in Science, explained for the first time why cod stocks in the Gulf of Maine have decreased to 3 to 4 percent of sustainable levels, despite numerous harvesting restrictions in 2010 by fisheries managers.  

Fisheries published strict quota limits for fishermen without accounting for ocean warming in the Gulf of Maine, says the study, where warming is occurring 99 percent faster than anywhere else on the planet, because of the Gulf Stream and climate oscillations in the Atlantic. By not accounting for such an influential change, fisheries set quota ceilings that were too high and inadvertently endorsed severe overfishing.

Dr. Pershing is "not surprised” current cod fishery models led to overfishing, he told the Christian Science Monitor.

The current model records the age demographics of fish caught, "assuming constant survival from one age to the next" – an assumption that could hold true under ordinary circumstances, but not in the face of warming seas.

Warm waters inhibit cod reproduction and young spawn survival. "Our hypothesis is that feeding patterns for larvae have changed so fewer may have survived, and the warm water could make the young fish more available to predators," Pershing explains. "The [quota] system is not designed to look at these systems and factors."

Pershing and his colleagues say the recent quotas have relied on statistical accounts of cod demographics, which "works really well for a lot of stocks, where the historical conditions are a good signal of the current condition," but which failed in the face of the warming Gulf habitat.

Fisheries did successfully enforce their quotas among fishermen – but the limits were wrong.

And as much as they might want to, oceanographers can't wave a wand and cool the Gulf of Maine back down.

"All we can control is what people are fishing and people’s expectations," Jennifer Goebel, a public affairs officer with NOAA fisheries, tells The Monitor. "If this is the farthest south that cod live, maybe we can’t rebuild this fishery. Maybe that’s unrealistic now."

Moving forward, what is the most influential take away from the cod case?

Warming waters call for a complete fishery model makeover, says Pershing.

"We can’t rely on assuming the world is how it has been," he says. "We really have to wrestle with these changes and be realistic about what they mean. If you don't account for temperature, we are setting this goal much higher than it can be."

NOAA ranks cod as the 8th most commonly eaten seafood species in the US, but cod fans will soon have to find an alternative. As the Monitor's Michael Holtz reported last week, fish farming is becoming prevalent throughout the world, and a robust shellfish industry is spreading across New England waters.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Fishermen obeyed their quotas, so why did Maine cod stocks collapse?
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today