Conservation & Environment

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton (News Analysis) May 9, 2013 — After three days at the Managing our Nations Fisheries Conference in Washington DC, there is clearly no overriding fisheries reform issue that is going to get resolved quickly through new NOAA or congressional action.

This is a very positive outcome, and reflects a sense of stability about US fisheries management.
 
First, the conference was extremely well organized, and the full materials are available at the conference website: www.managingfisheries.org
 
The overall tone of the conference reflected the success that the 2006 revision of Magnuson has had in setting in place a sustainable approach to US fisheries. There was a recognition that applying harvest limits to virtually all fisheries, and implementing catch share type allocation systems in many fisheries, has had a hugely positive impact on eliminating overfishing, and on reducing bycatch and impacts on non-target species.
 
However, seven years after the 2006 bill, there are a number of things that the 8 regional management councils would like to see improved.
 
The conference did not come to any conclusions – but instead the discussions set the stage for the lobbying and back and forth with NOAA, and in Congress, that will result in updates to the National Standards – the enabling language on which the councils act – and on possible changes to the Magnuson bill when the new authorization is achieved.
 
Changes in NOAAs interpretation of the Act under their regulatory authority are likely to happen far more quickly, and with good result, that the changes to Magnuson Act itself, which will be a monumental multi-year task.
 
The following are some of the brief issue summaries and positions discussed at the conference.
 
Recreational fishing
 
There is a strong push by the recreational fishing interests to get a larger share of public fisheries resources. This came out in the following ways:
 
-a request that recreational fishing not be treated with hard caps, but with a more flexible approach to effort -a request that the status or importance of recreational fishing be upgraded in the Magnuson Stevens Act. -a request that allocations between commercial and recreational interests not be fixed, but be subject to reviews.
 
One finding is that the councils should encourage more direct discussions between sectors at the regional level, and that these allocation issues be worked out at that level without changing the national legislation or standards.
 
Expect the recreational lobby to push Congress hard for more protections in the next authorization.
 
Forage Fish
 
Pew has been working on a national campaign to try and get special protections for forage fish written into Magnuson. They say these protections would be a first step towards ecosystem management.
 
Towards this end, there was a Lenfest study of forage fish, not peer reviewed, that suggested these fish – things like herring, menhaden on the East Coast and Gulf, California sardines – have a higher economic value left in the water as prey species than fished for bait or reduction. That study called for fishing on forage fish species at half the level of other fish stocks – i.e. far below the MSY fishing level.
 
One whole session of the conference was devoted to forage fish. The outcome was that there was not a consensus to either change the law or to put forward specific measures. The counter argument was that current law and council authority was sufficient to manage these fisheries, and that no changes are needed.
 
In the final review of the sessions this morning, one of the most telling moments for me was when Lee Crockett, director of federal fisheries policy for Pew, challenged the fact that the rapporteur had not reported a consensus on the forage fish measures, but instead reported the disagreements. It was obvious that Pew had hoped that the final conference proceedings would reflect their views on forage fish – and it seems that this may not happen.
 
I interviewed Lee Crockett on this issue as well as Magnuson flexibility, and will have subsequent reports on this next week.
 
Flexibility
 
One of the key points of consensus was that all the regional councils felt they needed more flexibility in achieving the ten year rebuilding timelines mandated in the 2006 law.
 
There were a number of presentations about the disruptive effects of relying on a single assessment that could throw a previously rebuilding fishery off its timeline, and then get reversed the following year.
 
This extreme variability from year to year is one of the chief complaints in New England. The reason is that all stock surveys are in fact estimates, and produce a range of interpretation, and therefore there was a lot of support for moving to a less volatile system.
 
Ideas for this include multi-year targets for ACLs and allowing more mixed stock exemptions which would temporarily allow higher fishing rates on choke stocks in some cases, so long as the stock was not below its minimum threshold.
 
Reform of the ten year time line appears to be one of the areas of strong interest at the conference – but again this approach is opposed by Pew, which argues in a paper that changes in this direction would represent weakening of Magnuson. This will likely be a focus of the congressional fight.
 
Timing of Magnuson
 
There is no indication that reauthorization of Magnuson is on a fast track, despite the claim by Rep. Hastings on the first day that he would like to see it done this year. It is not going to happen.
 
In a kind of boilerplate speech last night, Sen. Begich from Alaska, who has jurisdiction over Magnuson in the Senate, said that there may be some regional hearings beginning this year.
 
But without any consensus on which changes are needed, and also little sense that their are urgent problems to change, these appears little possibility that Magnuson reauthorization will be taken up in earnest very soon.
 
Instead, there will be much more focus on lobbying NOAA to make improvements in how it interprets current law, including possible revisions to language of the ten national standards.
 
Certification
 
There was talk at the conference about the importance of economic stability for fisheries — both staying in their markets, and also there are some who would like to see a US type of certification. The basis of this is that a US fishery, which meets all ten national standards, would be certifiable under many criteria of sustainability, and NOAA should be promoting that.
 
Environmentalists at the conference objected, saying this would not work because the US standards apply only to the fishery – and dont take into account broader environmental or social factors – which now seem to be the new area in which private certification schemes are trying to differentiate themselves.
 
In other words, now that US fisheries are sustainable, we want to change the terms of certification to a broader definition, so that we can continue to be the only legitimate certifiers.
 
There is little support among the industry participants here for a NOAA certification, but there is a lot of support for NOAA beefing up its communications resources, and doing a much better job of communicating to the public just how successful and sustainable US fisheries have become.
 
US is not Europe
 
One other element of this, repeated in several sessions of the conference, was that the US is not Europe, and does not have the same problems.
 
First, with regard to certification and governmental failure to protect the sustainability of fisheries, the US has acted, while the private certification schemes are mostly centered in Europe where the governments have failed to act.
 
Second, with IUU fishing, Europe has a much greater problem with IUU fishing than does the US. A large portion of European tuna and sardines come from West Africa, for example, where IUU fishing is rampant.
 
The US uses only a small proportion of global wild fisheries, and the problem areas are much much less than the supply chains that go into Europe.
 
So there was some sense in the conference that the US should not be continually pushed to adopt Euro-centric solutions to problems that are far deeper and entrenched in Europe than they are in the U.S.
 
Overall this has been an extremely positive conference, and we will be reporting in more detail on specific areas – such as local control of fisheries, five year reviews of allocation decisions etc.
 
There is a definite attempt, and a legitimate one, by environmental organizations to try and set the overall agenda for NOAA fisheries – and this conference showed me that NOAA was capable of bringing together a wide range of stakeholders – and asserting their governmental role as managers, with responsibilities to promote US fisheries in a sustainable way that did not lose sight of the commercial industry they serve.

This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

 

 

May 8, 2013 — The animals have been met by many islanders with a convoluted mix of resentment and spite. This fury has led to what the government is calling a string of “suspicious deaths.” But spend a little time in Hawaii, and you come to recognize these deaths for what they are — something loaded and forbidding. A word that came to my mind was “assassination.”

The Hawaiian monk seal has wiry whiskers and the deep, round eyes of an apologetic child. The animals will eat a variety of fish and shellfish, or turn over rocks for eel and octopus, then haul out on the beach and lie there most of the day, digesting. On the south side of Kauai one afternoon, I saw one sneeze in its sleep: its convex body shuddered, then spilled again over the sand the way a raw, boneless chicken breast will settle on a cutting board. The seals can grow to seven feet long and weigh 450 pounds. They are adorable, but also a little gross: the Zach Galifianakises of marine mammals.

Monk seals are easy targets. After the Polynesians landed in Hawaii, about 1,500 years ago, the animals mostly vanished, slaughtered for meat or oil or scared off by the settlers’ dogs. But the species quietly survived in the Leeward Islands, northwest of the main Hawaiian chain — a remote archipelago, including Laysan Island, Midway and French Frigate Shoals, which, for the most part, only Victorian guano barons and the military have seen fit to settle. There are now about 900 monk seals in the Leewards, and the population has been shrinking for 25 years, making the seal among the world’s most imperiled marine mammals. The monk seal was designated an endangered species in 1976. Around that time, however, a few monk seals began trekking back into the main Hawaiian Islands — “the mains” — and started having pups. These pioneers came on their own, oblivious to the sprawling federal project just getting under way to help them. Even now, recovering the species is projected to cost $378 million and take 54 years.

As monk seals spread through the mains and flourished there, they became tourist attractions and entourage-encircled celebrities. Now when a seal appears on a busy beach, volunteers with the federal government’s “Monk Seal Response Network” hustle out with stakes and fluorescent tape to erect an exclusionary “S.P.Z.” around the snoozing animal — a “seal protection zone.” Then they stand watch in the heat for hours to keep it from being disrupted while beachgoers gush and point.

Read the full story at The New York Times 

 

 

 

 

May 8, 2013 — The following is in response to the Conservation Law Foundation's blog post, "Top Ten Reasons to Protect New England’s Closed Areas," originally published on April 12.

ANALYSIS: The Conservation Law Foundation’s (CLF) blog post, “Top Ten Reasons to Protect New England’s Closed Areas,” argues that Framework Adjustment 48, a recently approved proposal to amend some New England areas closed to fishing and provide economic support to fishing communities, will endanger “protected waters.” Instead of an alternative, CLF argues that NOAA should have rejected the proposal and maintained the closures in their present condition. But extensive analysis from the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) shows that the status quo would ultimately be more harmful to the ocean environment.

The Conservation Law Foundation overlooks three important facts:

1. The NEFMC is legally mandated to minimize the long-term adverse impacts of fishing. Backing Framework 48 is analysis from the NEFMC Habitat Plan Development Team demonstrating that these changes would benefit the overall ocean environment.

2. Many fishing gear types — including dredge gear, longlines, gill nets and mid-level trawls — are already permitted in the closed areas being reviewed. Framework 48 will only allow limited access to these already fished areas for groundfish fishermen though a strict and heavily monitored process.

3. The areas that will be updated by Framework 48 are not habitat closures — they are mortality closures, part of a replaced system of fisheries management. NOAA has acknowledged that in light of current management, these closures are now outmoded.

Habitat Will Remain Protected

CLF conflates the mortality closures under review with the ecosystem benefits of habitat closures, areas designated because of their value or unique habitat features. In doing so, CLF suggests an alarming clash of conservation vs. destruction that does not actually exist.

The middle of their list, reasons five and four, argue that habitat “helps fish adapt to warming waters” and protects “places spawning and juvenile fish were known to depend on.” But, in terms of Framework 48, those points are moot. These ecosystem benefits are not under threat, as no closures protecting important habitat (including spawning grounds) will be altered. The kelp forest in Cashes Ledge that is depicted in their post, for example, will remain closed to fishing.

Furthermore, managers remain cognizant of conservationists’ concerns for potential adverse environmental impacts. The NEFMC and NOAA are cognizant of the need to continue to protect habitat whenever any approval of an application to fish in these areas is granted. 

The suggestion that once modified, these areas would become entirely “open” is an exaggeration. These mortality closed areas already experience fishing. To mitigate any unforeseen environmental harms from groundfishermen, NOAA will require sectors to apply for access and will then assess all environmental impacts before granting entry to any of the closures. Additionally, seasonal closures will remain intact, and NOAA will retain the right to revoke access to these areas should unforeseen environmental harm occur. NOAA is also considering mandatory monitoring on all fishing vessels inside of the mortality closures.

Managers Are Taking Precautions To Protect Marine Mammals

While CLF is understandably worried about the status of the critically endangered right whale, it is unlikely that the proposed modifications to the mortality closures will negatively impact that species or other marine mammals.

When sectors apply for access, NOAA will assess any potential harm to marine mammals and endangered species. Access will not be granted if NOAA scientists think the changes will harm protected species.

Marine mammals, including right whales, are most susceptible to mid-level trawls and fixed gear fishing equipment such as drift nets and gill nets. These gear types already have access to the mortality closure areas.

CLF also presents a misleading map of “concentrated” right whale sightings inside of the closures. The map does not differentiate between mortality closures and habitat closures — leading readers to believe that the areas being considered for modification are places endangered whales frequent. But many of the areas that are dense with whale sightings are within the protected habitat closed areas. In fact, very few whale sightings have been reported in the largest of the areas being considered for updating.

Better For Fish, Better For Fishermen

The current mortality closures were enacted nearly 20 years ago with limited scientific information and under vastly different management strategies. The proposals in Framework 48 incorporate the most up-to-date science and management techniques. 

By decreasing fishing effort, Framework 48 creates a win-win scenario for fishermen and ocean habitat. In its analysis, the Council wrote: “We find that for nearly all area and gear type combinations, opening existing closed areas to fishing is predicted to decrease aggregate adverse effects.” Access to mortality closures would allow groundfishermen to catch their quotas while affecting less habitat.

Most New England groundfish fishermen (from large to small operations) run family businesses with self-owned and self-operated vessels. For many, assistance from proposals such as those included in Framework 48 is their only chance at staying in business.

May 8, 2013 — The following is an excerpt from the Blue Ocean Institute's blog post, "Reopening New England’s Closed Fishing Areas Would Be Bad For Mammals, Too," originally published on April 18.

In the early 1990’s, fisheries managers closed several fishing areas off New England. They closed these areas to help rebuild depleted fish populations of commercially important species of cod, haddock, and flounders. But these closed areas have also provided benefits for other ocean wildlife, like many of the region’s marine mammals– such as harbor porpoises, bottlenose dolphins, the endangered North Atlantic right whale, and endangered humpback whales. [If you are ever in Maine, I highly recommend going whale watching to see these magnificent creatures up close!] Unfortunately, these protections for New England’s marine mammals are now in jeopardy.

Read the full article at The Blue Ocean Institute

ANALYSIS:  Against the recommendations of some environmental groups, last week NOAA approved Framework Adjustment 48, a proposal by the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) to modify mortality closures off the coast of New England. Previous allegations suggested that the proposal would endanger marine mammals, particularly right whales.

In her online article, “Reopening New England’s Closed Fishing Areas Would Be Bad For Mammals, Too,” the Blue Ocean Institute’s Elizabeth Brown echoes these claims, stating: “We need to fully evaluate these effects before any areas are reopened.” But Framework 48 will not simply “open” these closures. The proposal only allows fishing sectors the ability to apply for access to these areas, after which, NOAA will weigh their requests against any possible environmental impacts.

In arguing that the closed area updates will endanger right whales, Ms. Brown makes several statements that are misleading, and some that are historically inaccurate.

MYTH: “[Managers] closed these areas to help rebuild depleted fish populations of commercially important species…”

Ms. Brown conflates mortality closures, which are under review for modification through Framework 48, with habitat closures, which will not be affected. Habitat closures were designated because of their value or unique habitat features that can protect fish populations. Mortality closures, on the other hand, are part of a system of fisheries management replaced two years ago that limited catch sizes by determining when, where and with what gear fishermen could operate. NOAA has acknowledged that in light of new management, these closures, which are geographically arbitrary and do not protect important fish habitat, are now outdated.

MYTH: “New England closed areas protect marine mammal habitats and provide them year-round protection from fishing”

Mortality closures were not designed to protect important habitat areas or provide any marine mammal protections. They are comprised mostly of sandy, gravelly areas of the seabed that are highly affected by currents and inhospitable to many marine species. Furthermore, these areas are not entirely closed to fishing. Many gear types — including dredge gear, longlines, gill nets and mid-level trawls — can already access these mortality closures. Habitat closures, which will not be modified under Framework 48, are the only closures that prohibit all fishing year-round. Seasonal marine mammal closures will also remain in effect.

MYTH: “Without these protected areas, fishing entanglements of marine mammals would likely occur more often”

There is little evidence that the proposed changes will have any effect on marine mammals. “These analyses are almost always qualitative. It’s very difficult to come up with any definitive answers,” said Pat Fiorelli, spokesperson for the NEFMC.

Marine mammals, including right whales, are most susceptible to entanglement by mid-level trawls and fixed gear fishing equipment like drift nets and gill nets. These gear types already have access to the mortality closure areas. Commercial groundfishermen, who primarily use bottom trawl gear, pose little added threat to mammal species by gaining access to mortality areas.

Moreover, when vessels apply for access, NOAA will evaluate each proposal individually to determine any potential risks to marine mammals. Managers have an understandably strong interest in protecting these species and will take precautions to ensure that any changes in management will not harm marine mammals or endangered species populations. 

MYTH: “Sightings of this [right whale] species show it often concentrates within several of New England’s closed areas.”

The map that Ms. Brown includes in her story fails to distinguish between mortality closures and habitat closures. The illustration implies that all of the encircled areas will be modified. But many concentrated right whale sightings lay within the habitat closures that will not be altered. In fact, the largest areas being considered by Framework 48 experienced very few whale sightings.
                   
MYTH: “[Managers are considering Framework 48 to] give New England fishermen the opportunity to catch more fish and make up for the current lack of fish in the open fishing areas.”

This statement is misleading. While the proposed changes will improve fishing capabilities, they also will correct redundant management efforts that strain the marine environment. Framework 48 enables fishermen to catch their quotas more easily by modifying the mortality closures that decrease fishing efficiency. This will allow fishermen to catch the same set amount of fish with less fishing effort — which means less stress on the marine environment. This is a win, not just for fishermen, but for habitat as well.

By asking: “Is catching a few more fish really worth that risk?” Ms. Brown misdirects attention from the current economic crisis in the New England groundfish fishery. This is not a struggle over “a few more fish.” Fishermen are only allocated a set quota of groundfish, a quantity deemed sustainable by managers, which will not change under Framework 48. By helping fishermen reach that with less fishing effort, managers are offering some much-needed relief to fishing families, as well as reducing any affects of gear on the marine environment. Fishermen and fishing communities already face severe economic uncertainty — and the situation is only expected to worsen with the allocation cuts that went into effect earlier this month. 

Concerns for marine mammals and endangered species permeate all aspects of fisheries management. Regulations are in place to protect these species against human harm, and the suggestion that managers are neglecting to consider marine mammals is unfounded. The NEFMC is legally mandated to decrease long-term adverse fishing impacts. To mitigate any unforeseen environmental harms, NOAA will require sectors to apply and gain approval for access, seasonal closures will remain intact, and NOAA will retain the right to revoke access to these areas. NOAA is also considering mandatory monitoring on all fishing vessels inside of the mortality closures. These measures will help ensure that as management moves forward, marine mammals remain protected. 

May 4, 2013 — Fish stocks off the U.S. coasts, restored to health over the past four decades by cooperation among competing interests and careful management, are threatened anew by warming and increasingly acidic waters, according to a new report and experts who are gathering in Washington this week for a conference on the future of fisheries.

The report, released Saturday by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Ocean Conservancy, hails the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and subsequent amendments for bringing commercial and recreational fishermen, marine scientists and legislators together to ensure that fish populations would be sustained.

As Congress approaches another reauthorization of the law, the report says that salmon, scallop and other sea life populations have been brought back from the brink of collapse to a healthy and sustainable state, largely through enforced catch limits.

The “domestic harvest, export, distribution, and retailing of seafood in America . . . generates more than $116 billion in sales and employs more than 1 million people,” according to the report. “Recreational fishing adds nearly $50 billion and more than 327,000 jobs to that total.”

Connie Barclay, spokeswoman for NOAA Fisheries, said that acting administrator Sam Rauch had not yet read the report but “we welcome stakeholders’ input as we move toward reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.” The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is hosting this week’s conference.

Read the full story at The Washington Post

 

 

May 6, 2013 — As the Whale SENSE Program enters its fifth year, an estimated 1 million people have been exposed to messages about responsible wildlife viewing.  However, this isn’t the only benefit of the program.  The collaborative effort involving NOAA, Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC) and 9 commercial whale watching companies along the east coast help with whale rescues, research and support educational initiatives and conservation programs.

"It is important that we respect and protect the whales that support our livelihood and that we provide an on-the-water example to other mariners of how to behave properly," said Zack Klyver, Bar Harbor Whale Watch.

Entanglement in fishing gear and collisions with vessels are the leading causes of serious whale injuries and deaths off the Northeast. To reduce risks of vessel strike, current regulations and guidelines include slow, safe speeds and required transit routes for vessels when whales are likely to be present.  Fishermen and scientists have also made changes to fishing gear and methods to reduce the chances of an animal getting entangled in the first place or make it more likely that the gear will fall away if an animal does pick it up.

Since the program began, at least 17 whale entanglements have been reported by Whale SENSE boats.  In instances where Whale SENSE partners were standing by, rescuers were able to more quickly find and help distressed animals.

 “Cape May is the second largest commercial fishery on the East Coast and is a huge tourist destination,” said Tracie Cicchitti, The Starlight Fleet and Cape May Whale Watch and Research Center. “We are proud to be a Whale SENSE member. Being able to educate our passengers and pass on safe boating practices around marine mammals will hopefully allow these populations to thrive in our Southern New Jersey waters.”

These companies also aid in ongoing efforts to help scientists better understand whales and other marine life. The Dolphin Fleet compiles a variety of annual data from entanglements, vessel strikes, and images of satellite-tagged whales that record various biological and whale movement information. The first photo identification guide for minke whales was produced by Bar Harbor Whale Watch in collaboration with Allied Whale. Hyannis Whale Watcher Cruises and Captain John Boats participate in Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary’s seabird surveys. The Starlight Fleet and Cape May Whale Watch and Research Center are working to create a catalogue of individually identified Atlantic bottlenose dolphins commonly seen around Cape May.

When observing whales important to do so from a safe distance for the benefit of the animal and your self.

Read the full story at NOAA

 

 

April 29, 2013 — Male humpback whales sing complex songs in tropical waters during the winter breeding season, but they also sing at higher latitudes at other times of the year.  NOAA researchers have provided the first detailed description linking humpback whale movements to acoustic behavior on a feeding ground in the Northwest Atlantic.

Findings from the study, published April 10 in the journal PLOS ONE, demonstrate the potential applications of passive acoustic tracking and monitoring for marine mammal conservation and management.

Co-author Sofie Van Parijs, who heads the passive acoustics group at the Woods Hole Laboratory of NOAA's Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC), says this study is not so much about biology, but about acoustic methods. 

“We have monitored and acoustically recorded whale sounds for years, and are now able to ‘mine’ these data using new computer software applications and methods, “ said Van Parijs. “Passive acoustic tracking has enabled us to localize humpback whale song to study the movements of individual whales, and to relate the singing to specific behaviors.  This has never before been accomplished for singing humpbacks on a northwest Atlantic feeding ground.” 

“Passive acoustic tracking of humpback whales and other cetacean species provides an opportunity to collect data on movement patterns that are difficult―or impossible―to obtain using other techniques,” said lead author Joy Stanistreet, who worked with Van Parjis and co-author Denise Risch at the NEFSC’s Woods Hole Laboratory at the time of the study. Stanistreet is currently a graduate student at the Duke University Marine Laboratory in Beaufort, N.C.

Read the full story at NOAA Fisheries 

May 1, 2013 — Experts from the Southeast and across the country will gather in Washington D.C. next week to set the stage for what could result in major changes to federal fishery law – changes that could affect how fishing rules are set in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico.

Scientists, fishermen, managers, and others are convening May 7-9 at a summit hosted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and regional fishery management councils. The meeting is designed to kick start Congressional debate over the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which governs U.S. fish policy. Summit participants will discuss improvements for setting annual catch limits, the science behind fish population studies and economic impacts of fishing regulations, among other topics.

    Congress already has begun hearings on reauthorizing the Act – a time when proposals for significant changes are on the table. The Act was last reauthorized in 2006, when Congress gave regional fishery managers strict deadlines to end and prevent overfishing of hundreds of species.

    The timing is critical for next week’s discussions. Many of our ocean ecosystems are severely compromised by decades of overfishing, habitat-damaging practices and indiscriminate fishing gear that captures and kills vast amounts of non-target ocean wildlife. On top of that, ocean acidification and warming ocean temperatures further threaten some of our most valuable fisheries.

A new report by The Pew Charitable Trusts and Ocean Conservancy, to be released Monday, highlights how the U.S. has benefitted from the recovery of dozens of dwindling fish species thanks to the Act. The report also identifies many remaining problems along with new threats that could undermine these historic accomplishments. It offers recommendations for how to address these challenges.

Experts from Pew, a co-sponsor of the summit, are attending the discussions and will advocate for a holistic, ecosystem-based approach to managing fish. Among the goals:

– Stronger legal authority to protect essential fish habitat and minimize non-target catch.

– Requirements for forward-thinking plans that maintain resilient ocean ecosystems.

– Prevention of unsustainable exploitation of small fish, such as menhaden and sardines, which help form the foundation of the ocean food web.

 

 

April 29, 2013 — Shark conservation has had a string of victories in recent years with shark sanctuaries being declared in the waters of countries in three oceans, protections for some of the most vulnerable sharks at regional fisheries management organizations, and enforcement at sea and in ports.

These successes have not been achieved without setbacks, however. In 2010, every proposal to list commercially valuable marine species, including eight species of sharks, was defeated at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP15) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or CITES, in Doha, Qatar. At the time, it was a crushing blow for shark conservation efforts.

Why? Because CITES is the only treaty that manages the international wildlife trade at a global level. The convention’s 178 member countries meet every three years to vote on proposals that ban or restrict international trade of vulnerable species. Due to the global nature of the fin trade (83 countries exported shark fins to Hong Kong in 2011), a global solution to the major threat to sharks—international demand for shark fin soup—is important if we are to ensure healthy shark populations well into the future.

More than 30,000 species are listed on CITES appendices. The protections that these listings have secured are credited with bringing some species back to healthier population levels and preventing others from declining further. Until the CITES meeting in March, and despite the assessment by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) of 143 species of sharks as Threatened or Near Threatened with extinction, only three of the 30,000 listed species were sharks: the great white, basking, and whale sharks. The small number is because a proposal to list a species requires that two-thirds of the voting countries support it, something that has proved difficult to achieve for marine fish species.

Read the full story from the Pew Charitable Trusts

 

 

April 30, 2013 — The following is an excerpt from the article "Saving Seafood Offers Red Herring for Groundfish," originally published April 12 by Mike Misner on the blog Eco Ocean. Saving Seafood's response to Mr. Misner's article is below.

In favor of opening protected areas in New England, Saving Seafood has offered red herring.

Earlier this year, fisheries managers in New England proposed to open long-protected areas to groundfishing. 

In an Ocean Views post, Carl Safina, co-founder of the Blue Ocean Institute, and marine scientist Elizabeth Brown said that opening the protected areas will “undo decades of progress.”

They noted that “removing these protections could mean the depletion of the last known abundant groundfish areas in the Northeast.”

In response on their web site, Saving Seafood did not address the negative impact on adult groundfish and marine mammals but instead asserted that rotational closures work better.  Only no one is proposing rotational closures; they’re not even on the table.  It's easy to wonder why Saving Seafood is talking about rotational closures.

Maybe it's an argumentative red herring, a distraction from an untenable position that favors opening areas that have been closed for years to the benefit of healthy fish populations.

Read the full story at Eco Ocean

Analysis:  Mike Misner, a communications consultant for the Blue Ocean Institute, accuses Saving Seafood on his “Eco Ocean” blog of “offering a red herring” in our response to writings opposing the updating of fishing area closures in New England by the Blue Ocean Institute’s Carl Safina and others.

Saving Seafood was not offering its readers what Mr. Misner curiously referred to as a “head fake” when we accurately pointed out that “the existing closure boundaries are ultimately up for modification because they are not very useful for habitat protection.” We correctly mentioned that the current closed areas under consideration via the New England Fishery Management Council’s (NEFMC) Framework 48 are not useful for habitat protection because that’s not what they were designed to do.

The closed areas being reviewed by NOAA were implemented to control fishing mortality in the era before fishery managers moved to a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) system. Maintaining these areas after implementing TACs only creates redundancies in management. NOAA itself has recognized that the closed areas are redundant, and that removing them in Framework 48 would “provide operational flexibility and efficiency for sector vessels and possibly increase profitability.” Primarily designed to help struggling fishing communities, these modifications do not come at the expense of the ocean.

Mr. Misner also questions how rotational closures are relevant to the current debate on groundfish, when they are not being considered, and insinuates that by including them in its coverage Saving Seafood is distracting from current management efforts. But this was not the focus of our article, and Mr. Misner completely misses the point we were making by raising the issue of rotational closures.

The rotational closures that are currently in use with significant benefit to the scallop fishery are not part of Framework 48, but are still relevant to the discussion. They are a recent example of how allowing limited access to previously closed areas can increase yields without damaging fish stocks. There is a legitimate analogy between rotational closures and the openings proposed by the Council. They arose from areas that were closed to control mortality, not to preserve habitat. While not establishing rotational closures, Framework 48 will allow access to mortality closed areas on a limited basis. In pointing out the recent success of the scallop fishery, Saving Seafood was demonstrating the possibility and value of reopening closed areas in a way that is not at the expense of fish or habitat.

The NEFMC’s recommendations are backed by extensive scientific analyses, and are the end result of adapting to changes in available data and fisheries management. In their analysis, the Council wrote: “We find that for nearly all area and gear type combinations, opening existing closed areas to fishing is predicted to decrease aggregate adverse effects.” The Council continued that “allowing fishing in almost any portion of the area closures on Georges Bank, is estimated to substantially decrease total adverse effects from fishing.” This means that the status quo, as advocated by Mr. Misner and the Blue Ocean Institute, will likely be more harmful to ocean habitat than the proposed alternatives.

Saving Seafood’s goal is to complement, rather than distract from, the current discussion on closed areas. Substantial evidence supports the Council’s proposals under Framework 48, which improves fisheries management while alleviating the fishery crisis in New England.