Fishery Bulletin 119(1) 
fishery management ensuing from measures taken to stem 
serious damage previously done. 
We suggest that fisheries terms should reflect the funda- 
mental differences between wild and cultured stocks. To use 
terrestrial analogies, hunters hunt and kill game, and to 
say they harvest them has been criticized as inaccurate and 
euphemistic (McWilliams, 2011). Likewise, fishermen hunt 
and catch fish, they do not harvest them. Farmers harvest 
cultured crops: vegetables, grains, and fruits from the fields 
or orchards that they planted and eggs and meat from the 
domesticated animals that they raised. When fish farmers 
garner the fish, invertebrates, or algae they have raised, we 
do not call that act fishing nor do we call their yield a catch. 
We feel harvest and harvesting are appropriate for aqua- 
culture products. In aquaculture operations, substantial 
resources are devoted to selection, health, and nutrition of 
broodstock. In contrast, wild stock management typically 
focuses on controlling total fishing mortality on a given pop- 
ulation to avoid overfishing, especially over-removal of the 
largest, oldest, most fecund individuals that sustain fish- 
eries. In other words, fishery managers protect wild stocks 
mostly from humans, not from other natural predators, 
disease, starvation, and weather extremes. Cultured organ- 
isms stocked in, and subsequently retrieved from, natural 
systems occupy a gray area with the term harvest being less 
appropriate the longer they are at liberty and become inte- 
grated components of the ecosystem. 
Differentiating terminology between wild caught and 
aquaculture fish species can have broader implications by 
tracing seafood to its source. The how, where, and when 
fish are removed, processed, transported, and managed 
prior to purchase are unclear, particularly in comparison 
with those aspects of other food sectors. In recent years, 
consumers have become more concerned with the path 
food takes to their plate. Traceable terminology helps 
to distinguish a product’s source, allowing consumers to 
make informed decisions related to their health, conser- 
vation values, or desire to support their local economy. 
Moreover, for fishery professionals, distinct terminology 
simplifies sorting data for management and easily identi- 
fies contributions to the global fish market. In some ways, 
this identification of sources reinforces an implicit deci- 
sion by the Food and Agriculture Organization to use the 
terms capture fisheries and aquaculture for the most part 
keeping harvest out of their fishing terminology. 
Fishermen engage in fishing for many purposes, includ- 
ing consumption and recreation in addition to commerce. 
Although fishermen invest heavily in their fishing vessels, 
gear, fuel, licenses, etc., and fishery professionals invest 
in stock assessment and management plans, they do not 
directly invest, at least not to the degree a farmer does, in 
the ecosystem from which biomass is extracted. Fishery 
managers aim to maximize economic benefit accrued from 
exploitation of targeted species, but for most untargeted 
species, often no care per se is provided (i.e., no regula- 
tions). We acknowledge that fishermen are compelled, 
sometimes at substantial cost, by fishery management 
measures (or their own ethical codes) to modify how, 
when, how much, and what they land from the ecosystems 
(e.g., through bag, minimum size, gear, season, and area 
limitations). However, we disagree that taking on these 
conservation burdens justifies use of the term harvest for 
what was hunted and removed from a natural system. In 
addition, when harvest is applied to wild stocks, it diverts 
attention from the issue of bycatch in many fisheries. 
The benign term harvest narrows the focus on the landed 
(or hooked) biomass of target species as opposed to the 
biomass and diversity actually affected (i.e., untargeted 
species or size classes killed or injured), which can be sig- 
nificant and even exceed landings in some fisheries. 
Likely guided by the National Marine Fisheries Service 
glossary (NMFS, 2006), nongovernmental organizations, 
policy makers, and the U.S. legal system (Auslander and 
Tipple, 2020) similarly apply harvest to wild fish extraction. 
Indeed, the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, our own 
part of the National Marine Fisheries Service, has a unit 
labelled Harvesting Systems, when in fact, much of its 
research emphasis has been on minimizing bycatch with- 
out reducing target catch rates. Fishing Systems would be 
a more appropriate label. More examples of harvest and 
harvesting being applied to catches or fishing, with sug- 
gested replacement text, include the following: harvest 
season is open (i.e., fishing season is open) and Anglers 
can harvest 2 red snapper per day (i.e., Anglers can land, 
retain, or possess 2 red snapper per day). 
For us, simple substitution of the word catch for harvest 
and of fishing for harvesting when referring to wild stocks 
is a step toward accuracy, better indicates the source of a 
fishery product, and removes any implication that a nat- 
ural population’s production is due to, or owed to, those 
exploiting it. As fishery professionals, we have a duty and 
obligation to communicate with accuracy and clarity, par- 
ticularly to the public. In that regard, using harvesting as a 
euphemism for fishing is not helpful. Among our colleagues, 
we doubt harvest control rules will become catch control 
rules or that harvest recommendations will become catch 
recommendations any time soon. But we wish they would. 
Literature cited 
Archer, J. K. 
1944. Address in reply. New Zealand Parliamentary Debates 
264:416—418. [Available from website.] 
Auslander, J. M., and K. A. Tipple. 
2020. Fifth circuit finds National Marine Fisheries Service 
has no authority to regulate aquaculture. National Law 
Review, 12 August 2020. [Available from website.] 
McWilliams, J. E. 
2011. Hunting for euphemisms: how we trick ourselves to 
excuse killing. Atlantic, 21 December 2011. [Available from 
website.] 
Michel, J.-B., Y. K. Shen, A. P. Aiden, A. Veres, M. K. Gray, 
W. Brockman, The Google Books Team, J. P. Pickett, D. Hoiberg, 
D. Clancy et al. 
2011. Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digi- 
tized books. Science 331:176-182. 
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 
2006. NOAA Fisheries glossary, rev. ed. NOAA Tech. Memo. 
NMEFS-F/SPO-69, 61 p. 
