Fishing Industry Alerts

On Saving Seafood Radio, Dr. Victor Restrepo discusses new research refuting claims from a commonly cited study alleging that the world's oceans have lost more than 90 percent of their large predatory fish.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Saving Seafood) — October 31, 2013 — In this installment of Saving Seafood Radio, Dr. Victor Restrepo, Senior Vice President of Science at the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), discusses new research refuting claims from a commonly cited study alleging that the world's oceans have lost more than 90 percent of their large predatory fish, including tuna. The conclusive analysis is the work of Dr. Maria José Juan-Jordá, a researcher who recently completed her Ph.D. at the Universidade da Coruña in Galicia, Spain. Dr. Restrepo presided over the presentation and defense of Dr. Juan-Jordá's dissertation.

By collecting stock assessment results from 26 populations of tuna and tuna-like species from around the world, Dr. Juan-Jordá was able to conduct a thorough analysis of tuna’s global biomass. While some environmental groups have long embraced a statistic indicating that 90 percent of the global biomass of tuna has vanished, Dr. Juan-Jordá’s dissertation concludes that this decline is actually closer to 50 percent, a figure that tuna fisheries scientists, like Dr. Restrepo, have long considered to be a more accurate estimate.

Dr. Restrepo explains that the 90 percent estimate, which first appeared in a 2003 paper by marine scientists Ransom A. Myers and Boris Worm, of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, Canada, extrapolated its data from longline fisheries only. What Myers and Worm did not consider was that the type of fishing gear used in these fisheries only targets a certain segment of the population, particularly the larger fish. By failing to account for the complexity of tuna fisheries, Myers and Worm’s inaccurate hypothesis ultimately created a popular myth that affects the way these stocks are managed even today.

Some species of tuna, like Atlantic bluefin, are prized commodities within the fisheries marketplace. Weighing in at upwards of 500 pounds, a single bluefin can sell for thousands of dollars. Dr. Restrepo, who previously worked with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICATT) and served as head scientist for the NOAA delegation to ICATT, believes this new research will more accurately guide international management for highly sought bluefin and other economically important predatory species.

Listen to the full interview with Dr. Victor Restrepo

Read more about Dr. Restrepo’s work studying tuna here

What the National Research Council is saying is that an entirely new approach is needed, one that takes into account, among other things, better science including the environmental factors that sometimes have more to do with the fish than fishermen do.

October 28, 2013 — The following is an excerpt from an opinion piece by Steve Urbon, originally published in the New Bedford Standard-Times:

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — Barney Frank was in town last week and he was gloating, admittedly gloating, over a National Research Council report that basically told fishing regulators that they've been doing it all wrong.

Well, not ALL wrong, but wrong enough that the former congressman feels vindicated in his criticism of how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries does its business.

"Gloating is one of the few pleasures that get better with old age," Frank told a meeting of the fledgling Center for Sustainable Fisheries, a new pro-fishing lobbying group organized by former New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang. "I don't have to take a pill before, during or after."

OK, let's not get ahead of ourselves here.

What we have here is a golden opportunity. This report about how NOAA manages fish has been percolating for what, three or four years? Former NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco ordered up this study to deflect the hailstorm of criticism she endured following the catch shares and sector management scheme started strangling the Northeast groundfishery.

…

Here's where the opportunity lies. Magnuson calls for a strict 10-year rebuilding plan for every fish stock in the ocean. It's like the fishing version of the No Child Left Behind Act. Even the proponents knew it was impossible, but the optics were good, as the saying goes.

Just as there was no way to get 100 percent of our children to be proficient in English, Science and Math by 2014, there was also no way NOAA could rebuild every species in the fisheries on a strict schedule. Even trying to do that was bound to cause unnecessary pain and dislocation.

We can see it's even worse than that, with the Gloucester fishery almost extinct with people's homes lost and lives in ruins.

What the National Research Council is saying is that an entirely new approach is needed, one that takes into account, among other things, better science including the environmental factors that sometimes have more to do with the fish than fishermen do.

It has to be flexible, not rigid.

But with NOAA, it's been like the old saying about a guy with a hammer. Ask for help from a guy with a hammer and he's probably going to use the hammer.

Using the hammer of quota cutbacks on fishermen is popular with the well-fed eco-lobbying groups such as the Pew or the Conservation Law Foundation. In fact, when fisheries managers pound fishermen on the head, the eco-lobbyists complain that the hammer wasn't big enough.

And yet, the policy of cut, cut, cut hasn't worked, and everyone knows it. NOAA even admits it.

Read the full opinion piece from Steve Urbon at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Read Saving Seafood's previous coverage of the National Research Council study

Read the full study from the National Research Council 

His data indicates that once fishing mortality rates are reduced sufficiently, depleted populations tend to rebound, as long as environmental factors are not contributing to the decline.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — October 23, 2013 — In this installment of Saving Seafood Radio, Dr. Olaf P. Jensen, assistant professor at the Rutgers University Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, discusses research from his global fisheries research database that dispels misconceptions that depleted stocks cannot recover.
 
The RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database, which was rolled out in 2012 by Dr. Jensen and fisheries scientists at the University of Washington and Dalhousie University, offers detailed information on the global estimated abundance of fish stocks and fishing levels over time. Dr. Jensen has used this collection of information to examine the effectiveness of fisheries management techniques, including the impacts of the catch shares program.

His data indicates that once fishing mortality rates are reduced sufficiently, depleted populations tend to rebound, as long as environmental factors are not contributing to the decline. This research sheds new light on the resiliency of fish populations and contradicts the notion that stocks reach a "point of no return" from overfishing.

Using the tools developed by Dr. Jensen, fisheries scientists around the world are able to access and contribute to the stock assessment database. Now scientists who are examining a particular stock can use data from similar fisheries in other parts of the world to guide their research. Dr. Jensen's efforts will hopefully improve future stock assessments and collaborative research efforts on a global scale.
 
Listen to the full interview with Dr. Olaf Jensen
 
Read more about Dr. Jensen's work in this article that appeared in the Providence Journal
 

Less than a year into the implementation of the first ever catch limits imposed on the Atlantic menhaden fishery, the state of New York has placed the entire regulatory effort in flux by deciding to not enforce its share of landing limit on the fish.

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) by Christian Bourge — October 24, 2013:

While New York's appointees backed the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) imposed regulations in December 2012, public records and conversations with state officials raise questions about why New York fishery management officials did so given their problems with the validity of their own state-collected landings data on which the regulatory limits are based, and if state-level compliance under the current regulatory model was intended.
 
Jim Gilmore, Director of Marine Resources at the New York state Department of Environmental Conservation and an ASMFC representative for the state, has cited the state's poor landings data as the reason for the move, telling New York's Newsday that the resulting limit was too low and would result in a shutdown of the state's menhaden bait catch in just a few weeks.
 
"We're not going to start managing a fishery on data we know is wrong," Gilmore told the newspaper. 

The move to not enforce menhaden limits raises the possibility of a federal blockade of New York's menhaden fisheries for violating the mandated limits, as well as the highly controversial potential of the ASMFC adjusting catch limits in waters across the eastern United States before a mandated 2014 scientific review of Atlantic stocks even gets underway. That review is part of regulatory structure established less than twelve months ago and largely understood to be open only to future change in connection with such reviews.

The New York Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) spokesman, Lori Severino, told Saving Seafood that Gilmore was unable to comment on the matter and did not respond to a request to interview Commissioner Joseph Martens, who oversees the agency. But Pat Augustine, appointed to the ASMFC by New York's governor, confirmed the state's data problem, adding that he pushed back against the broad state-by-state 20 percent reduction before ultimately backing regulations that state officials hoped would be modified with updated landings data.

"My understanding is that New York has requested a delay in us getting allocated what we were allocated in the first place because the recorded data had not been up to date and there was a massive undertaking at the DEC to get what fisherman had up to date," said Augustine. "My understanding is that New York has every intention to follow the plan that we agreed to."

Nevertheless, according to the published minutes from a March 12, 2013 meeting of the state's Marine Resources Advisory Council (NYSMRAC), which advises the NYSDEC on fishery issues, and at which Mr. Augustine was in attendance, Gilmore said that the state had "hoped to be excluded from the [menhaden] requirement," and further notes that among those in attendance, "the general consensus is that New York MUST dodge this bullet."

New York's limit, which represents a 20 percent reduction of the state's reported menhaden landings from 2009-2011, is proportionally equal to that imposed on all Atlantic state menhaden fisheries. Their decision to not follow the regulations follows adoption of the limits in other states where small bait fisherman balked at the 20 percent reduction in allowed menhaden catch. Maryland, for instance, approved the move in August with regulators making the effective argument to state legislators conducting oversight on the issue that noncompliance would allow the U.S. Commerce Department to shut down menhaden fishing in the state completely, although that is being challenged in court by local bait fisherman.

The ASMFC's Menhaden Management Board has yet to discuss the matter, but New York's noncompliance could be an issue during its annual meeting next week on St. Simon's Island, Georgia on October 28.

ASMFC Executive Director Robert E. Beal confirmed the Commerce Department's power under law to shut down the New York menhaden fishery as one of the many potential responses, but dismissed this as a possibility, confirming that New York had "a while ago" notified the Commission about issues with its landings data that they were working to correct.
 
"It's hard to impossible for me to predict what the Board will do with this information," Beal told Saving Seafood. "New York will make the case as to how they manage. The managers need to sit down and see how, if, and what course corrections may be needed."
 
He added that issues related to landings levels were not unexpected and improved data would be needed, in some cases requiring the menhaden board to revisit the limits and, "work through state situations such as New York."

"When the Commissioners developed Amendment 2 [of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden], they knew the data for the bait landings was not completed and there were a lot of states that had significantly underdeveloped bait landings [data]," said Beal. "Everyone realizes that this is a whole new way of managing menhaden. The Board is going to work and try and figure out the best way to handle this. It's going to be a process."

Should an allocation adjustment of catch levels become part of the response to New York's decision, the specter of inter-industry conflict, particularly between the menhaden bait and reduction fisheries, looms large.

What that process may mean is already of issue to some industry stakeholders. Omega Protein's spokesman, Ben Landry, said that making near-term changes to the menhaden regulations violates not only the spirit but also the design of the regulations. Omega Protein is the largest menhaden fishing company on the East Coast and the only member of the reduction fishery. Landry noted that the implementation of the quota was not the beginning of a design process for a menhaden fishing regulation, but a base limit subject only to future scientific-based review by way of the 2014 Atlantic menhaden benchmark stock assessment and similar future efforts.

Section 4.2 of Amendment 2 reads that while subject to annual review, the Amendment states the overall and state-level limits will, "remain in place until reviewed after the next benchmark stock assessment is completed, currently scheduled for 2014." 

In addition, given that the regulations were implemented based on claims of sound science underlying the creation of a 170,800 metric ton total allowable catch (TAC) of menhaden for 2013 and the related 20 percent reductions of each state's declared landings over the review period, being willing to adjust them so soon after initial adoption raises further questions about the validity of the science used, echoing concerns raised by critics prior to the TAC's approval.

When asked about such concerns, ASMFC Menhaden Management Board Chair Robert Boyles of South Carolina agreed with Beal that changes would be needed because of the complexity of menhaden fisheries. He also defended adoption of the Amendment 2 regulations, noting that, "there are a lot of moving parts" to the Atlantic menhaden fishery.

"I think the Commission made the best decision that they could back in December with adopting the Amendment," Boyles told Saving Seafood. "I'm not sure we're going to get it right out of the block. We do our best to make the best decisions we can with the information we have."

After reiterating that the Commission's potential actions remain impossible to predict, Beal said that Florida and other states have also indicated that they had historic landings at higher rates than previously indicated. He added that improved reporting in the stock assessment from bait fishing interests could make it appear as though landings are up, stressing that any perceived increased environmental impact has not really occurred.

"If the landings during the history periods were significantly higher than we thought they were for the bait industry, how does the Board handle that?" he asked before predicting that there will be, "some level of sympathy for incomplete data because a lot of states have that issue."

"Do they [the Menhaden Board] reallocate and give more to states for the bait fishermen and maintain the quota for the reduction fishermen?" asked Beal. "That is one scenario that I could envision how this goes."

He argued that if this was undertaken, the overall quota for reduction fishermen would stay the same because, percentage wise, they would have a smaller share of a higher TAC number.

"Their access would be the same," he said.

But Omega Protein's Landry expressed strong opposition to such a decision, calling it a destabilizing move for menhaden fishing interests as a whole.
 
"Omega Protein questions the logic of a proposal that adds quota to the existing Atlantic menhaden allocation if the Commission elects to alter the established allocation scheme," said Landry. "It is akin to throwing a life ring to one sector of the fishery but throwing an anvil to the other. For the ASMFC to adopt this strategy would be to clearly endorse picking the winners and losers of a quota rather than fair and just allocations."

NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center has opened this year's competition for scallop research grant money.

October 23, 2013 — The following is an excerpt from a story originally published by the New Bedford Standard-Times:
 
Institutions making proposals have until Dec. 2 to file them with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The science center judges the competition but gets no revenue from it. The program is financed by the set-aside of a fraction of scallop landings expressly for this purpose.

The Cooperative Research Program has existed for several years, and UMass Dartmouth's School for Marine Science and Technology typically wins several grants each year.

 
Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Marks and Spencer is developing a web-platform to guide customers around the fish aisle.

October 17, 2013  — The following is an excerpt from a story originally appearing in the Scunthorpe Telegraph of Scunthorpe, UK:
 
"The potential to enhance a reputation is huge, but the potential to damage reputation is also massive. Anyone minded to do so can start a campaign and we have a real job to do to make sure these campaigns are not about seafood integrity, or the lack of."
 
"We need to engage with consumers in the right way, we need to make the most of social media, of Facebook and Twitter, shout about positive initiatives that are going on and instill trust in our customers," said Hannah Macintyre, fisheries and aquaculture manager for the £9.5-billion retailer.

"We need to build relationships in both directions in the supply chain and understand the challenges faced on a daily basis. As an industry we need to be leading the way in integrity and make sure this time next year we are not going through our own horse meat scandal and ensure the next generation of seafood lovers."

Marks and Spencer is developing a web-platform to guide customers around the fish aisle.

"Trust is in Marks and Spencer's brand, and we need to remember that," she said. "We stock 37 different species and there will be a web-page for all of them to 'meet the fish'. People can visit the website, learn how it was caught, where it was caught, learn the Latin name and get recipe ideas. I will be really fantastic."

Marks and Spencer sells products in 766 U.K. and 418 international stores. Their Simply Food franchise partnerships sell in convenience-oriented locations including railway stations and motorway service locations. 

 
Read the full story at the Scunthorpe Telegraph

October 16, 2013  — The following was released by the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute:

Dear Colleagues:

We invite you to participate in a workshop hosted by the Massachusetts Marine Fisheries Institute (MFI) on "Reference Points and Uncertainty Buffers" on November 6-8 at the Waypoint Event Center in New Bedford (185 MacArthur Boulevard, New Bedford; http://www.eventsbylhc.com/venues/waypoint-event-center/).

The MFI is coordinating an End-to-End Review of New England Groundfish Stock Assessments, and this workshop topic was identified at a recent scoping meeting in that process (report attached).  An executive summary of the first workshop on environmental change is also attached as an example of the expected output from the second workshop.

This workshop will address the reference points and uncertainty buffers. The starting point for the workshop terms of reference (TORs) are the recommendations made by the SSC in their report on MFI’s analysis “A Report on Economic and Scientific Conditions in the Massachusetts Multispecies Groundfishery”. In order to address the SSC’s recommendations, the workshop will provide a catalog of reference points and document the effect of their utilization on the probability of overfishing and catch limits. Best practices will be developed utilizing different scenarios of data availability, and model choice. The workshop will also address the risk implications of these decisions. The workshop will document current practices relative to setting OFL-ABC buffers and address the potential costs and benefits of these buffers. The workshop will also analyze alternative methods to setting buffers and should recommend best practices.

Draft Terms of Reference

1. Evaluate the biological, social and economic risk implications of commonly used FMSY and BMSY proxies.
2. Provide guidance on the magnitude of the buffer between OFL and ABC, which is intended to take account of scientific uncertainty.
3. Provide recommendations that are relevant to the general topic.

The meetings are open to all interested parties who register by contacting Emily Keiley, ekeiley@umassd.edu, so please forward this announcement to anyone else in your organization or network who might be interested.  Please register no later than Friday, November 1st.

Please also contact me if you would like the steering group to consider a presentation of your research or your perspective for the agenda.  A more detailed agenda will be distributed to registrants in advance of the meeting.

Thanks,
Steve Cadrin

View a summary of the MFI Environmental Change Workshop

Read a MFI review of New England groundfish stock assessments

The Northeast Seafood Coalition scored a significant victory this week when it helped fight off additional fishery closures related to what it regarded as unwarranted efforts to protect the harbor porpoise.

Now, the Gloucester-based industry group is gearing up for the next potential threat to the already-reeling Northeast groundfish industry: the Habitat Omnibus Amendment.
 
"It's all about habitat," NSC executive director Jackie Odell said when asked what's next on the coalition's agenda.

And with good reason.

The crafting of the Habitat Omnibus Amendment ultimately will determine the specific areas of the ocean that will be open to fishermen in the Northeast multispecies fishery. The modifications are expected to take effect in the winter of 2015.

It is an extraordinarily complex process, now moving into its sixth year. It is heavily driven by science and varying perspective – and thus often rife with the contention and disagreement that have emerged as the hallmarks of the effort to sustain and govern the American commercial fishing industry.

The coalition has submitted its public comments to the council that, at least in part, underscore those differences. They include:

"Any habitat area considered for protecting spawning or juvenile fish should be developed for a future management action.

First, the (Closed Area Technical Team) work has appeared very late in the amendment process. There has been inadequate time for stakeholders to participate and react to these alternatives that will impose great hardship for many fishing businesses.

Second, there is serious concern with the scientific information and data being used to identify and justify such areas.

Third, in many cases, the alternatives put forth by CATT conflict with the efforts of stakeholders over the years to work closely together to craft thoughtful alternatives in the amendment."

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times    
 
Read the NSC's August 2013 letter to the NEFMC on considering alternatives to current methods of setting catch advice 
 
Read the NSC's September 2013 letter to the NEFMC outlining the NSC's position on the Habitat Omnibus Amendment