There are many reasons why a richly equipped and well-staffed management system can go awry. One is the science it is based on. Use of figures obtained from mathematical models that don’t reflect realities of the system produces flawed assessment of the stock and hence of the recommended allowable catch or effort. The various stock assessment methodologies that form the basis for fixing the total allowable catches (TAC) use mathematical models fed mainly with catch and effort data, and sometimes with results of fish sampling and acoustic monitoring. But both, the accuracy of such figures, and the validity of the models themselves are often questioned, and rightly so. None of these models are able to express environmental factors and influences. At least one model comprises a trend factor trying to express natural fluctuations. But, this is a trend of the past to present, hence insufficient to predict future changes in the trend direction and magnitude. Practically the only important variable in most models is the fishing mortality, for natural mortality is usually assumed to be a certain constant - a fallacy in most marine fishes, while fluctuations in recruitment, problematic to monitor, are rarely accounted for.

However inadequate, those models produce results, which although flawed, represent "the best available science" at the hands of managers. Consequently, or for other reasons, authorities are taking wrong management steps that are questioned not only by fishing people, but also by those scientists, who use to spend time on board fishing vessels and see many things that the mathematical models and their operators are oblivious of. No doubt, the "best available science" should be fully accepted only if it is "adequate for fishery management". Thus, scientific recommendations put forth to managers should always be critically assessed by scientists totally independent on the recommending institutions and the managing authorities.

The inadequacy of the prevailing fisheries management stems from also other problems. Many of the managers involved (not all) lack the experience, social touch, and economic and political skills that make good fishery managers, and are liable to take inappropriate decisions. But, when skippers, experienced old salts, and other observant fishermen start feeling that what the management says or does doesn’t fit what they see and catch at sea, and what their experience and common sense are telling them, the failure of the management is almost certain. Where scientists don’t recognize and internalize that what they derive from statistical data fed in models is only a part of the picture, and that to have a full picture they must consider also natural environmental fluctuations and fish abundance cycles, as well as verbal information from fishermen, and information from scientists observing and sampling on board fishing vessels, the way to mismanagement is wide open. But, even the best scientific advice won’t do if the resulting management steps disregard dominant cultural features and vital socio-economic-political needs of the fisherfolk and their communities. Fishing people would never live with rules, if they perceive them as unjust, not fitting the reality as they see it, or favor one group or branch of the fishery over another.

And when management is out of step with the industry, especially where large numbers of fishing vessels and whole populations of fisherfolk are affected, it simply can’t succeed. Fishermen will do everything to beat its regulations; they’ll cheat, poach, land or sell over-the-side "black" fish, and discard marketable fish to make space for larger and more expensive specimens under limited quotas. Enforcement under such conditions becomes unfeasible or so expensive as to be impractical. All this has been happening in the northern Europe’s fisheries for years under the CFP ineffective management, so now, to be left with something to manage, it needs draconian steps.

If the EU, or for that matter, any other fishery managing authority, wants to attain rational exploitation of the resources it is in charge of, it should seek co-management with local fishing interests. Successful co-management depends, among others, on choice of partners. Local, area-based small and medium-scale fishermen and boat owners would be the best partners, because they would always be interested to sustain reasonable catch levels and, hence, sufficient fish stocks. The commitment to sustainable fishing of owners and operators of large-scale fishing vessels, such as superseiners, factory-trawlers and other industrial fishing fleets that are or can be mobile between various world's fishing grounds, is far below that of locally based, and locally fishing fisherfolk, who have no where to go. Hence, the former would hardly fill the bill.