This commentary in the March 2026 issue of the Navigator Magazine shortlist some of the evidence of DFO mismanagement, then concludes that “it’d make sense” to switch to an input-based management approach instead.
That’d Make Sense
By Barry Darby
Talking with a harvester from Fogo Island a while back, I outlined a proposal for input-based management of the fishery, and then asked him “What do you think?”
“DFO’ll never go along with it,” he said. “Why not?” I asked. “That’d make sense,” he said.
Most harvesters, we agreed, just shake their heads whenever they’re presented with a new DFO directive or policy. Even when the Department does something right they generally manage to mess it up.
Having been a harvester during the 1950’s and 1960’s and a keen observer of the fishing industry ever since, I’ve frequently identified practices and decisions that are at odds with common sense. In response, my partner and I have developed the alternative policy framework that I asked the Fogo harvester about.
But first, let’s start with a quick sampling of the kind of persistent mismanagement he was referring to. Readers are invited to add their own examples to the list.
During the 1970’s, Canadian bottom trawlers fished the Hamilton Inlet Banks during the winter when the cod aggregate there to spawn. That essentially destroyed the stock and wiped out the inshore Labrador fishery in just a few years. This past winter, with the moratorium lifted, an OCI trawler was permitted to drag that same bank, although the regular season was closed. The fish were so plentiful the vessel reported that she only needed two tows per day to fill her freezers.
That makes no sense.
3Ps cod is deep in the critical zone and the total quota is a tiny fraction of past harvests. Yet DFO allows corporate entities using otter trawls to plunder those banks.
That makes no sense.
The bluefin tuna stock has recently increased dramatically worldwide. Tuna are now so plentiful in Canadian inshore waters that we lost two lures this summer when tuna stole the codfish we’d brought up by handline. The TAC for the Western Atlantic has been increased by 13% over last year, and in Europe, Norway recently obtained a 25% share of the Eastern Atlantic catch. However, Canada has not indicated any corresponding change in what it demands from NAFO.
That makes no sense.
Massive amounts of grades B and C cod was discarded at sea this past year as harvesters tried to ensure maximum earnings by bringing in only Grade A fish to fill their quota.
That makes no sense.
Historical and contemporary data show that 20% to 40% of a cod stock can be sustainably harvested every year. Yet over the past 8 years DFO has set harvest rates for 2J3KL at less than 3%, except for 7% in 2025. Despite this underfishing, the stock has not grown, and is expected to decrease due to factors like food scarcity.
That makes no sense.
Even when a stock rebuilds, DFO mismanages it. In 2019, Gulf redfish had reached harvestable size and a biomass of approximately 4300 kilotonnes, a whole order of magnitude above its Limit Reference Point. Yet for four more years, DFO kept the fishery closed. By 2024 when some harvesting was finally allowed, the redfish stock had declined to less than 3000 kilotonnes, and individual fish had failed to grow appreciably. Having eaten through the shrimp, seriously impacting that stock, they were either starving to death or experiencing near-zero growth.
That makes no sense.
Provincial government policies in NL are similarly senseless. Provincial law requires that the harvester and processor organizations negotiate to set the price of fish, regardless of the world market price. In November, 2025, for the first time in history, the price of whole cod in Norway reached a record 100 NOK ($13.60 CAN). The equivalent price for head-on-gutted cod would be $9.50 CAN. However, the price in NL, set as specified under provincial law, is $1.18 per pound.
That makes no sense.
The province also limits who can build a fish plant. A few years ago the provincial minister received two applications for new plants; instead of granting both, he rejected the one in the Bay Roberts area and approved only the one in St. Mary’s Bay. This was despite the fact that the one he approved would require over 100 temporary foreign works to operate at capacity, with much of the money earned being sent out of the country rather than benefiting the NL economy.
That makes no sense.
So what would make sense?
What’s needed is a paradigm shift, switching from management based on the catching to management based on the fishing. In other words, it’s not the number of kilograms caught that matters for sustainability, it’s whether the fishing itself is done in sustainable ways that provide economic and social benefits for people and communities. That’s what we propose with input-based management.
If the way DFO is doing it now makes no sense, let’s push them to do it right. For details, check the website under my name.
Barry Darby
Changing Course: A New Direction for Canadian Fisheries 