Alerts - Saving Seafood

NOAA Fisheries Withdraws the Northeast Fishing Sector IX Operations Plan

November 20, 2017 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

Through an Interim Final Rule filed this morning, NOAA Fisheries withdraws approval of the 2017 and 2018 Northeast Fishery Sector IX operations plan. The Regional Administrator determined that the sector and its participants have not complied with the requirements of their approved operations plan, and that the continuation of the Sector IX operations plan will undermine achievement of the conservation and management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan. This action follows the guilty plea and sentencing of Mr. Carlos Rafael, a major participant in Sector IX, who admitted to falsely reporting catch information.

Any Sector IX vessels that are currently at-sea on a groundfish trip must return to port immediately, and are allowed to offload and sell their catch. After that, vessels that are eligible to fish under other permits, without declaring a sector trip or using a multispecies day-at-sea, can continue to do so during the 2017 fishing year. Sector participants may not declare a sector trip or use a multispecies day-at-sea for the remainder of the 2017 fishing year. Sector IX may not lease in or out any groundfish allocation.

Read the rule as filed this morning in the Federal Register.

The comment period for this interim final rule closes on December 20.

You may submit comments on this document via the Federal eRulemaking Portal beginning November 22 or by sending them to John K. Bullard, Regional Administrator, National Marine Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope, “Comments on the Interim Final Rule to Withdraw Approval of NEFS 9.”

Questions? Contact Jennifer Goebel, Regional Office, at 978-281-9175

Learn more about NOAA at their site here.

Federal Fishery Managers to Ask American Samoa Government, Cannery to Act on Fishery Matters

UTULEI, AMERICAN SAMOA — October 19, 2017 — The following was released by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council:

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council yesterday at the Rex Lee Auditorium in Utulei, American Samoa, voted to undertake the following actions regarding American Samoa fisheries operating in federal waters (3 to 200 nautical miles offshore).

American Samoa Marine Conservation Plan (MCP): The Council noted that the American Samoa MCP expires in mid-2018 and recommended that American Samoa Government (ASG) conduct meetings with relevant stakeholders to develop its new MCP before submitting it to the Council in early 2018. The MCP identifies fishery development projects to be funded from certain fines or fees received from fisheries in the US exclusive economic zone (EEZ) around American Samoa.

Non-fishing Impacts on Fish Habitat: The Council will ask the ASG to consider which department should have permitting and enforcement authority for sand mining regulations, provide outreach and review the regulations to ensure they are in line with other natural resource management programs. It will also encourage ASG to build capacity to collaborate between the government and communities in ongoing natural resource management and education/outreach efforts.

Fisheries Data Collection: The Council will ask the American Samoa Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources to distinguish between foreign longline and domestic longline in the retail fish vendor data and to provide its needs regarding data collection staff capacity and funding.

Longline Dock Extension Project: The Council recommended that the ASG commit to identifying funds for the construction of the longline dock extension or the Council will consider reprograming the funds it has to support the project.

Tri Marine/Samoa Tuna Packers (STP): The Council will ask that the company allow American Samoa longline vessels to access the STP’s small dock, which the Council helped fund. The Council will also ask the company for a status update on its facility and operations in American Samoa. STP recently closed, leaving StarKist as the sole operational tuna cannery in the Territory.

The Council will conclude its meeting today at the Rex Lee Auditorium. For the full agenda and additional information, go to www.wpcouncil.org/category/upcoming-council-and-advisory-body-meetings/ or email info@wpcouncil.org or phone (808) 522-8220.

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council: Secretary of Commerce appointees from nominees selected by American Samoa, CNMI, Guam and Hawai`i governors: Edwin Ebisui Jr. (chair); Michael Duenas, Guam Fishermen’s Cooperative Association (Guam) (vice chair); John Gourley, Micronesian Environmental Services (CNMI) (vice chair); Christinna Lutu-Sanchez, commercial fisherman (American Samoa) (vice chair); Michael Goto, United Fishing Agency (Hawai‘i); Dean Sensui, film producer (Hawai‘i); Archie Soliai, StarKist (American Samoa). Designated state officials: Suzanne Case, Hawai`i Department of Land & Natural Resources; Ray Roberto, CNMI Department of Lands and Natural Resources; Matt Sablan, Guam Department of Agriculture; Henry Sesepasra, American Samoa Department of Marine & Wildlife Resources. Designated federal officials (voting): Michael Tosatto, NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office. Designated federal officials (non-voting): Matthew Brown, USFWS; Michael Brakke, US Department of State; RADM Vincent B. Atkins, USCG 14th District.

Judge issues forfeiture order in Rafael case

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — October 11, 2017 — Judge William G. Young of the U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, has released his order on the question of forfeiture in the Carlos Rafael case.

The judge ordered Mr. Rafael to forfeit his 50 percent interest in four vessels in which his ownership stake is appraised at $2.2 million, and his half interest in 4 permits with 34 endorsements. The government had sought forfeiture of Mr. Rafael’s interest in 13 vessels. In the “Memorandum and Order Concerning Forfeiture” the judge outlined the Constitutional issues, case law, and sentencing guidelines limiting the magnitude of the forfeiture, stating “the government erroneously seeks to multiply the maximum fine by each of twenty-three counts of conviction for violations of the Lacey Act. That’s not how the guidelines work.”

He stated “a forfeiture sanction of $2,000,000+ in assets accords well with Rafael’s suggested $2,800,000 cash forfeiture. Rafael, of course, would agree to this cash forfeiture in a last ditch effort to save his fleet entire and, apparently, sell it as a whole. The government will not agree- it seeks the forfeiture of actual Vessels and Permits.”

He also noted that he “stayed away from the ‘Athena’ and the ‘Hera II’ because they have scalloping permits and scalloping is not involved in this wrong doing.”

The following summary is taken from the text of the order. The full order is available here.

The government sought forfeiture of 13 fishing vessels and permits.

Rafael owns the “Athena” outright and has a one—half interest in the remainder of the fleet. Based on the current market, the estimated gross value of the Vessels and Permits is approximately $30,000,000 and there are approximately $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 in liens and attachments on the Vessels and Permits, reducing the value of the Vessels and Permits to approximately $27,000,000 – $28,000,000.

The relevant statute mandates forfeiture.

Because Rafael violated the Lacey Act, and conspired to violate the Act, this Court must order forfeiture to the extent permitted by the Constitution.

The Eighth Amendment provides: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

The court found:
1. Rafael falls into the class of persons to which the criminal statute was principally directed.
2. The requested forfeiture would not deprive Rafael of his livelihood.
3. The harm caused by the defendant was substantial.

After carefully calculating the sentencing guidelines as required by law, the Court derived a guideline range of not less than 51 nor more than 63 months imprisonment, a fine range of $20,000-$200,000, restitution of $108,929 supervised release from one to three years, and a mandatory special assessment of $2,800 ($100 on each of the 28 counts of conviction).

Following the principles set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), with specific emphasis on the need for specific and general deterrence in light of Rafael’s extensive flouting of the fishery reporting regulations and the harm it caused, this Court sentenced him to 46 months in custody, three years of supervised release (with a special condition barring him from the fishing industry), a special assessment of $2,800, and a fine of $200,000, the maximum guideline fine provided for Rafael’s adjusted offense level.

…This Court in order to carry out the Congressional mandate must decree forfeiture to the full extent permitted by the Eighth Amendment. …the guidepost is relatively clear; the forfeiture must not be grossly disproportionate to the maximum fine under the sentencing guidelines.

The government erroneously seeks to multiply the maximum fine by each of twenty-three counts of conviction for violations of the Lacey Act. That’s not how the guidelines work.

United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998) makes clear that a forfeiture of 70 times the maximum fine is grossly disproportionate, nothing in United States v. Jose, 499 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 2007) suggests that 4 times the maximum guidelines fine is the outer limit of proportionality.

The Court, accepting the appraisals and listing of permits found in Rafael’s Opposition to Forfeiture, Exhibit — seeks to maximize, within constitutional limits, the number of vessels and permits to be forfeited. I have stayed away from the “Athena” and the “Hera II” because they have scalloping permits and scalloping is not involved in this wrong doing.

By adhering to our present quasi-determinate form of sentencing Congress has at the same time limited its largely unfettered legislative power in the premises by delegating to the Sentencing Commission the power to set fine ranges and, by extension, the permissible scope of constitutional forfeiture. Moreover, a forfeiture sanction of $2,000,000+ in assets accords well with Rafael’s suggested $2,800,000 cash forfeiture. Rafael, of course, would agree to this cash forfeiture in a last ditch effort to save his fleet entire and, apparently, sell it as a whole. The government will not agree- it seeks the forfeiture of actual Vessels and Permits.

Accordingly, Carlos Rafael shall forfeit all right, title and interest he may have in the “Bull Dog” ($661,3505 – 8 permits), the “Olivia & Rafaela” ($458,550 – 11 permits), the “Lady Patricia” ($338,800 — 4 permits), and the “Southern Crusader II” ($800,150 – 11 permits), i.e. four fish boats with a total appraised value for Rafael’s interest of $2,258,850 and 34 permits.

NCFC Members Bring Concerns of Commercial Fishermen to House Hearing on Fisheries Bills

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – September 26, 2017 – Members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities testified this morning at a hearing of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans on four bills that would modify federal fisheries management.

Jon Mitchell, mayor of the nation’s top-grossing fishing port New Bedford, Massachusetts and head of the New Bedford Harbor Development Commission, and Mike Merrifield, Fish Section Chairman of the Southeastern Fisheries Association (SFA) testified on the needs of commercial fishermen and reforms they would like to see to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Mayor Mitchell and Mr. Merrifield were joined by several other witnesses, including Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries Chris Oliver, who testified on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the possibility of allowing additional flexibility in stock rebuilding. Earlier this year, commercial fishermen from around the country united to support Mr. Oliver’s appointment to NOAA.

At this morning’s hearing, the subcommittee considered two bills to amend and reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as well as bills that would alter recreational fisheries and red snapper management.

While Mayor Mitchell called the Magnuson-Stevens Act “generally speaking…a success story” that has helped make America’s fisheries “at once among the world’s largest and most sustainable,” he called for more flexibility in fisheries management to allow fishermen to catch their full scientifically justified quota. In particular, he criticized the ten-year rebuilding requirement for overfished stocks.

“The ten-year rule is arbitrary, and its establishment was at odds with the underlying premise of regional management,” Mayor Mitchell said. “Regional councils should have the flexibility to set rebuilding timelines for stocks under their jurisdiction based on the unique biological and ecological conditions, and by giving appropriate weight to the economic wellbeing of fishing communities.”

The mayor was also critical of the Antiquities Act, by which presidents can designate large national monuments with little or no input from scientists and local stakeholders. The Act was recently used to create and enlarge several marine monuments, including the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument in New England and the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument in Hawaii.

“The continued use of a parallel process outside the Magnuson-Stevens Act, however well-meaning, ultimately works against the long-term interests of all stakeholders,” Mayor Mitchell said. “We all lose when the checks and balances employed in the council process are abandoned. A decision-making process driven by the simple assertion of executive branch authority ultimately leaves ocean management decisions permanently vulnerable to short-term political considerations.”

Mr. Merrifield voiced skepticism of efforts to shift federally managed species over to state management, saying that states manage many fisheries in such a way that recreational fishermen get most or, in some cases, all of the fish.

“SFA firmly believes there should be no reward for exceeding [annual catch limits] and that all stakeholders – commercial, for-hire and private anglers – should each be held accountable for their impacts on our nation’s fish resources,” Mr. Merrifield testified. “We must resist changes to the law that could be interpreted to remove this accountability.”

Mr. Merrifield also testified about the SFA’s strong opposition to the RED SNAPPER Act, introduced by Rep. Garret Graves of Louisiana, which would give states more authority over red snapper management.

“The justification [for this legislation] is built entirely on the misconception that anglers can only fish for red snapper for 3 days (now 39 days) in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico,” Mr. Merrifield said. “This is a false narrative. Anglers can fish 365-days per year for red snapper and all of the other 38 species in the Gulf reef fish complex. They can only kill red snapper on 3 (or 39) of those days. To be clear, there is unlimited fishing opportunity for recreational anglers in the federal waters of the Gulf which calls into question the actual need for, and defense of, this legislation.”

Read Mayor Mitchell’s full testimony here

Read Mr. Merrifield’s full testimony here

East and West Coast NCFC Members Testify on Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization at Senate Hearing

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — September 12, 2017 — Two members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) testified before a key Senate Subcommittee today on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The hearing was convened by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, and was the third in a series of hearings on the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Lori Steele, Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association

Lori Steele, Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association based out of Oregon, and Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association based out of New Jersey, discussed the state of U.S. fishery laws and the needs of commercial fishermen.

In written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee, Ms. Steele said in part:

“Based on my prior experience with the New England Council and currently with the seafood industry on the West Coast, I feel confident the next MSA reauthorization can build on lessons learned from our past experiences in order to truly fulfill one of the fundamental and original goals of the MSA, emphasized in National Standard 1, the Act’s guiding principle – to prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery. From its beginning, the MSA has conserved, protected, rebuilt, and sustained marine resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). As we move forward with this next reauthorization, we have an opportunity to better conserve, protect, and sustain the people, the economies, the culture, and the communities that rely upon healthy and abundant fisheries.”

Read Ms. Steele’s full testimony here

In written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee, Mr. DiDomenico said in part:

“We believe there are four main threats to the domestic fishing industry that are consistent with the concerns of this Subcommittee. They are as follows: (1) the status of the implementation of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), specifically the 2006 Amendments which were interpreted to be overly precautionary and limit management flexibility; (2) the growing efforts of the environmental industry to curtail commercial fishing access via use of the Antiquities Act, National Marine Sanctuary designations, and marine planning created pursuant to the National Ocean Policy; (3) the chronic inability to estimate and manage recreational fishing mortality; and (4) the potential for unfair implementation of catch shares.”

Read Mr. DiDomenico’s full testimony here

Saving Seafood Adds Civil Comments to Our Posts

August 10, 2017 (Saving Seafood) — WASHINGTON — Many news sites’ comment sections have devolved into miserable places for conversation on the internet. Online insults and internet trolling has become endemic, and even the target of an ongoing storyline on South Park. Because we don’t have the staff to monitor comments, until now, Saving Seafood has not included comment sections in our posts. But in our current regulatory and political climate, the fishing community should have a public place to discuss the issues we confront, and one that is relatively safe from trolls and bots.

So beginning today, we are adding commenting on Saving Seafood posts, using a service called Civil Comments. The system is unique and one we think will create a lively and engaging community that we hope you’ll join. With Civil Comments, you’ll be asked to rate the civility of several other comments from the site — and then your own comment — before you’re allowed to submit it. This kind of crowdsourced moderation is a unique way to try to ensure higher quality comments without the heavy hands of moderators deleting offending posts. Once you start commenting, and rating others’ posts, the machine-learning algorithms will get to know our commenters, and its ability to weed out trolls and spam will gradually improve. The system is programmed to quickly detect attempts to game the system by voting disingenuously on others’ posts.

Here are some questions and answers about the new system, from the Civil Comments FAQ page:

Why do I have to rate other people’s posts?
Internet comments can be a place for spirited, meaningful debate about all kinds of topics. All too often, though, they turn into a festering garbage fire of harassment, abuse, and spam. Computer algorithms aren’t yet good enough to accurately determe meaning from free text, but human beings are great at it! To help keep your community civil and respectful (and free of annoying spam), we ask that commenters pitch in by helping with moderation. Over time, with proven civility and trust, this rating system becomes opt-in, as a reward for qualified commenters.

How do you keep people from gaming the system? Won’t users just vote down posts they disagree with? What if the majority votes down minority opinions, even if they’re civil?
We were worried about this, too! It’s why we put tons of thought, care, and effort into designing the backend algorithms that analyze the reviews, to prevent bias. Having a “civil” comments section doesn’t mean a groupthink echo chamber. Each comment is reviewed by multiple people, and we pool and analyze those reviews to check for patterns of abuse. We also use that data to help decide who sees which comments for review, and we anonymize veteran commenters to prevent bias against specific users. So far, it’s been working well! One great finding has been how rare the attempts at cheating/gaming the system actually are. We’ve found that the overwhelming majority of people actually vote in good faith, so +1 for humanity. With Civil Comments®, people are attacking ideas, instead of each other.

What do you mean by “good” comments vs. “civil” comments?
For each comment, we first ask the reviewer, “is this a good comment?” Here, “good” means whatever you, personally, think is “good.” Does the comment contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way? Maybe it’s funny or insightful, or you just agree with it. If you have no opinion on a comment’s quality, you can choose the middle option of “Sorta” or “Somewhat”. If you really think the comment is bad—off-topic, poorly-reasoned, or you just don’t agree with it—you can choose the “No” option. Answers to this first question don’t affect whether or not a comment is published, but they do contribute to the way comments are ranked when sorted by “Highest Rated” (along with “likes” received).

The second question our system asks is, “Is it civil?” A civil comment can still be angry and passionate, but cannot include threats, personal attacks, name-calling, racial slurs, doxxing/de-anonymizing (revealing personal information about another commenter, including their real name, home address, phone number, etc.) and obvious spam.

Think about what would be considered “rude” in real life; it’s a good guideline for what we mean by “uncivil.”

Isn’t this censorship? What about free speech?
The first amendment guarantees that no one can be thrown in jail for what they say. We’re strong believers in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but our stance can be summarized by the old adage, “my right to extend my fist ends where your face begins.” Spam, personal attacks, harassment, abuse, and even death threats are so common in comment sections that many sites are just turning comments off entirely, which effectively silences everyone. Sites that do keep comment sections open need to be constantly vigilant, with staff policing the rampant bad behavior and deleting spam. Since comment sections clearly do need moderation, we think it’s far more fair for your comment to be judged by several of your peers—the people with whom you share the community—than by a single moderator, who is separated from the community and typically employed by the site.

Why don’t sites just hire moderators?
Most publications just don’t have the time and/or resources to hire moderators to monitor the comments 24/7. A few very large sites have full-time staffs dedicated to this, but some spend over $1 million per year on moderation, and still must limit the number of comments they publish, due to staffing constraints. With traditional moderation, each comment is only be seen by one person, where it receives one pass/fail grade. With Civil Comments, each comment is judged by several people. Our patent-pending Behavior Engine then analyzes those judgments and attempts to account and correct for bias and people trying to cheat the system.

Despite all of your safeguards, I saw some spam/harassment/abuse in the comments!
Oh, no! Our system works really well so far, but it’s still new and improving. Sometimes uncivil things will slip through the cracks—that’s why the we have a flag button! If you see anything that qualifies as abuse, harassment, or spam, you can flag it to notify publication staff. Keep in mind that flagging without valid reason will have a negative impact on a user’s trust rating, though, and their flags will cease to “count.” So, please only flag if the comment is truly problematic!

Interior Secretary Zinke Moving Dozens of Senior Interior Officials in Shake-Up

June 16, 2017 — The following is an except from a story published today in the Washington Post:

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is reassigning top career officials within his ranks, a shake-up that appears to be the start of a broad reorganization of a department that manages one-fifth of all land within the United States.

The decision to move members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) is only legally permitted after a political appointee has been in office for 120 days; Zinke won’t reach that mark until June 28. But the letters that three dozen or more Interior officials got Thursday night — one of which was obtained by The Washington Post — provides them with 15 days notice of their job change. The notice means their reassignments could take place at the earliest date that’s legally permissible.

An official with the Senior Executives Association, which represents 6,000 of the government’s top leaders, said the reassignments at Interior could involve as many as 50 people.

The shake-up comes two weeks before agencies across the government must submit initial plans to the White House showing how they intend to reorganize, reduce their workforce, assess which programs are necessary and look for changes that save money.

While the exact number of Interior letters sent was not immediately clear Friday, the push appears much broader than what both Republican and Democratic administrations have pursued in the past. Administrations usually wait until the Senate has confirmed appointees that oversee individual agencies within a department; at this point, Zinke remains Interior’s only Senate-confirmed appointee.

The officials who received notices include Interior’s top climate policy official, Joel Clement, who directs the Office of Policy Analysis, as well as at least five senior Fish and Wildlife Service officials — nearly a quarter of that agency’s career SES staff. Among the Fish and Wildlife officials are the assistant director for international affairs, Bryan Arroyo; the southwest regional director, Benjamin Tuggle; and the southeast regional director, Cindy Dohner.

Other moves include the transfer of BLM New Mexico state director Amy Lueders to Fish and Wildlife and the reassignment of Bureau of Indian Affairs Director Weldon “Bruce” Loudermilk, Acting Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs Michael S. Black and Acting Special Trustee for American Indians Debra L. DuMontier.

Read the full story at The Washington Post

Authors of New Research on Forage Fish Respond to Critiques from Lenfest Task Force

June 5, 2017 — The following was written by authors of a new paper on forage fish that found that previous research likely overestimated the impact of forage fishing. The piece addresses criticisms made by the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force. The authors are Dr. Ray Hilborn, Dr. Ricardo O. Amoroso, Dr. Eugenia Bogazzi, Dr. Ana M. Parma, Dr. Cody Szuwalski, and Dr. Carl J. Walters:

First we note that the press releases and video related to our paper (Hilborn et al. 2017) were not products of the authors or their Universities or agencies. Some of the authors were interviewed for the video, and each of us must be prepared to defend what was said on the video. The LENFEST Task Force authors criticize our statement in the video that:

“What we found is there was essentially no relationship between how many forage fish there are in the ocean and how well predators do in terms of whether the populations increase or decrease.”

Our paper was specifically about U.S. forage fish, where we found very few relationships that were stronger than one might expect by chance. It is certainly likely that there are places where there is a significant relationship, but we noted that the LENFEST report did not include any analysis of the empirical data and relied only on models. Our point is that the models used by the LENFEST Task Force assume there will always be such a relationship, whereas in many, and perhaps most cases there may be little if any impact of fishing forage fish on the abundance of their predators. The scientific literature suggests that central place foragers, such as seabirds and pinnipeds at their breeding colonies, may be exceptions, and we acknowledge as much in our paper (p. 2 of corrected proofs, paragraph starting at the bottom of first column).

Specific response to the “shortcomings” of our study listed in the LENFEST Task Force response

We included species not considered by the LENFEST Task Force to be “forage fish.” We simply looked for harvested fish and invertebrate populations that were an important part (> 20%) of the diet of the predators, and thus we would argue that our analysis is appropriate and relevant to the key question: “Does fishing the major prey species of marine predators affect their abundance?”
The LENFEST Task Force authors criticize our use of estimates of abundance of forage fish provided by stock assessment models, and then suggest that because these models were not designed to identify correlations between predators and prey we were committing the same error that the LENFEST Task Force did, using models for a purpose they were not designed for. This is wrong: the stock assessment models are designed to estimate the abundance of fish stocks and the estimates of forage species we used to examine correlations with predators were considered the best available estimates at the time of the analysis. Similarly, the stock assessment models used for the predatory fish species represent the best available estimate of the abundance, and rate of change in abundance, of these predators. We did not claim the stock assessment models told us anything directly about the relationship between forage abundance and predator rates of change. We simply asked “Is there any empirical relationship between forage species abundance and either the abundance or rate of change in abundance of their predators?” The answer, with very few exceptions, was “no.”
The LENFEST Task Force authors criticize our use of U.S. fisheries because they are better managed than the global average. Most of the key criticisms we made of the LENFEST study were unrelated to how fisheries are managed, but to the basic biological issues: recruitment variation, weak relationship between spawning biomass and recruitment, relative size of fish taken by predators and the fishery and the importance of local density of forage fish to predators rather than total abundance of the stock. U.S. fisheries are not only better managed, but also often better researched, so U.S. fisheries are a good place to start examining the biological assumptions of the models used by the LENFEST Task Force.
We did not argue that fisheries management does not need to change – instead we argued that general rules such as the LENFEST Task Force’s recommendation to cut fishing mortality rates to half of the levels associated with maximum sustainable yield for “most forage fisheries now considered well managed” (LENFEST Summary of New Scientific Analysis) are not supported by sound science. Our analysis suggests that there’s little empirical evidence that such a policy will increase predatory fish abundance. Instead, every case needs to be examined individually and management decisions should weigh the costs (economic, social, and ecological) of restricting forage fisheries to levels below MSY against the predicted benefits, while accounting for uncertainty in both. Our abstract concludes “We suggest that any evaluation of harvest policies for forage fish needs to include these issues, and that models tailored for individual species and ecosystems are needed to guide fisheries management policy.”
Essington and Plagányi feel we incorrectly characterized their paper. We simply rely on the words from the abstract of their paper. “We find that the depth and breadth with which predator species are represented are commonly insufficient for evaluating sensitivities of predator populations to forage fish depletion. We demonstrate that aggregating predator species into functional groups creates bias in foodweb metrics such as connectance.” Carl Walters, one of our co-authors and the person who conceived and built the EcoSim model certainly agrees that the models the LENFEST Task Force used were insufficient for the task they attempted.

Moving forward

We agree that the next steps are to move beyond U.S. fisheries and we are doing so. We have current projects doing a global analysis of relationships between forage fish abundance and the population dynamics of their predators. We have an almost complete review of recruitment patterns in forage fish stocks. We are doing specific case studies of other regions with models explicitly designed to evaluate the impact on predators of fishing forage fish. Finally, we are exploring alternative management strategies for forage fish, considering alternative recruitment patterns, across a range of case studies. We hope that many of the authors of the LENFEST report will collaborate with us in these efforts.

Sustainable Shark Alliance, Southeastern Fisheries Association Applaud Florida Law Cracking Down on Illegal Shark Finning

May 25, 2017 — The following was released today by the Sustainable Shark Alliance and the Southeastern Fisheries Association:

The Sustainable Shark Alliance (SSA) and the Southeastern Fisheries Association (SFA) applaud the State of Florida, Governor Rick Scott, and the Florida Legislature for passing a new law strengthening prohibitions against the illegal act of shark finning. The bill was passed unanimously by both chambers of the Florida Legislature and signed into law yesterday by Gov. Scott. It will take effect beginning in October.

The legislation raises existing fines and penalties for shark finning, which has been illegal under federal law for decades, and codifies a Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission rule prohibiting this practice. Anyone caught removing shark fins before the shark has been landed at the dock will be subject to escalating punitive measures, such as fines and suspended permits, that culminate in a loss of all Florida fishing license privileges for a third offense.

“The SSA is grateful to Florida’s lawmakers for taking an approach that both protects sharks and allows law-abiding fishing families to continue to earn a living,” said Shaun Gehan, an attorney for the SSA. “This is the right way to eliminate shark finning and promote shark conservation. While some have proposed measures that would totally eliminate the sustainable harvest of sharks, Florida is showing why U.S. shark fisheries continue to be the gold standard around the globe.”

As originally introduced, the bill would have completely eliminated the sale and trade of shark fins in Florida. But after industry and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission presented facts about how Florida’s commercial fishermen responsibly land and harvest sharks, the bill was altered to specifically target those engaged in illegal shark finning. It was introduced in the Florida Senate by Sen. Travis Hutson, where it passed 39-0, and in the Florida House by Reps. Joe Gruters and Alex Miller, where it passed 115-0.

“This bill started out bad but ended up good, because lawmakers listened to their constituents and listened to the science,” said SFA Executive Director Bob Jones. “Our commercial fishermen catch the whole shark in a process that is rigorous and transparent. We despise anyone that would take any kind of animal and cut part of it off and just throw the rest away. That’s immoral and that’s wrong.”

About the Sustainable Shark Alliance

The Sustainable Shark Alliance (SSA) is a coalition of shark fishermen and seafood dealers that advocates for sustainable U.S. shark fisheries and supports healthy shark populations. The SSA stands behind U.S. shark fisheries as global leaders in successful shark management and conservation.

About the Southeastern Fisheries Association

The Southeastern Fisheries Association (SFA) is a Florida-based nonprofit trade association founded by a core group of fish dealers in 1952. The SFA defends, protects, and enhances the commercial fishing industry in the Southeastern United States while maintaining healthy and sustainable stocks of fish.

SCeMFiS Announces $200,000 for Fisheries Management Research on Mammals, Menhaden, Ocean Quahogs, Surf Clams

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – May 23, 2017 – The Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCeMFiS) Industry Advisory Board (IAB) announced $200,000 in funding today for seven fisheries research projects and marine mammal-related work. The funding was approved during the Spring IAB Meeting held in Ocean Springs, Mississippi from April 26-27.

The selected projects will research species such as menhaden, ocean quahogs, surf clams, and marine mammals. They will also address critical management issues related to how fisheries managers conduct and implement stock assessments. Grant recipients include researchers from the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory at the University of Southern Mississippi (USM), the School for Marine Science and Technology at UMass Dartmouth (SMAST), the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at the College of William & Mary (VIMS), and the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES).

“The projects, both shellfish and finfish, that have been funded by SCeMFiS have already shown positive results in contributing to the ‘Best Science’ available,” said Guy Simmons, Vice President of Marketing and Product Development at Sea Watch International and Chairman of the IAB, in a SCeMFiS release. “I believe the success of the past four years has been validated by new membership recruitment and the acceptance of the science from management agencies. I am especially proud of the work that went into the development and approval of our seven new research projects.”

SCeMFiS is sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF) through its Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers Program, which matches industry, government and other organizations with relevant academic specialists. The SCeMFiS IAB is composed of members of the shellfish and commercial finfish industries and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts.

“As participants in the Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog fisheries, many of its stakeholders have been involved in cooperative research with the goal of reducing uncertainty in the fisheries management plan for many years,” said Mr. Simmons. “Since the formation of SCeMFiS, these efforts have been dramatically enhanced by the involvement of all the members as well as the guidance from the National Science Foundation.”

The IAB will review funded projects at its next meeting in Cape May, New Jersey October 31-November 1. A full list of SCeMFiS research projects already underway can be found online here.

Descriptions of the seven new research projects, provided by SCeMFiS, are below:

Risk-Based Catch Advice

Evaluation of Alternative Approaches to Risk-Based Catch Advice – this project will review and evaluate methods applied by Scientific and Statistical Committees of regional fishery management councils to evaluate forecast error and improve optimal yield within an appropriate consideration of uncertainty and risk. Principal Investigator: Steve Cadrin, UMass Dartmouth [SMAST]

Stock Assessment

Stock Assessment Team – the stock assessment team will provide external support to NMFS for benchmark assessment working groups with a focus in 2017 on the Atlantic mackerel assessment. Principal Investigator: Eric Powell, USM

Marine Mammals

Independent Advisory Team for Marine Mammal Assessments – Phase V – this team addresses uncertainties in slow growing marine mammal populations and the interactions between marine mammals and fishing operations. Principal Investigator: Paula Moreno, USM.

Atlantic Menhaden

Evaluation of Sampling Adequacy for Atlantic Menhaden Fisheries – this project will evaluate the current Atlantic sampling program for the characterization of menhaden fishery catch leading to recommendations designed to increase sampling efficiency. Principal Investigators: Geneviève Nesslage, UMCES & Robert Leaf, USM

Ocean Quahog

Ocean Quahog Population Dynamics: Validation of Estimation Procedures for an Age-at-Length Key – this study builds on previous work that developed the first population age frequencies for the U.S. stock by developing and testing approaches for deriving age-at-length keys from sparse datasets. Principal Investigators: Eric Powell, USM & Roger Mann, VIMS
Ocean Quahog Population Dynamics: Population Modeling to Interpret Population Age Frequencies – this project will develop a population dynamics model to explain observed changes in abundance at age over the past 250 yr since ocean quahogs first colonized their present Mid-Atlantic range. Principal Investigator: Eric Powell, USM

Surf Clams

Survey of Surf Clams (Spisula solidissima) Southeast of Nantucket – this will be the first survey of a region providing substantial surfclam catch to determine the need to expand the NMFS stock survey and to evaluate the distribution of complex habitat within the Great South Channel Habitat Management Area. Principal Investigators: Roger Mann, VIMS & Eric Powell, USM

Read a release from SCeMFiS here