Opinion

June 19, 2012 – With ocean acidification as an emerging global threat, Britain and the United States are joining a community of concerned nations to establish an Ocean Acidification International Coordination Center. The International Atomic Energy Agency will open the new center this summer at its Environmental Laboratories in Monaco.

Ocean acidification, a process in which seawater chemistry changes when the ocean absorbs rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, is profoundly affecting global waters and their ecologically and economically vital marine life. It is literally causing a sea change and threatening the fundamental chemical balance of ocean and coastal waters from pole to pole.

Because the consequences can be destructive to so many species, acidification is dubbed the “osteoporosis of the sea.” To build essential skeletons and shells, many marine plants and animals require calcium carbonate, an important mineral in seawater. But ocean acidification, if it continues unabated, could eventually inhibit the ability of oysters, clams, corals and other marine life to make hard protective shells and skeletons. In polar and other waters, the corrosive effect may also dissolve shells and skeletons already built.

Invisible to most, our fragile, indispensable marine life is increasingly facing the challenge of more corrosive waters as more CO2 is taken up by the ocean. Some creatures may benefit from rising acidity, but scientific evidence suggests that many, including corals, will not.

Corals provide the fundamental structure of our planet’s treasured coral reef ecosystem, and calcium carbonate is indispensable to making their skeletal framework. Increasing acidity means corals must use more energy to build their protective habitat. With too much ocean acidification, reefs will degrade and, ultimately, may disappear.

Read the full story at the New York Times.

 

 

It's time to call this type of media irresponsibility a public danger – for that it what it is. At a time when fishery management is yielding some fantastic successes in rebuilding fish stocks, we have a popular press that acts like nothing has happened. This irresponsible fear mongering about fish will ultimately lead to people going hungry, as it distorts food markets and prices and demonizes important food sources.

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS —  June 11, 2012 —  The disconnect between the media and fishery facts has never been greater. This was brought home viscerally today with these two headlines:

Cod's had its chips; TOP FISH 'DYING OUT' screamed the UK Daily Star.

Norway Minister sees largest cod catch in 40 Years in 2013, based on ICES recommendation (abcnyheter.no)

It is time to call this type of media irresponsibility a public danger – for that it what it is. At a time when fishery management is yielding some fantastic successes in rebuilding critical fish stocks, we have a popular press that acts like nothing has happened. This kind of irresponsible fear mongering about fish will ultimately lead to people going hungry, as it ultimately distorts food markets and prices and demonizes important food sources.

First the good news on cod: ICES has recommended a 25% increase in the Barents Sea cod quota for 2013, to 940,000 tons. This is 25% higher than the 2012 quota of 740,000 tons, and it was 189,000 tons higher than the ICES recommendation for last year.

The final 2013 quota will be set in negotiations between Russia and Norway this fall. ICES says the stock biomass is estimated at 3.5 million tons. This spectacular recovery in the Barents sea has been due to good environmental conditions, and to fishery management that made it possible for the fish stocks to take advantage of these conditions.

The Norwegian export council, in praising the historic high cod recommendations, said Norway currently manages the largest and most sustainable cod stock in the world. The Norwegian fishing industry has a unique way of managing fishing quotas and discards, having banned the process of discarding unwanted stock 25 years ago in 1987.

Alongside this and the vast program of stringent regulations already in place, the Norwegian fishing industry has worked tirelessly with Russia to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing practices in the Barents Sea. The two countries have worked together to ensure that fish caught in the Barents Sea does not breach Norwegian-Russian fisheries legislation.

Lisbeth Berg-Hansen, Minister of Fisheries and Coastal Affairs says; “Thanks to many years of good fisheries management, and our continual work with Russia, we have succeeded in building up the world's largest cod stocks. If the quota recommended by ICES is agreed, this means that a record high quota will be set for next year.”

Berg-Hansen continues: “Today we have a huge population of cod in the Barents Sea, and the 2013 quota will give us the largest catch that we will have seen in 40 years.”

According to the NSC, the increase in the recommended quota is a clear demonstration that Norway's strong commitment to sustainable fisheries management is proving to be successful.

Johan Kvalheim, Director of the Norwegian Seafood Council for the UK and France, comments: “The increasing cod quota in Norway is recognition that our ongoing commitment to sustainable fishing is working. It is excellent news, not just for the Norwegian economy and our fishermen, but for the millions of people who enjoy eating good quality seafood with a clear conscience.

“It is fitting that this announcement comes today, on World Oceans Day, and we are delighted that through this increase in quota, we can continue to meet the market demand for well-managed, sustainably caught cod. Consumers around the world can rest assured that they will be able to continue to enjoy top quality cod from the cold, clear waters of Norway for years to come!”

Iceland is also increasing its cod quota for 2013, according to recommendations from Iceland's Marine institute. In a report published Friday, the Institute recommends an increase of the Icelandic cod quota to 196,000 tons in 2013, up from 177,000 tons this year.

So the UK market, one of the most important markets for cod in the world, and where cod has consistently been the number one selling fish, sees its two primary trading partners – Norway and Iceland, with total cod quotas in 2013 of over 1.1 million tons, and with both the biomass in the Barents Sea and around Iceland approaching levels not seen for 30 or 40 years.

So how does the Daily Star print this:

Cod's had its chips; TOP FISH 'DYING OUT'

by RICHARD SPILLETT
(c) copyright Express Newspapers 2012

BRITAIN'S favourite fast-food meal could be on its way out.

Takeaway lovers could find their fish and chips in short supply, because experts have warned that the cod is all but extinct.

Haddock Mackerel, halibut, haddock and hake will all become more expensive than caviar over the next 10 years as stocks dry up. Over-fishing of the Atlantic and other oceans could see most common food fish species disappear altogether by 2022. Marine biologists have warned that the coastal waters around Britain and other European countries will soon yield only shellfish, branded "the fisheries of last resort" by scientists.

Plummeting stocks of fish are also blamed for a huge increase in jellyfish as their natural predators disappear.

Britain's fishing chiefs are off to Brussels this week in a bid to tackle the problem before it is too late. One measure the Government wants to see is a change to the EU's current system of catch quotas.

More than 1 million tons of dead fish are thrown back into the Atlantic each year.

North Sea fleets have to discard more than 800,000 tons a year.

Fisheries minister Richard Benyon wants to stop "the waste of discards and remove ineffective, centralised micro-management". But many worry that continuing economic woes in fishing-dependent Spain, Italy and Greece could see continued stalemate.

Two things are happening here. First, environmental campaigners are using catastrophic language to try and scare the public over things that are not catastrophic at all, but like many problems, respond to effective solutions.

And secondly, the media is buying this scare mongering lock, stock and barrel. This has got to stop.

Every paper in the UK needs to tell its readers that Norway's no discard policy has contributed to the recovery of cod stocks to historic highs, and that such a policy would yield good results applied to the North Sea and waters around Britain as well.

Cod is not dying out, nor do the English need to eat trash fish for fish and chips. The whole UK campaign to demonize cod has been misguided, wrong, and ultimately shows an unbelievable disconnect between the pronouncements of respected media and chef spokespersons, and the actual facts on the ground. It is time to hold everyone involved to higher standards of truthfulness.

 

 

June 10, 2012 — MOBILE, Alabama — The next few days will provide a perfect example of the pitfalls of the current 40-day, derby-style recreational red snapper fishing season.

They will also afford a window into the possible advantages of the proposal being floated by Dr. Bob Shipp to allow Gulf Coast states and not the federal government to manage reef species such as red snapper, grouper, gray triggerfish and amberjack.

Shipp, a renowned marine scientist and 16-year member of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, suggests reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens act this year to allow states to manage reef fish instead of the NOAA Fisheries Service. Under Shipp's plan, the feds would retain oversight of highly migratory species such as mackerel, tuna, dolphin, wahoo and billfish. These are species the National Marine Fisheries Service has managed without unfairly burdening fishermen with unreasonably short seasons.

State reef management would extend along state lines out to the federal Exclusive Economic Zone or 200 miles into the Gulf of Mexico.

It's likely that forecasts all along the central Gulf Coast of seas offshore pushing toward 7 feet and good chances of thunderstorms through Thursday will keep all but the heartiest fishermen at the dock.

For the weekend warrior, the bad weather forecast is disappointing. For charter captains, deckhands and dock workers, it could be devastating since lost fishing days almost always mean a missed paycheck.

While captains and their crews could likely handle the beating the sea inflicts when it's churned up, their customers — the folks who sign the checks — can't.

It's probably a good thing that most Gulf Coast charter captains have long moved beyond a reliance on red snapper to provide the majority of their income. They've done a great job of marketing the ability to catch other snapper species, mackerel, cobia, redfish and edible bluewater species such as dolphin, wahoo and tuna.

Still, no one's livelihood should be threatened because they did the right thing and canceled fishing trips because they're looking out for their customers' safety.

It's ludicrous that captains all along the coast are being forced to make those tough calls this week when red snapper populations are so high in the Gulf, perhaps more than ever.

 

Read the full story at the Alabaa Media Group

June 10, 2012 — Reading the recent opinion piece on this page by Oceana, one might think that sardines should be placed on the endangered species list. But in reality, this important fishery is doing just fine thanks to existing precautions.

The Oceana commentary, "Sardine population on verge of crash," bases some of its allegations on a report by two National Marine Fisheries Service scientists. Yet Oceana fails to mention that those scientists deliberately omitted the most recent stock assessment and failed to submit their paper for internal review. That paper and its conclusions were later repudiated by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

The fact is, sardine abundance trended significantly upward in 2011 and that led to the increase in sardine harvest quota in 2012.

California's wetfish industry — named for the fish that were canned wet from the sea — is under attack by extremist groups like Oceana who claim overfishing is occurring. That allegation is false; fishermen have long recognized that a sustainable fishery was good for both people and fish.

Historically, sardines exhibited dynamic swings of a million tons up or down during the first decade of decline. We may be entering another such period, given the 30-year cycle of the stock. But the issue is scale. Sardine management policy is complicated because fishery managers now recognize these dynamics.

The sardines' visionary harvest policy sets annual quotas far lower than the maximum sustainable catch allowed in most fisheries, and subtracts 150,000 metric tons from the population estimate, allowing for forage and uncertainty. According to the 2011 sardine stock assessment, the coast-wide harvest rate including Canada and Mexico was less than 15 percent of the biomass — decidedly NOT overfishing.

 

Read the full story at The Herald 

May 30, 2012 – Fishermen who really know how to fish are consistently pointing out that the too-big Federal research vessel Bigelow is using the wrong net, a one-size-fits-all compromise arrangement that isn't designed to target yellowtail.

"No other fish is as sensitive to spread as yellowtails. You can put two boats with the same gear together, side by side, and one will catch 200 pounds and the other 2,000 pounds, just by how the gear is set up."

Fishermen don't seem to have much say in all of this. They don't have advanced degrees or comfortable federal jobs, and most of them don't get grant money from oil-industry-financed environmental groups. By this stage of the game I'm thinking that they're largely patronized and ignored because they pose a threat to people in power with an agenda who don't know as much as fishermen do. So much for respect.

The shiny new federal research vessel Bigelow lies at the center of this argument. For example, fishermen who really know how to fish are consistently pointing out that the too-big Bigelow is using the wrong net, a one-size-fits-all compromise arrangement that isn't designed to target yellowtail.

Government scientists, say the fishermen, deploy the wrong net the wrong way and then trawl too fast, with the yellowtail making their escape. The conclusion is drawn that the yellowtail aren't down there to start with. So we cut quota.

The managers are told this to their faces, and they don't object. They really don't say anything.

"NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) scientists don't pay attention to gear," Phillips told me Tuesday from off Nantucket, where he's fishing for squid. "The doors (of the trawl) don't even touch bottom. The paint doesn't wear off the bottom of the doors."

We are talking about fishing for groundfish, remember. They're on the bottom. So the net should be on the bottom. Does this need to be pointed out in 2012?

Read the full article at the New Bedford Standard-Times.

 

May 29, 2012 — Congressmen Frank and Jones argue that a recent New York Times editorial was wrong about both Catch Shares and the efforts in Congress to address problems in Federal fisheries management.

A May 16 editorial in the New York Times, "The Grand Old Party and the Sea," stated that "recreational fishing organizations and their Republican allies in Congress" were responsible for the passage of an amendment recently to defund new "catch share" programs in fisheries management. In fact, past and present efforts to correct poor fisheries management policy by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have been a positive example of bipartisanship in an otherwise deeply divided Congress.

This most recent amendment is another step in a continuing bipartisan effort. The first time Congress voted to defund catch share programs was on February 19, 2011, through an amendment offered by us and our colleague, Frank Pallone, D-N.J.,. The Jones-Frank-Pallone amendment succeeded with 51 Democrats joining 208 Republicans in favor. It was supported by a broad coalition of fishermen, boat builders and consumer groups, including seven major commercial fishing organizations and the majority of commercial fisherman in New Bedford, Mass., the nation's highest revenue port.

This broad opposition to catch shares demonstrates the inaccuracy of the Times editorial's declaration that "Most commercial fishermen support this program." In truth, catch shares were opposed by the Northeast Seafood Coalition, which proposed an alternative that federal regulators refused to consider. Instead, regulators crafted a version of catch shares where quotas are assigned to "sectors," each sector being a group of fishermen who assemble into a collective. This legal maneuver avoided the stipulations of a measure added to the Magnuson-Stevens Act by Congressman Frank, which requires a referendum vote of eligible permit holders before implementing any quota system on individual fishermen. By assigning quotas to collectives rather than individuals, NOAA violated the intent of Congress and flouted democracy by depriving fishermen of a fair up-or-down vote on the management system that would determine their livelihood.

Additionally, the largest and oldest commercial fishing ports in Massachusetts, New Bedford and Gloucester, have filed a suit challenging the sector form of catch shares on the basis of federal regulators' failure to adhere to the referendum requirement in the law. Commercial fishing interests all along the Atlantic Coast have joined the suit, including the Democratic governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, who along with Congressmen Frank and John Tierney filed amicus briefs in support of the lawsuit.

Also opposed to this sector-style catch share program is the scallop industry, the most profitable fishery in the country and one of the best examples of sustainable fishing.

Even those who believe that catch shares management is a good system admit that its implementation in the Northeast was undemocratic. Had NOAA followed the law, the referendum would have forced the agency to work closely with all of the stakeholders. That would have eliminated the numerous problems and inadequacies plaguing the current management system. Those problems, created by regulators who usurped a fair democratic process, are at the root of current industry and political frustration with the agency and the management system that it imposed upon fishermen.

Barney Frank is a Democratic representative from Massachusetts, and Walter Jones is a Republican representative from North Carolina.

This opinion piece ran in the New Bedford Standard Times.

 

May 25, 2012 – Jim Clements’ misleading statements about the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council-appointment process (“Big government must butt out of local fisheries,” op-ed, May 24) mirror his shortsightedness and flawed rationale for supporting one of the most contentious and volatile fisheries management plans ever conceived of — catch shares.

For starters, Gov. Scott does not make appointments to any of the regional fishery management councils. The governor nominates qualified candidates to those positions and appointments are made by the Secretary of Commerce. John Sanchez, the governor’s final selection for a commercial seat on the Gulf Council, is very well-known to fishermen throughout Florida. John served as executive director to the Florida Keys Commercial Fishermen’s Association for five years and also served on the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council from 1997-2000.

Sanchez enjoys the support and endorsement of numerous commercial, recreational and charter fishermen,  including Southeastern Fisheries Association, Southern Offshore Fishing Association, Panama City Boatmen’s Association, Recreational Fishing Alliance, National Association of Charterboat Operators, Florida Keys Commercial Fishermen’s Association, Organized Fishermen of Florida and the Florida Guides Association, all of which have been in existence for more than 20 years, and one as long as 60.

Clements is like others invested heavily in the controversial fishery management scheme being sold by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), hoping for huge returns based on cornering the market in the snapper/grouper fishery at the expense of generational fishermen.
At the request of industry, Rep. Steve Southerland has stepped to the plate in Washington to protect Florida fishermen from catch shares programs being shoved down their throats. Catch shares, or variations thereof, are wreaking havoc in New England and the negative effects are now being felt in the Gulf of Mexico.

Read the full story at the Panama City News Herald.

 

 

May 25, 2012 – The headline on NF’s March 1997 cover declared, “More pain ahead for New England.” Who knew back then that the headline would still be relevant 15 years later? Northeast groundfishermen are wrestling with a 22 percent cut in the Gulf of Maine cod catch limit, set at 6,700 metric tons for this year, brought on by the surprisingly low 2011 cod stock assessment.

According to the March ’97 cover story, the crash of the region’s groundfish stocks had brought harvest cuts totaling an estimated 35 percent in recent years. And the New England Fishery Management Council’s Multispecies Monitoring Committee was recommending that fishermen’s harvests be cut another 41 percent to help return groundfish stocks to healthy levels.

“Everyone knows what that means,” wrote NF Executive Editor Clarke Canfield. “More regulations. More pain. More boats going out of business.”

Then in late April groundfishermen learned that the health of Georges Bank yellowtail flounder has been deemed equally dire, if not more so. Consequently, groundfishermen face an 80 percent cut in the Georges Bank yellowtail catch limit for this year.

That's a real problem for groundfishermen. It's difficult to catch the more valuable fish species without nabbing yellowtail, too. Once the meager yellowtail catch limit is reached — and it'll likely be reached quickly — the groundfishery will, by law, be shutdown for the year, pushing more fishermen to the brink of financial disaster.

Hence, the New England council seeks a way to mitigate the yellowtail cut. One possibility being explored is transferring yellowtail quota from the thriving scallop fishery to the groundfish fishery. Another possibility is negotiating with Canada for a greater slice of the yellowtail quota the United States and Canada share.

Meetings held this week here in Portland, Maine, and in New Bedford, Mass., yielded no easy answers. The New England Fishery Management Council’s Groundfish Committee meets next week and will likely address emergency measures for this year’s fishery. 

Read the full article by Linc Bedrosian at National Fisherman.

 

 

May 29, 2012 – Earlier this month, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released its annual “Status of Stocks” report to Congress outlining the overall health of our nation’s fisheries. To the relatively small cadre of fish geeks (myself included), the release of this document is a major event.

NOAA’s report for 2011, similar to that of Warren Buffett’s financial powerhouse, continued its recent trend of positive returns. The topline numbers showed modest yet continued growth in the overall health of America’s fish populations. At the end of 2011, just 14 percent of fish stocks were subject to overfishing, and 21 percent were in an overfished state—down from 16 percent and 22 percent in 2010, respectively. (Recall this description of the difference between a stock that is “subject to overfishing” and one that is “overfished.”)

Yet the most impressive news to emerge from this year’s report was that six stocks have been declared fully rebuilt—more than in any other year—bringing the overall total of stocks rebuilt since 2000 to 27.

Despite these positive trends and all the feel-good stories the report has spawned (in more than 100 newspapers nationwide), correspondence in my personal inbox this week was dominated by references to a Washington Post Wonk Room blog post proclaiming boldly that it had found “The end of fish, in one chart.”

The chart in question comes from a wide-ranging World Wildlife Fund study on global biodiversity, and it displays the dramatic increase in global fishing pressure from 1950 to 2006. The blog piece goes on to reference an overpublicized doomsday scenario article published by lead author Dr. Boris Worm in 2006 in the journal Science. Worm’s study predicts the demise of global commercial fisheries by 2048. Ah, how the mass media truly loves a ticking clock.

Read the full story at the Center for American Progress.

 

 

May 26, 2012 – FOR American fish, this is a good time to be alive. On May 14th the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported that a record six federal fisheries returned to health last year. After a decade of similar progress, 86% of America’s roughly 250 federally monitored commercial fish stocks were not subject to overfishing; 79% were considered healthy.

This is also good for American fishermen. Commercial and recreational fishing generates an estimated $183 billion a year and supports over 1.5m full-time or part-time jobs. Rebuilding America’s 45 remaining over-exploited fish stocks, NOAA estimates, could generate an extra $31 billion a year and half a million jobs.

That is a tribute to America learning a simple truth—that scientists, not fishermen or politicians, should decide how many fish can be caught—and enforcing this with simple rules. It has taken a while. America’s main fishery law established the importance of scientific quotas in 1976. Yet this was routinely ignored because of poor science and weak enforcement, abetted by influential fishermen—notably in New England, which was built on once-rich Atlantic cod and haddock fisheries. The Massachusetts House of Representatives contains a conspicuous symbol of this: the “Sacred Cod”, a 200-year-old fish of solid pine, hanging from its ceiling.

The politicians are still interfering. On May 9th the House passed legislation forbidding NOAA from developing an innovative means of apportioning fishing quotas, known as catch shares. These are long-term, aiming to give fishermen a stake in the future of their fisheries; market-based, since they can be traded; and, in practice, good for fish. Sadly, the two Republican congressmen behind the ban consider they have been designed “to destroy every aspect of American freedom under the guise of conservation”.

Read the full article at the Economist.

Analysis: While the Economist correctly notes that American fish stocks are rebounding, it errs when it casts opposition to new catch share regulations as the product of partisan politics. Opposition to catch shares is widespread in fishing communities, and has been opposed in Congress by a diverse and bipartisan group of legislators. Catch shares are currently being challenged in court by the cities of Gloucester and New Bedford, whose suit alleges that, by instating the system without first holding a referendum of the fishery on its implementation, NOAA violated federal fisheries laws.

In Congress, previous efforts to defund catch shares have attracted considerable bipartisan support. A measure in 2011 that was similar to thelaw the Economist cites passed with both Democratic and Republican support, with efforts being led by Congressmen Barney Frank (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC).