BC Groundfish: We Stopped the Crash, But Where's the Comeback?
For decades, groundfish populations along British Columbia's coast collapsed steadily until the year 2000—then mostly flattened out at those depleted levels rather than rebuilding to abundance.
Industry often calls B.C. coastal fisheries "sustainable," but the evidence tells a more sobering story: we've stopped the nosedive without bringing the fish back.
For coastal communities, fishing families, and First Nations who depend on our waters, the difference between stability and recovery isn't academic—it's about freezers that stay full and mortgages that get paid.
That's where proposals for the creation of a marine protected area (MPA) network on B.C.'s north and central coast can make a difference.
Scroll down to get the details on why marine protected areas (MPAs) are needed on the B.C. coast and how they can make a difference.
Visualizing Five Decades: Fall, Then Flat
The main multi-panel figure from the 2021 DFO analysis tells the story at a glance: a steep decline through the late 20th century (shown in red) followed by a post-2000 plateau at reduced levels (shown in grey).
This isn't a V-shaped recovery; it's an L-shaped stabilization. The graph reveals a mixed outcome—at best we've stopped falling, but we haven't climbed back up.
Figure 1b from the report shows average biomass relative to limit reference points (B/LRP) over time. The limit reference point is the scientific threshold below which serious harm to a stock is likely.
For decades, average biomass slid toward and sometimes below that danger line. Since 2000, it has hovered in the cautious zone—above immediate crisis, but well below healthy abundance.
This graph should be called "Stopped the Slide, Not a Rebuild." Looking at the trend over 60 years, it is instantly clear why coastal communities feel frustrated. Fisheries management has succeeded at preventing disaster but failed at restoring prosperity.
Source: Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (2021).
"Trends in Pacific Canadian groundfish stock status."
All data and graphics cited link directly to the full report.
The Truth: Five Decades of Loss
Groundfish stocks on BC's Pacific coast fell steadily throughout the late 20th century, driven by industrial overfishing, habitat loss, and management failures.
The 2021 Department of Fisheries and Oceans analysis of 24 key stocks paints a clear picture: average biomass relative to limit reference points declined sharply through the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
Then, around the year 2000, something changed—but not in the way we might hope. The freefall stopped, and populations stabilized. But they stabilized low, at levels far below what our parents and grandparents knew as normal. Several stocks, including Lingcod in area 4B and Bocaccio, remain at risk levels even in their most recent assessments.
This isn't a recovery story. It's a stabilization story—and there's a world of difference between the two when you're trying to make a living on the water.
Repeat After Me: "Sustainable" Doesn't Mean Abundant
Walk into any fisheries management meeting and you'll hear the word "sustainable" repeated like a mantra.
Industry representatives point to current harvest levels and monitoring systems as proof that BC groundfish are being managed responsibly.
Technically, they're not wrong—the fishery hasn't collapsed further. But "sustainable" has become a sleight of hand, a way to declare victory while fishing communities struggle with reduced quotas and unpredictable seasons.
Independent reviews echo the caution that frontline fishers already feel in their bones.
Recent Seafood Watch evaluations for BC groundfish highlight persistent data gaps and award limited green ratings, underscoring that many stocks lack clear, up-to-date proof of robust health. When scientists can't confidently say a population is thriving, calling current management a "success" rings hollow on the docks.
This is the classic shifting-baseline trap in action: we're judging progress against the depleted year 2000 rather than the thriving, abundant fisheries that filled holds and fed communities for generations.
Success shouldn't mean "less bad than catastrophic." It should mean fish populations healthy enough to support both ecosystems and economies.
What Changed in Management—And What Did Not
Major policy shifts implemented in the late 1990s and early 2000s deserve credit for preventing total collapse.
Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs)
Allocated specific catch shares to individual fishers and vessels, reducing the race-to-fish mentality that drove overharvesting in earlier decades.
100% At-Sea Monitoring
Required independent observers on all commercial groundfish vessels to verify catch, reduce bycatch, and improve data accuracy for stock assessments.
Synoptic Trawl Surveys
Established systematic scientific surveys to track population trends, distribution, and biomass estimates across key groundfish species and regions.
The Problem: Halting Decline ≠ Rebuilding
These reforms stopped the freefall after the 1990s, but roughly a third of assessed stocks still sit in the cautious zone where harvests should be reduced to avoid critical status.
But the same DFO report that documents stabilization also makes plain what every fisher already knows: halting decline is not the same as rebuilding abundance.
The tools we have can keep stocks from getting worse, but they haven't proven sufficient to restore populations to ecologically or economically healthy levels—the kind of levels that allow families to stay in fishing, not just hang on by their fingernails.
The Great Bear Sea MPA Network: More Than Lines on a Map
A Blueprint for Recovery
The Northern Shelf Bioregion—known locally as the Great Bear Sea—spans one of the most ecologically rich marine regions on Earth.
The MPA Network Action Plan, endorsed by First Nations, the Province of BC, and the federal government, offers a practical blueprint for rebuilding fish populations while maintaining coastal livelihoods.
The plan targets 20–50% of the network for high protection, creating refuges where fish can grow larger, older, and more productive. Other zones allow a mix of sustainable uses, recognizing that conservation and community well-being must go hand in hand.
MPAs as Climate Insurance for Coastal Communities
Beyond simply increasing fish numbers, marine protected areas act as climate insurance policies for coastal economies.
Greater Resilience
As ocean temperatures rise and acidification increases, protected ecosystems demonstrate greater resilience and faster recovery from disturbances.
Climate Impacts Today
Coastal communities are already experiencing warmer waters pushing species northward, more extreme weather disrupting fishing seasons, and changing migration patterns.
Protecting People & Nature
MPAs offer a tangible strategy to safeguard livelihoods, ensuring fish populations can adapt and thrive under changing conditions. They protect both ecosystems and the people who depend on them for food and income.
The Great Bear Sea MPA Network recognizes this dual role: protecting nature and protecting people aren't competing goals, they're inseparable. Resilient fish populations mean resilient fishing communities, and resilient fishing communities are essential to food sovereignty, especially for First Nations who have sustained relationships with these waters for millennia.
Reality Check: So What's Going On With Groundfish?
The Facts
Groundfish stocks fell for approximately 50 years, then stabilized at low levels around 2000. That's not a comeback that fills freezers or pays mortgages—it's treading water at the bottom of a well.
The evidence: DFO's 2021 analysis "Trends in Pacific Canadian groundfish stock status" documents this trajectory in detail.
The Good & The Bad
The current management regime prevented further collapse—that's worth acknowledging. But it hasn't rebuilt fish populations to ecologically or economically healthy levels. We stopped the bleeding without healing the wound.
Let's be real about what "cautious zone" means: harvests should be reduced to avoid slipping into critical status. That's not abundance; that's managing scarcity.
What Works
Marine protected areas are a proven tool and a no-brainer for rebuilding fish abundance, with spillover benefits to nearby fisheries when designed and enforced well. This isn't theory—it's documented in peer-reviewed research from BC waters and around the world.
Documenting the evidence: Nature 2014, Nature Ecology & Evolution 2021, PNAS 2017.
Real Impacts for Humans
The Great Bear Sea MPA Network Action Plan and "What We Heard" community report show how protection and continued use can coexist. Most of the area will continue to host human activities alongside conservation—this is a working coast, not a museum.
Federal overview: DFO Northern Shelf Bioregion page
The MPA Network Plan: High Protection and Multiple Use
One of the most common misunderstandings about marine protected areas is that they lock out all human activity.
The Great Bear Sea MPA Network Action Plan explicitly rejects that approach. Instead, it creates a mosaic of protection levels designed to rebuild fish populations while sustaining coastal livelihoods.
High-Protection Zones (20–50%)
Core refuges where extractive activities are prohibited, allowing ecosystems to fully recover and fish to reach maximum size and reproductive capacity.
Intermediate-Protection Zones
Areas where selective, low-impact activities may continue under strict management, balancing conservation with traditional and commercial uses.
Multiple-Use Zones
Regions that remain open to a range of sustainable activities, from fishing to shipping, with science-based regulations to minimize ecosystem impacts.
This isn't about drawing lines and walking away. It's about designing a network where protection and use reinforce each other—where no-take zones act as nurseries that boost fish populations across the broader seascape, including in areas that remain open to fishing. The plan was developed in partnership with First Nations governments, who bring millennia of stewardship knowledge to modern conservation science, and reflects extensive community consultation documented in the "What We Heard" report.
The Bottom Line: Abundance, Resilience, and Steady Paycheques
Today's fisheries management system stopped the nosedive. That's not nothing—it took difficult reforms, political courage, and fishers willing to accept painful short-term cuts for long-term survival. But stopping the nosedive isn't the same as climbing back to health.
Groundfish populations remain at reduced levels, many stocks sit in the cautious zone, and coastal communities continue to struggle with the economic reality of managing scarcity instead of harvesting abundance.
Abundance
Well-designed marine protected areas rebuild fish populations, ensuring enough for everyone, including our kids and grandkids.
Resilience
MPAs increase resilience to climate change, a benefit supported by decades of documented, peer-reviewed scientific research.
Steady Paycheques
MPAs deliver spillover benefits to adjacent fisheries, rebuilding the resource itself for long-term economic stability and livelihoods.
For coastal families, the choice is clear: we can continue managing decline, celebrating stability at depleted levels and calling it success—or we can invest in rebuilding abundance for the next generation.
MPAs aren't about locking people out; they're about letting fish populations recover so there's enough for everyone, including our kids and grandkids.
Abundance, resilience, and steady paycheques don't come from managing scarcity better—they come from rebuilding the resource itself. That's what the Great Bear Sea MPA Network is designed to do, and that's why it matters to everyone who depends on these waters for food, culture, and livelihood.