"It totally ignores what really matters when harvesting a natural resource, namely, the biology of the organism. What is really important is the life cycle of the fish, not some accountant bullshit. Where do they spawn? In what season? Doesn't it make more sense to harvest them after they've reproduced than before, so there will be fish next year? At what age (size) do the fish spawn? Catching them while they've not had a chance to do so would rapidly deplete the stock, so it would make sense to set size limits or regulate net mesh. And what about the method used to harvest them? Some techniques, like trawls, destroy the bottom ecosystem so that you not only remove the fish, but everything they depend on and not only is the catch lost but the ability of the environment to produce more is crippled, sometimes irreparably."

But generally the people who know the most about all of these kinds of things are fisherman. Using science to gain more understanding is something that is more likely that the children of fisherman have starting doing hundreds of years ago and continuing to this day. Generally it would seem that the fisherman who would be the most efficient, would be those using high technology who have been at least college educated.

But the premise of what I was disputing was the idea we should discourage those who more productive because there is a limited amount of fish to fish, whereas it seems, if anything, we should as a general rule want those which are less efficient- using more resources and human labor to get the same amount of fish- to do something other then continue being inefficient.

"Most fish stocks, properly managed, can recover from quite vigorous harvesting, and provide high yields year after year if the fishermen are regulated based on sound fisheries science and conservation practices. There is no need to stop eating fish, we just need to fish more intelligently. Not surprisingly, subsistence fisherman often do this subconsciously. They fish to support themselves, but it is a dangerous and expensive operation so there are incentives not to overfish. They tend to fish as much as they need to earn a good living, then stop. It provides a lot of employment for the number of fish taken. That may be inefficient, but it favors small businessmen and a thriving local industry, which is good, isn't it? Yields are smaller, prices higher, but the fishery is sustainable."

I don't think a general policy of providing a lot of employment in being a fisherman is a good goal if one assumes there is a critical problem with a lack of fish to fish.
I don't think subsistence fishing or sports fishing is a problem that needs to be fixed or managed by government policy.
But fishing more intelligently has been and is what is occuring. So, generally speaking we are fishing more intelligently now, then 100 years ago, or 500 or 10,000 years ago.
Though there is one obvious aspect about "subsistence fisherman", they have a long history of not requiring non fishermen [governments] to tell them how, where, or when to fish.
So, if I had a simple choice between govt managed fishing or "subsistence fisherman"- I would choose the "subsistence fisherman".

Now, if we want to examine the numerous ways a govt has screw over the "subsistence fisherman" and develop a govt program that has a goal to make amends for all they have done, and study the issue for decades and decades. I don't know if any intelligent would result from it, but at least it's something to keep them busy- and more importantly it's something relevant to what they do.