Conservation & Environment

December 7, 2012 — We are nearing the witching hour for an interstate fishery body’s historic vote on menhaden. If you’ve been following, what’s on the table is the first target catch limit on the coastwide menhaden fishery.

One conservationist is hoping to see New Jersey recreational fishermen pack the house next Friday in Baltimore when that body, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) will make their decision.

“We want to make sure New Jersey votes for conservation,” said Capt. Paul Eidman, a New Jersey fishing guide and founder of Menhaden Defenders.

Eidman believes the time to act is now to put a catch plan in place that will restore the historic range of menhaden from Maine to Florida, while rejuvenating the stock that the ASMFC said in 2010 has declined steadily since the last peak was observed in the early 1980s.

He’s not alone either.

The ASMFC released the input collected during the public comment period that ended last Nov. 16 and the overwhelming majority favored a 50-percent reduction in the bunker catch. In fact, over 100,000 voted for a 50-percent cut in catches.

 

Read the full story at the Asbury Park Press

 

 

December 7, 2012 — The following is an excerpt from the opinion piece "ASMFC needs to raise numbers of menhaden" by Charles Walsh:

Writing columns about how important it is to save the menhaden is like writing stories about the planning and zoning board. The very mention of either subject can induce acute boredom, eventually outright sleep.

But like zoning board stories, which are boring only until you discover a developer wants to build a high-rise machine gun factory next to your property, menhaden stories are sleep-inducing only until you realize that these prime forage fish — for bluefish, striped bass and lots of other predatory species that make up the recreational fishery — may be on the brink of disappearing due to commercial overharvesting.

In a little over a month, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission will cast an important vote on a management plan for the Atlantic menhaden, aka bunker, fishery.

Since menhaden are not exactly table fare — the fishy smell alone can drive you out of a room — recreational anglers are happy to leave most of them for the job of fattening up the blues and bass they hope to catch. A small percentage of the menhaden population is netted for use as bait. Menhaden can be as small as the last joint of your thumb (called peanut bunker) to almost as big as a tailor bluefish. On average, they are the size of a Nerf football, although not nearly as fat. The larger menhaden make the best drifted or bottom bait, but massive numbers of peanut bunker can make for some of the best inshore fishing.

The story was published on the Connecticut Post , on Equities.com, and in the Fairfield Citizen

Analysis: “ASMFC needs to rule to raise numbers of menhaden,” an opinion piece written by Charles Walsh, relies on exaggerated statements to support the author’s claims that the Atlantic menhaden species is severely threatened.

The menhaden stock is nowhere close to the “brink of disappearing” that the article describes. According to the 2010 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) menhaden stock assessment, the last assessment considered to be reliable, menhaden are not currently overfished. This means that, according to the ASMFC, the stock is producing enough eggs to sustain itself. In fact, it showed that the stock was producing 40 percent more eggs than an overfished population. Overfishing, when the number of menhaden caught exceeds the mortality rate determined by the ASMFC, occurred only twice in the 15 years between 1993 and 2008.

In 2011, the Commission adopted a new, more conservative baseline for determining overfishing going forward. Based on that new “reference point”, the ASMFC Menhaden Management Board determined that overfishing also occurred in 2011 based on harvest increases, the new reference point, and apparent lack of stock growth. Due to adoption of the new reference point and model uncertainty, no overfishing determinations have been made for 2009 and 2010.

Mr. Walsh’s claim that menhaden biomass has declined 90 percent in 25 years is particularly selective and misleading because it does not examine the whole time series of available data. The length of time cited in the article (the last 25 years) begins during a period (the early-to-mid 1980s) when menhaden biomass was the highest on record. Over the 50-plus years that data on menhaden biomass has been recorded by the ASMFC, biomass has fluctuated based on the strength of menhaden recruitment (the number of menhaden that are born), and current biomass figures are similar to the levels seen in the late 1960s, when biomass was lower on the spectrum. Following this period of low biomass, the late 1970s and early 1980s saw especially strong recruitment and high biomass. The decline that Mr. Walsh cites is part of an alternating cycle of strong and weak recruitment.

The suggested 50 percent reduction in menhaden landings Mr. Walsh and Pew Environment Group support would put the commercial menhaden fishery out of business, causing devastating economic loss to the industry’s home in Virginia’s Northern Neck region. A recent economic impact study conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science highlighted the importance of the industry to this rural area of Virginia: the reduction fishery employs almost 300 people directly, and many more indirectly, and contributes more than $80 million in economic output to the Northern Neck.

When Mr. Walsh expresses frustration that “our publicly appointed commissioners openly debate whether or not there is ‘enough good data’ to move forward with the catch limits they agreed to put in place last November,” he fails to acknowledge the many uncertainties and complexities involved in the fisheries management process. The major uncertainty involved in the current deliberations on menhaden catch concerns the 2012 menhaden stock assessment, which is widely regarded as critically flawed. The model used in the assessment was found to have consistently underestimated the population size and overestimated fishing mortality. The ASMFC Menhaden Technical Committee determined that the results of the 2012 update stock assessment were not suitable to use as a reference for management decisions. 

 

 

December 6, 2012 — The following is from the Coastal Conservation Association website.

Friday, Dec. 14, is the day when all recreational anglers can stand up for the “most important fish in the ocean” and have an impact on the future of fishing in the Chesapeake Bay. That’s the date when the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) will meet to determine the future of menhaden.

ASMFC’s Menhaden Management Board is expected to act on Amendment II to the Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Plan, and, if adopted, it could the be first step in restoring the abundance of menhaden. Menhaden are a primary food source for every marine predator on the East Coast and are currently overfished.

“Working with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and other groups, CCA Maryland is striving to bring busloads of concerned conservationists who want to see menhaden managed properly,” said Tony Friedrich, CCA MD executive director. “We understand that the union representing workers at Omega Protein are planning to fill the ASMFC meeting room. It’s essential that members of the conservation community attend this meeting in force.” (Omega Protein is the company that harvests menhaden to produce Omega-3 and has had a major influence in reducing the menhaden stock.)

CCA Maryland and the other groups will provide buses to take conservationists to the meeting in Baltimore. The buses will leave the Riva Road Park-N-Ride lot (Harry S. Truman Prkwy and Riva Road) at 7:15 a.m. on Dec. 14. An early bus will leave the meeting around the lunch hour for those who need to return early, and another bus will leave at 3 p.m. The meeting will run from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the Best Western Plus Hotel and Conference Center in Baltimore. We will also provide breakfast, lunch, refreshments and even a “Save the Menhaden” long sleeve t-shirt with artwork by Jay Fleming. If your schedule prevents you from taking the bus, we'd still love to see you at this meeting.

“Those supporting us at the meeting will not be asked to make comments, but it’s imperative that a large number of individuals supporting Amendment II are there,” Friedrich said. The future of menhaden is at stake. Countless hours of work from dozens of groups is culminating on one meeting on one day. December 14, 2012 can be a day we all look back on as a landmark victory for our fisheries. Can you please help us, help menhaden, and help our treasured Chesapeake Bay by attending this one meeting?

You must RSVP for a seat on one of the buses. Contact tony@ccamd.org with the subject line "menhaden". All we need are the names of those attending and we will take care of everything else.

Read the full article from the Coastal Conservation Association

Analysis: While the Coastal Conservation Association writes, "Omega Protein is the company that harvests menhaden to produce Omega-3 and has had a major influence in reducing the menhaden stock," examing over 50-plus years of menhaden data shows that commercial fishing is far from the greatest influence on the size of the menhaden stock.

This data instead shows that menhaden biomass depends on the strength of menhaden recruitment (the number of menhaden that are born), which varies from year to year and is influenced by a number of factors, perhaps most importantly environmental conditions. For example, the early 1980s was a period of strong menhaden recruitment influenced by favorable environmental conditions, which led to high biomass. Since then, environmental conditions have been much less favorable, resulting in lower recruitment and a smaller population. The reduction in menhaden cited in the article is part of this natural variation, as the current size of the menhaden population is similar to the size of the population in the late 1960s.

 That environmental factors are perhaps the strongest influence on menhaden recruitment is recognized by both the ASMFC and NOAA. NOAA states on its menhaden webpage that “menhaden recruitment appears to be independent of fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass, indicating environmental factors may be the defining factor in the production of good year classes.” The ASMFC, similarly concluded in its 2010 stock assessment that fluctuations in menhaden abundance may be, “almost entirely driven by non-fishery sources.”

 

 

December 3, 2012 — Each year when autumn rolls around, sea turtles tend to strand along the Northeast coast as a result of “cold stunning.” It has been an extraordinarily busy sea turtle stranding season, with a running total of  150 reported strandings so far from Massachusetts to New York.

NOAA Fisheries’ stranding network partner, the New England Aquarium, has been working hard to treat 140 Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead and green sea turtles that have been brought into their facility.  According to aquarium staff, they have treated an unusually high number of loggerhead sea turtles this year. Responders from Massachusetts Audubon at Wellfleet Bay engaged in a heroic effort to collect all of the Massachusetts turtles and transport live animals up to the Aquarium.  NOAA Fisheries has been helping by coordinating transports of turtles to other facilities. Other partners that have been assisting the Aquarium by agreeing to house and care for some of the animals include the National Marine Life Center in Buzzards Bay, Mass., the University of New England Marine Animal Rehabilitation Center in Biddeford, Maine, the National Aquarium in Baltimore, Md., the Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center in Virginia Beach, Va. and the Georgia Sea Turtle Center in Jekyll Island, Ga.    In New York, the Riverhead Foundation for Marine Research and Preservation is caring for 11 animals that have stranded on Long Island. The Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center is currently caring for one kemp’s ridley sea turtle.

Sea turtles are commonly found in waters off the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast U.S. during the summer and early fall. They typically begin to migrate south by late October because they are cold-blooded and depend on external sources of heat to determine their body temperature. In cold water, they do not have the ability to warm themselves, and must instead migrate to warmer waters.

However, some turtles may be foraging in shallow bays and inlets and don’t always migrate south prior to the drop in water temperatures.  These animals may be subject to “cold stunning” because the temperatures in these areas can drop quite rapidly and unexpectedly.  The term “cold stunning” refers to the hypothermic reaction that occurs when sea turtles are exposed to prolonged cold water temperatures. Initial symptoms include a decreased heart rate, decreased circulation, and lethargy, followed by shock, pneumonia and possibly death.

In a typical year between 50 and 200 sea turtles are expected to cold stun in Massachusetts from late October through December. In addition to Massachusetts, New York, specifically Long Island beaches, also see a lower number of cold stunned turtles each winter.

 

Read the full story on the NOAA website 

 

 

 

 

November 30, 2012 — The following is an excerpt from the opinion piece "A make-or-break moment for ‘the most important fish in the sea’" by Chris Moore, published in the Washington Post:

One of the smallest fish in the Chesapeake Bay is also one of the most critical. Atlantic menhaden have been called “the most important fish in the sea” because of the vital ecological and economic roles they play in the bay and along the Atlantic Coast.

Filter feeders, the silvery fish form massive schools that sweep through the water eating microscopic plants, animals and detritus. Young menhaden are sardine-size, but they can grow into foot-long fish that are bony, oily and considered quite unpalatable by human tastes.

Other critters love them, however. Menhaden are a major food source for striped bass, bluefish, summer flounder, weakfish, dolphin, whales and iconic Chesapeake birds such as ospreys, loons and pelicans. Seventy percent of an adult rockfish’s diet typically has been menhaden. If you love angling for stripers or dining on rockfish fillets, you have to love menhaden, the little fish that makes it all possible.

But all is not well. And in Virginia, one peculiar legislative oddity could stand in the way of badly needed action.

For many years, menhaden numbers have been declining dramatically in the Chesapeake Bay and along the Atlantic Coast. Today, they’re at their lowest levels on record, or about 8 percent of unfished numbers. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, which manages the coast-wide menhaden population, has concluded that menhaden have been experiencing overfishing for at least 32 of the past 54 years.

Equally disturbing are scientific reports that osprey in the lower bay are suffering malnourishment linked to fewer menhaden; similar concerns have been raised about striped bass.

Help for menhaden could be on the way. But two things need to happen first.

Read the full story in the Washington Post  

Analysis: In a recent article in the Washington Post titled “A make-or-break moment for ‘the most important fish in the sea’,” Chris Moore, of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, claims extreme cuts are necessary to save the Atlantic menhaden population, but in doing so, provides an inaccurate representation of the status of the species.

When Mr. Moore claims that, “menhaden have been experiencing overfishing for at least 32 of the past 54 years,” he fails to acknowledge that most of this overfishing occurred between the 1950s and the 1970s, and that incidences of overfishing are much rarer in the recent history of the fishery. The 2010 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) stock assessment found that from 1993 to 2008 (the last fifteen years for which there is reliable data), overfishing occurred only twice, and by only 0.4 percent in its most recent occurrence in 2008. Because menhaden is a comparatively short-lived species (living from 10-12 years), and the average menhaden produces a high number of eggs during its lifetime, the most recent data is much more relevant in determining the health of the species than older, dated statistics.

Mr. Moore acknowledges the importance of the menhaden fishery to Northern Virginia’s economy, yet still calls a reduction of menhaden landings by 25 percent or more “essential”. A 50 percent reduction, the harshest of the measures currently being considered by the ASMFC, could likely put the commercial menhaden fishery out of business, causing devastating economic loss to the home of the fishery in Virginia’s Northern Neck region. A recent economic impact study conducted by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) highlighted the importance of the industry to this rural area of Virginia: the reduction fishery employs almost 300 people directly, and many more indirectly, and contributes more than $80 million in economic output to the Northern Neck. Without the reduction fishery, employment in the region would decrease by 8 percent and economic output by 14 percent. Enacting a new quota now could lead to a bad economic situation, and could later be considered bad management with no science-based rationale for setting quotas and no recent, reliable stock assessment as a reference.

It is also important to recognize that references to menhaden as “the most important fish in the sea,” including Mr. Moore’s reference in the title of his article, are not scientific designations. They are instead derived from the title of a book regarding menhaden, The Most Important Fish in the Sea, by Rutgers University English professor, H. Bruce Franklin. There is no scientific evidence supporting the claim that any fish being is the “most important,” it reflects the views of Dr. Franklin and his supporters, rather than any scientific consensus.
 

November 19, 2012 — The following is an excerpt from the opinion piece "Being thankful for Atlantic menhaden," by Captain Dave Monti, originally published on East Bay RI News:

It’s Thanksgiving already, and we have a lot to be thankful for in Rhode Island. We were clobbered by hurricane Sandy but did not experience the loss of life and property that New York and New Jersey experienced. By no means am I belittling our losses in Westerly, Misquamicut and along our southern coastal shores. Our residences suffered major losses and we need to continue to help them.

However, overall it was a good year for recreational fishing in our bays and ocean. Fishing this year was better than it has been in a number of years. The striped bass run in the bay was moderate, but the bass fishing continued to be great offshore around Block Island, the fluke season was good and we really had an outstanding scup and black sea bass fishery this year. All this was capped with a surprisingly good fall tautog season that we’re still experiencing.

One species I am forever grateful for is Atlantic menhaden, as it serves as a food source for so many other fish including striped bass. If you fish Rhode Island coastal waters, offshore or in Narragansett Bay, now’s the time to voice your concerns about this important fish species as the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) Atlanta Menhaden Management Board meets Dec. 14 in Baltimore, Md. to consider regulations.

In additional to being a primary food source for many other species of fish, menhaden serve as roving filters, converting algae into energy and thus reducing nutrient loads in bays and covers. An adult menhaden, through its unique filtering gills, is able to process up to four gallons of water per minute — a million gallons of water every 180 days. Multiply this by the number of menhaden in any given area and this is an amazing amount of water being filtered; a reduction of nutrients means fewer algae blooms and ultimately more oxygen for all fish.

The story was published on the East Bay Rhode Island website in the Cranston Herald and on Rhody Beat 

Analysis: Captain Dave Monti’s Thanksgiving op-ed, “Being thankful for the Atlantic menhaden,” while generally positive, cited several incorrect and incomplete facts about the menhaden fishery.

To allegedly ensure the future of the menhaden stock, Captain Monti encourages his readers to pay attention to upcoming actions by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), “To make sure this species is here to stay and will not continue to be overfished.” However, according to the 2010 and 2012 ASMFC menhaden stock assessments, menhaden are not overfished, meaning that the stock is producing the target number of eggs to sustain itself. In fact, the stock is producing 40 percent more eggs than an overfished population. Overfishing has actually only occurred twice in the last 15 years for which there is reliable data (1993-2008), most recently in 2008 by only 0.4 percent.

Captain Monti overstates the ecological role of menhaden, claiming that, “menhaden serve as roving filters, converting algae into energy and thus reducing nutrient loads in bays and covers.” However, recent studies have called that role into question. In a 2010 study, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) concluded that menhaden, rather than feeding on algae, feed mostly on zooplankton, and that their contribution to improving water quality is negligible. The VIMS study showed that adult menhaden lose their ability to filter algae out of the water with age, and may have a detrimental impact on water quality due to their release of nitrogen into the water.

Although conservation of marine resources like menhaden is essential, encouraging action based on misleading evidence, even when backed with good intentions, does not assist fisheries management. Fishery management must take all stakeholders into consideration, and produce a resulting decision that strikes a sustainable balance between the concerns of environmentalists and the needs of fishermen whose livelihoods are at stake. 

 

 

 

 

November — The following is an excerpt from the Daily Press:

As the battle rages over menhaden — whether the population of this big little fish has declined to precipitous levels and over the potential impact of mandatory catch limits — the only menhaden processing plant on the Atlantic announced record revenues.

Omega Protein Corporation reported third-quarter revenues of $77.8 million, the "highest quarterly revenues in the company's history," according to president Bret Scholtes, who cited, in part, a "strong fish catch."
In addition, SEC filings show Omega's top five executives took home more than $13 million in compensation in the last two years.

Environmentalists concerned about the future of menhaden in the Chesapeake Bay and along the Eastern seaboard say it's evidence Omega is playing politics when it warns that deep catch limits could ruin the company, forcing it to shutter its Reedville processing plant and lay off hundreds.

"It seems kind of despicable that a company that seems to be doing so well fiscally would be claiming that doing the responsible thing to protect menhaden stock is going to put people in Virginia out of their livelihood," said Peter Baker of the Pew Environment Group in Massachusetts. "I think it's a false choice, and I think it's politically motivated and think it's unfortunate that people get caught in the middle."

But an Omega spokesman countered the company's record revenues don't necessarily translate to record profit, especially as costs increased and revenues were buoyed by strong pricing. The criticism is uninformed, he said.

"I think that's the view of someone who's never owned a business," said Ben Landry. "We have shareholders, and our duty is to maximize the resources that they've provided us. Executive compensation I don't think factors into fisheries management."

Read the full story on the Daily Press

Analysis: Environmental activists are seizing on a recent positive earnings report from Omega Protein, the largest company in the menhaden reduction industry, to argue that projected job losses from impending menhaden harvest cuts have been exaggerated for political effect. The claim, as it appears in the Newport News Daily Press (“Record revenues in menhaden as management battle brews”), ignores the most relevant issues currently facing menhaden management.
Peter Baker, Director of the Northeast Fisheries Program for the Pew Environment Group, is quoted as saying: "It seems kind of despicable that a company that seems to be doing so well fiscally would be claiming that doing the responsible thing to protect menhaden stock is going to put people in Virginia out of their livelihood. I think it's a false choice, and I think it's politically motivated and think it's unfortunate that people get caught in the middle." In accusing Omega Protein of presenting the public a false choice, Mr. Baker presents readers a red herring.
 
Focusing on revenues and executive compensation distracts from the central economic issue facing the fishery: the size and scope of the upcoming reductions in the menhaden harvest. Mr. Baker and Pew Environment are advocating an immediate 50 percent cut in landings. A cut of that magnitude is likely to devastate the fishery, no matter how healthy a company’s profit margin.

The menhaden fishery is critically important to the economic well-being of Virginia’s Northern Neck. An economic impact study by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science found the fishery employs around 250 people directly, many more indirectly, and contributes more than $80 million in economic output to the Northern Neck. Without the reduction fishery, employment in the region would decrease by 8 percent and economic output by 14 percent.

The discussion on quarterly revenues has no bearing on the central question of whether harvest reductions, let alone Pew’s preferred 50 percent cut, are scientifically justified.

As the article notes, the menhaden stock was found to be experiencing overfishing in its 2010 assessment, meaning that in 2008 (the last year of the assessment) fishing exceeded the ASMFC's designated mortality limit. But overfishing is actually a fairly rare occurrence in the recent history of the fishery: only twice in the 15 years between 1993 and 2008 and by small margins, such as 0.4 percent in 2008. Importantly, the 2010 assessment also found that menhaden are not overfished: this means the menhaden stock is producing enough eggs to sustain itself.
 
In 2011, the ASMFC adopted a new, more conservative baseline for determining overfishing going forward. Based on that new “reference point,” the ASMFC Menhaden Management Board determined that overfishing also occurred in 2011 based on harvest increases, the new reference point, and apparent lack of stock growth. Due to adoption of the new reference point and model uncertainty, no overfishing determinations have been made for 2009 and 2010.
 
Although briefly mentioned, the article does not delve into the uncertainties in menhaden data brought on by the 2012 menhaden stock assessment. The assessment is widely regarded as critically flawed. Because of consistent overestimations of fishing mortality and underestimations of population size, the ASMFC’s Menhaden Technical Committee determined it was not suitable for management advice. While, based on current reference points, the assessment was able to conclude with reasonable confidence that overfishing was occurring and the stock was not overfished,  not much else is known about the current state of the stock that would be of use to the ASMFC fisheries managers who need to set new menhaden catch limits in December.
 
Enacting severe cuts on Atlantic menhaden now could lead to an economic disaster. It could also be considered bad management, with no solid science-based rationale for setting quotas and no recent, reliable stock assessment as reference. Distracting readers with a discussion of a company’s finances does not change that.

 

 

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS — November 29, 2012 — The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) issued a response to what it calls "anonymous and inaccurate attacks on [its] credibility:"

In a Seafood News Commentary published Monday, November 26, 2012, Mike Urch, citing only anonymous sources, makes a very serious and inaccurate statement about the MSC in saying that “there is now evidence that standards for some fisheries are being allowed to slip in order to swell the MSC's coffers.”

MSC absolutely disputes and challenges this statement. Evidence? Perhaps completely misinformed and disgruntled personal opinion has been expressed privately to Mr. Urch. His error is in suggesting that is evidence, and drawing and publishing conclusions, without even contacting the MSC or verifying with sources on record.

Not only is there no motivation for the MSC to compromise the standard, there is also no opportunity.

The MSC is a mission-driven, nonprofit organization, governed by a diverse international board of trustees which requires balanced representation from every sector including industry and conservation organizations. They are joined by two other formal scientific and advisory governance bodies, also with requirements for a diversity of sector representation, expertise and backgrounds.

The governance of the MSC is structured to guarantee that no special interest group, organization or individual can unfairly influence either the application of the MSC standard during an assessment, or the MSC standard itself. Participation by fisheries, supply chain companies and others in the MSC program is entirely voluntary.

There are checks and balances throughout the MSC program that underscore the credibility of the program and the rigor with which it is applied by independent, third party, conformity assessment bodies. These certification bodies are, themselves, accredited by an outside, independent, international organization, Accreditation Services International (ASI), which is wholly separate from the MSC, and monitors performance and investigates any complaint that is filed. Certifiers receive training on an on-going basis to assure worldwide consistency in the application of the Standard.

The MSC requires every assessment be conducted by a team of experts in an open, transparent process that includes scientific peer review, stakeholder engagement and input, and 24/7/365 access by anyone to every report, all of which ensures that all voices are heard, comments are examined and considered, and scores against the standard are justified. Assessment teams are required to verify the validity of any data they use in scoring a fishery.

The MSC is not a pass/fail program and specific scores against the MSC core principles, health of the stock, impact on the marine ecosystem and fishery management, are published for anyone to see. In addition, the MSC program includes a formal objections process that, when an objection on a final recommendation by the independent certifier is filed, is conducted by an outside, independent adjudicator that assures correct application of the process and impartiality in the outcome.

The record clearly shows that this scientific, rigorous process has resulted in positive improvements in sustainability performance. With specific reference to tuna assessments, the author makes unfounded allegations that impugn the fisheries, the certifiers and the stakeholders who participated in an open, transparent process that anyone can review by going to www.msc.org/track-a-fishery.

Maligning tuna fisheries that have undergone rigorous assessment against the MSC standard, and the fishers who work in these fisheries, by using the banner “big boys,” or suggesting they somehow got preferential treatment, is a regrettable choice of words and inaccurate. Of the nine tuna fisheries that are certified, many are small scale pole and line fishers, while one is a large-scale free-school purse seine fishery demonstrating the MSC program is open to fisheries of any size who will be independently, fairly and equally assessed against the standard.

With regard to the utterly false accusations made about the MSC's motives, even the harshest critics of specific aspects or outcomes of assessments commend the MSC for its honesty, integrity and credibility.

In both a current formal review of the entire fishery standard and as part of ongoing input, a Technical Advisory Board, comprised of independent scientists from around the world, evaluates any proposed update to the MSC Standard and a mandatory consultation period ensures that interested parties can submit input and have a meaningful role in policy development. Stakeholders from every sector are encouraged to bring forward issues, and to do so openly to the MSC. The MSC Stakeholder Council also plays a leading role in developing policy recommendations.

Finally, the MSC Board of Trustees must approve any policy change, adding another layer of oversight into the decision making process.

The MSC goes to great lengths to maintain independence of assessments, scientific rigor, transparency and equal application of the Standard. We know the importance to environmental benefits, the seafood companies who use the MSC program to assure sustainable sourcing and the lives and livelihoods of the fishers and their communities in all corners of the globe. 

 

Seafood.com is a subscription-based website. The article is reprinted with permission.

 

 

November 17, 2012 — The following is an excerpt from the High Point Enterprise:

Sometimes called a pogie, the menhaden is one of the most unglamorous fish in the ocean. These are filter feeders and a forage fish for almost every prized species in coastal salt water. For coastal fish like red drum, stripers, mackerel, sea trout and flounder, they are a primary and critical part of the food chain. Because of their importance to other species, menhaden have been called the most important fish in the sea and they’ve been put through more than 50 years of overfishing. The stock is at a record low.  Who is suffering from the loss of menhaden?  You are.

Omega Protein, a company that uses menhaden to make fish oil and other products is the primary consumer of menhaden on the East Coast. They have been doing everything they can to prevent the implementation of a total allowable catch and a rebuilding effort. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, they maintain that menhaden are merely suffering from poor recruitment and that their half billion pound harvest has nothing to do with it. The company uses spotter planes to locate the fish, rush over with processing ships, encircle the school with a purse net and suck them up into the hold. The fishing method is so efficient there’s no way for the menhaden to avoid them.

Read the full story in the High Point Enterprise  

Analysis: With the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) having just concluded a public comment period regarding prospective Atlantic menhaden harvest cuts, the group Menhaden Defenders is pushing their readers to support, among other options, a 50 percent reduction in menhaden landings. The organization created an online petition campaign for readers to sign and send to ASMFC representatives urging the Commission to adopt severe restrictions on the allowable menhaden catch. This opinion piece by Dick Jones, “Save the Pogies,” published in the High Point Enterprise, relies exclusively on information from the Menhaden Defenders petition, “Menhaden need a break.” However, Mr. Jones and Menhaden Defenders give inaccurate accounts of the health of the menhaden population, ultimately misleading their respective readers.

Mr. Jones is quick to fault Omega Protein for a decline in the menhaden population, writing that the company “has been doing everything it can to prevent the implementation of a total allowable catch and a rebuilding effort,” and that “they [Omega Protein] maintain that menhaden are merely suffering from poor recruitment — their half billion pound harvest has nothing to do with it.” Despite this dismissal, poor recruitment is very likely an important factor in lower menhaden biomass. According to the last ASMFC menhaden stock assessment, menhaden are not overfished, meaning that the current menhaden population is producing the necessary number of eggs to sustain itself. In fact, the species is producing 40 percent more eggs than a population that would be considered overfished.

By this measure, the problem with menhaden is not that there are too few menhaden spawning, but that too few menhaden are subsequently being born. Much of the scientific data on the menhaden stock reinforces the claim that reducing fishing mortality is not an effective way to influence the size of the menhaden population. Historically, the number of menhaden caught by the fishery does not seem to have a strong influence on the number of menhaden that spawn. In its 2010 stock assessment, the ASMFC concluded that menhaden population changes “are almost entirely driven by non-fishery sources.” Similarly, NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay Office concludes, “environmental factors may be the defining factor in the production of good year classes [of menhaden].”

Instead of acknowledging the impact of environmental factors on the menhaden population, Mr. Jones underrepresents the status of the menhaden population. “They’ve been put through more than 50 years of overfishing,” the article claims, but fails to specifically define this alleged over-exploitation. According to the 2010 Atlantic menhaden stock assessment, in the last fifteen years for which data is available, overfishing has only occurred twice. The last recorded instance of overfishing was in 2008, when the fishery was just 0.4 percent over the threshold determined by the ASMFC. There is currently no reliable data for fishing activity in the last four years, and the exact status of the menhaden stock is not known.

Mr. Jones also uses the often-cited phrase “the most important fish in the sea,” in reference to menhaden. The article does not explain the term’s origin, and presents it as a scientific qualification. In fact, this phrase comes from the title and premise of the book, The Most Important Fish in the Sea: Menhaden and America, by Rutgers University Professor, Dr. H. Bruce Franklin. The statement is entirely qualitative, based on judgments made by the author. There is no scientific evidence supporting the hyperbolic statement that any one species of fish is "most important," and promulgating this idea represents only the author’s opinion, rather than any scientific consensus.

 

 

November 28, 2012 — A fisherman called the whale rescue team at the Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies Tuesday after he saw the whale entangled in fishing gear just outside of Cape Cod Bay, said Scott Landry, director of the rescue team.

The team’s five members spotted the whale discovered that the whale was free-swimming, meaning it could still move around despite the thick rope tangled tightly around its body, he said.

“It was carrying fishing gear wrapped all around its tail,” Landry said. “It was likely entangled for many months and likely carrying the gear many, many miles. There’s often a big distance between where the whale actually gets entangled and where some random person spots it.”

The whale got wrapped up in the rope when it was younger and smaller, but as it grew, the ropes got tighter and caused deep lacerations, he said. The strong synthetic line wrapped around the whale’s body, preventing it from feeding or behaving normally, Landry said.

“The whale was so injured and unhealthy that it couldn’t raise its flukes,” he said.

To remove the line, Landry and his team first attached a control line and a buoy to make sure they could track the animal if he swam off or dove under the water. The team then attached more buoys until it became difficult for the whale to dive.

“We just want to keep it on the surface and as calm as possible,” he said. “The whale has no idea that we’re trying to help it out and it’s frightened.’’

Keeping their distance from the whale, rescuers used hook-shaped knives at the end of 30-foot poles to cut off the fishing gear. Three snips and the fishing gear dropped from the animal’s body.

 

Read the full story at the Boston Globe