Proposals to restrict the number of pelagic fish – which are, broadly speaking, migratory and contain oil – caught by amateur fishermen have run into controversy, and understandably so.

The basic problems for the Government appears to be that Bermuda is rightly restricted under international conventions in how many fish of different breeds it can catch. This should enable fish stocks to continue to breed successfully without being fished out. At the moment, according to Government, the commercial fish catches which are registered come close to exceeding the international rules. Government is then assuming that the amateur fish catch – whatever it is, because the catch is not reported – will then put the Island over the limit.

There seems to be a second motivation, which is the concern among commercial fishermen that amateurs are selling their catches to restaurants and so forth, thus reducing the price and hurting the professional fishermen who depend on sales for their livelihoods, not to mention to pay for their licences.

So why the controversy? Primarily, Government is operating on assumptions about the amateur catch without having done any real research beyond the purely anecdotal. This is bad science, and therefore bad policy. Government is proposing that amateurs be self-regulating with regard to adhering to "bag limits". This would appear to be unenforceable. Honest fishermen will throw extra fish back, while dishonest fishermen will keep them. Trying to enforce the regulations will be more expensive and inefficient than the minimal catches that will be detected.

Some critics have also raised the apparent contradiction between the Government's proposals to restrict local amateur catches and its continued support of the longline fishing pilot programme in which an American trawler will use the much more efficient – and somewhat controversial long lines offshore to catch fish for export with the comparably paltry rod and reel catches hauled in by weekend fishermen. Government needs to explain the distinction between the two, because it is not at all clear.

To be sure, these are only proposals at this stage, but there are enough problems with the idea that they should be withdrawn and rethought.