Opinion

February 1, 2015 — The situation is so serious that Federal regulators have imposed emergency fishing restrictions in response to plummeting cod stocks in the Gulf of Maine.

The measures effectively make it impossible for commercial fishermen to target cod, put strict limits on the amount of cod that can be caught as bycatch, and prohibit recreational fishermen from even possessing cod.

It’s not the first time the species has been protected by draconian measures. In Newfoundland, back in 1992, the entire fishery was closed.

“This is a stock that is in free fall,” said NOAA Fisheries Regional Administrator John Bullard at a press conference in Gloucester recently. “I can’t overstate the difficulty of the task before us.”

But it’s not just cod that is in danger. Federal regulators have also shut down the commercial fishing season for northern shrimp in the Gulf of Maine for a second straight year, citing concerns about the declining population and warmer ocean temperatures.

Fishermen from Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts fish for the tiny pink shrimp, which are prized for their sweet, tender meat, and are a popular item at restaurants.

There’s a lot of things that aren’t known about cod, and why the stock has diminished so badly. It could be overfishing, particularly by large factory ships from Russian and China that troll in international waters.

Read the full story at The Recorder

January 28, 2015 — Bill Karp, director of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, should have a chance later this week to bridge some fundamental gaps in trust and credibility when he delivers a report on NOAA Fisheries’ stock assessment process and scientific models program.

To his credit, he concedes the enormous disconnect between what NOAA Fisheries has found in its stock assessments and what fishermen see every day on the water is a significant problem.

Lest he wonder, fishermen aren’t the only ones who question how NOAA’s most recent stock assessments have turned up low numbers of Gulf of Maine cod and other species, when those working on the water were comfortably able to catch their limits right up to NOAA’s latest shutdown of inshore fishing grounds in November. Just 10 days after his election, Gov. Charlie Baker, meeting fishermen in Gloucester, noted the same concern.

But if Karp expects to make any serious headway toward restoring his center’s credibility with fishermen, lawmakers and others, there is one key place he can start. That’s assuring all sides that any future assessments will include significant input from the fishermen whose life work remains the subject of any such science center studies and the excessive federal catch limits, closures and other regulations that spring from them.

Read the full editorial from The Salem News

SEAFOODNEWS.COM — January 26, 2015 — The campaign has run into problems.  Not of obstruction, because NOAA and the North Pacific Management Council were extremely active in taking on research and trying to determine whether the habitats in these canyons needed additional protection. The problem for Greenpeace was that the scientists found no unique habitats. “War is peace.”   “Freedom is slavery.”  “Ignorance is strength.”  These are the three classic phrases that writer George Orwell used to show how the totalitarians in his novel, 1984, could use language to not just obscure the truth, but to totally eradicate it.
 
Greenpeace is now taking a page from that book.  Last week the organization put up a few billboards around Seattle with the slogan "Bring Balance to the Bering Sea."
 
The ads are part of a campaign by Greenpeace to target retailers and ask them to restrict purchases of fish from the Bering Sea.
 
Here is their spokesperson:
 
"For far too long, industrial fisheries have depleted marine populations and destroyed sensitive ocean habitat, while major retailers have bought and sold that destruction without any accountability," said Greenpeace Senior Oceans Campaigner Jackie Dragon.
 
"The billboards and posters throughout Seattle urge the companies that sell Bering Sea seafood to share the responsibility for protecting a reasonable portion of the ocean to sustain marine life and humankind into the future. We’re calling on Costco, Target and Albertsons to step up as leaders by rejecting seafood that is harvested from the world’s largest underwater canyons in the Bering Sea."
 
The campaign has run into problems.  Not of obstruction, because NOAA and the North Pacific Management Council were extremely active in taking on research and trying to determine whether the habitats in these canyons needed additional protection.    The problem for Greenpeace was that the scientists found no unique habitats.
 
Further, NOAA undertook a massive underwater camera survey to document benthic sea life across the Bering Sea, and the results of this study will be presented to the council in June.  But Greenpeace seems afraid to wait, instead ramping up their campaign prior to getting information they may not like.
 
But the thing that struck me about this campaign was how Orwellian it was.   I went back and looked at Groundfish harvest data from FAO from every major ocean region since 1950.  And guess what.
 
There is one single area in the world where groundfish harvest levels did not climb to a peak and collapse.  Instead they climbed to a sustainable level and stayed there.  And that is the Bering Sea.
 
The chart below shows that in every major fishing area except the North Pacific, dominated by Bering Sea landings, there has been a boom and bust.  It happened in the Northeast Atlantic with the collapse of cod, and also in the Northwest Atlantic.  It happened in the Russian zone, the Northwest Pacific with pollock.  And it happened in the groundfish fisheries of the south pacific as well.  The history of each can be seen in our chart.

Data from FAO on total groundfish harvest 1950 to 2012.  The Bering Sea is the only area that has not had a fisheries collapse.
 
The Bering Sea is the most balanced large scale fishing area in the world.  So when Greenpeace tries to tell retailers that there is a fisheries crisis, that industrial fisheries have depleted marine populations, the one place on the planet where that statement is demonstrably false is the Bering Sea.
 
The reason is that the Fisheries Management in the North Pacific, and the Bering Sea, has adopted a cap on groundfish harvests, and has consistently kept fishing pressure well below levels needed for long term sustainable yield.
 
The results are in the data.  When there was a short term decline in total groundfish in 2008 -2010, there was a quick bounce back.  This is a sign of a resilient and balanced ecosystem and is proof that the management here is the most successful in the world.
 
So when Greenpeace tries to call its campaign 'Bring Balance to the Bering Sea', they literally should be laughed off the stage.
 
Unfortunately, too many retailers, and even the Marine Stewardship Council itself, are unwilling to say the emperor has no clothes.  Yet they should say this.  We cannot have responsible people like seafood buyers and science based certifiers pretending that something that contradicts all facts is simply another part of the NGO spectrum of opinion. 
 
The actual data behind sustainability, defined as preserving the opportunity for future generations to get the same benefits from an ecosystem as our generation today, is shown in spades in the Bering Sea.
 
No amount of 'campaigns' can reverse the facts.  We expect retailers to tell this to Greenpeace.

This story originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

January 26, 2015 — Over the past decade, eel fishermen in Maine and all along the Atlantic coast have been part of a responsibly managed fishery, adhering to stringent regulations developed across state, provincial and international lines.

Even as demand for eels has spiked in the last few years, the fishery has set a course of proactive management, with sustainable catch limits helping to secure the future of the stock.

Despite these notable management efforts, in late 2014, the environmental group International Union for the Conservation of Nature placed American eel on its “Red List” of endangered species. But a close examination of all of the available evidence — including a 2007 report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which the agency has called “the most comprehensive analysis of the American eel’s range wide status ever undertaken” — reveals that the IUCN designation is misplaced, at best.

Some researchers predicted a species-wide collapse following a steep decline in the number of Great Lakes eels beginning in the 1980s. But after decades of observation, this prediction has not borne out for the rest of the population. Instead, populations have remained resilient. This was noted by the Fish and Wildlife Service in its report, which stated that “the species currently appears stable.”

The key measurement here is the recruitment — the number of new eels that are born and enter the eel population — of younger glass eels. It’s one of the best indicators of the health of the eel stock and was recognized by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s report as the measurement that “best represents the species status range-wide.”

Read the full opinion piece from The Bangor Daily News

January 24, 2015 — Colonial America’s first true industry, groundfishing, has followed the path of many others. Technology improved as the industrial revolution took hold — it kept improving afterward — and a growing population of fishermen, both domestic and foreign, became more productive as they pursued cod, haddock and other species found near the ocean floor.

Today, that industry faces an uncertain future of depleted stocks, consolidation of the fleet, restrictive regulation and questions about whether species that long sustained some New England fishing communities will ever rebound.

As the steam-powered trawler and mesh net replaced the schooner and baited fishing line at the start of the 20th century, fishermen and their vessels became, perhaps, too efficient to the point of jeopardizing the resource on which they depended for their livelihood.

Regulations were slow to take hold, but in recent decades, they have become increasingly more restrictive. (Federal regulators last year again drastically slashed Atlantic cod catch limits, for example.) Groundfish stocks, however, have failed to rebound in response.

“Humans have been failing at fisheries management for a very long time, so it’s not a small task” to get it right, said Robin Alden, executive director of the nonprofit Penobscot East Resource Center in Stonington and a former commissioner of the Maine Department of Marine Resources.

Read the full editorial from The Bangor Daily News

January 23, 2015 — The impacts of California's ongoing extreme drought are felt by everyone in the state. Some in Congress have proposed weakening environmental protections that would divert more of the water flowing to the San Francisco Bay. That would have serious implications for the largest estuary on the Pacific coast of North and South America and the fish, wildlife and people who rely on this unique ecosystem.

Fresh water that flows down our rivers through the Sacramento—San Joaquin River Delta to the bay and its estuary is the lifeblood for many species, such as our iconic Chinook salmon. In the ocean, salmon are consumed by orcas and other marine mammals, and some are harvested by commercial fishing fleets. San Francisco Bay and its estuary are nurseries for salmon, herring, halibut, sturgeon, Dungeness crab and other species that sustain fishing communities and sportfishing businesses from Monterey to Oregon.

If proposals to weaken environmental protections pass Congress and more water is diverted, our fragile estuary will continue to decline.

Few recognize that this ecosystem already is suffering from a decades-long man-made drought. In most years, the winter and spring months are drier than during any natural drought on record because of the extremely high levels of water diversion.

On average, more than half of the fresh water is diverted either upstream or at the southern end of the Delta, with more than 70 percent of it going to agriculture and the rest to cities and industry. When natural drought conditions are added on top of these long-term water diversions, this ecosystem receives an even smaller fraction of the water available.

Read the full opinion piece at the San Jose Mercury News

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [The Editors View] by John Sackton —  January 20, 2015 — Are commercial fisheries about to be sacrificed in Washington due to loss of leadership and influence? 

Last week NOAA issued the latest statement about their intentions to revise the language of National Standard 1 – the document that controls how regional management councils implement the Magnuson Stevens Act.
 
For many years the precepts of Standard 1 were fixed:  Fisheries must be managed on the basis of the best available science to create the optimum yield in national benefits, defined as both commercial and recreational opportunities. Yet since most fisheries in the 200 mile federal waters were commercial, and producing seafood for public consumption was deemed a national interest, the most visible work of the councils has been in managing the commercial fishery.
 
At the last major revision of Magnuson, important changes were made that required hard catch limits for all major species, and accountability measures to keep fisheries within their limits.  These changes were a major objective of marine conservation groups.
 
The changes worked:  the US created a system that is the best in the world at preventing overfishing.
 
But as some catches were ratcheted down and quotas reduced, suddenly the recreational fishery which had been less visible reacted to being caught by these limits.  Two major examples are the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, and the halibut fishery in Alaska.   In both cases, the management councils had moved to a system of limited access rights and transferable quotas, ensuring that in fact catch limits were never breached.  But as quotas fell due to environmental changes, the recreational fishery did not stay below their allocations, and in both fisheries consistently took more fish than they were allocated.
 
As new controls were put in place such as shorter seasons, bag limits, or size limits, the recreational lobby rebelled and demanded a different allocation system.
 
For the Magnuson reauthorization that is currently on the table, the recreational groups want to explicitly change the allocation formulas based on historical share of catch, and instead go to a formula based on expanding the share going to the recreational industry  i.e.. those making the outboards, guides, charter businesses, and others who support lobbying to gain additional economic advantage.  To do this they want explicit power to revisit allocation decisions every five years.
 
Such a measure would destroy the ability of the commercial sector to invest and get loans, as the fish supply, already subject to natural variability and controls to prevent overfishing, would be further subject to political manipulation whenever a recreational lobby group was strong enough.
 
In Congress, for most of the years since Magnuson-Stevens was enacted, there have been powerful Senate leaders from the major fishing states: Alaska, Washington, Massachusetts, Louisiana and Maine, all of whom have supported the commercial industry.
 
But in some states, especially Florida, the recreational lobby has managed to obliterate commercial fishing.  For example, in Florida a state-wide ban on gillnets was voted, due to the political power of the recreational lobby. 
 
Now Florida Senator Marco Rubio is not only the chair of the relevant Senate Committee on Magnuson, but a possible presidential candidate as well – and in that arena he will be anxious to support the recreational lobby. 
 
Does NOAA see the writing on the wall?  Are they making agency adjustments to deal with a new force?
 
NOAA sometimes shows very poor and biased understanding of recreational vs. commercial interests. 
 
For example, in a MAFAC white paper on recreational interests, they state:
 
"The recreational sector is fundamentally different from the commercial sector in several ways, including their motivations for participating in the fishery. Commercial fishermen prosecute the fishery primarily for personal economic gain. They want to catch as many fish as possible, as efficiently as possible, in order to maximize profit. Conversely, recreational anglers fish for enjoyment, to provide fish for their families, for the challenge of catching specific species, and for spending quality time with family and friends."
 
This description is a total myth.  First, the 'recreational sector' is as business oriented as any sector in our society, and the money and lobbying for these organizations comes from the businesses – from boat and motor manufacturers to guides and lodge operators – who are as profit oriented as anyone else.
 
Secondly, most fishermen are not simply there for a paycheck.  They could earn more money elsewhere.  Instead, they are devoted to a way of life that is satisfying, independent, and deeply connected to the ocean.   There is no difference between an individual recreational and commercial fishermen's love for the outdoors.
 
Third, the public benefit of the United States seafood resources is in providing an import and unique source of food to the American people – and even though commercial operations have to be profitable to exist, they use a public resource for a larger public purpose:  providing fish and seafood to eat.
 
It is this aspect of the commercial/recreational divide that is so often overlooked.  Why should a few hundred thousand people lock up access to striped bass along the Atlantic coast and prevent the 100 million Americans living near the coast from eating that fish at restaurants?  A national resource must be available to most Americans. 
 
The revisions underway should make the commercial side nervous, because we are going to be short of friends, and subject to false campaigns that try negate the work we do as somehow not being in the public interest.
 
The NOAA revision process makes me nervous.

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

 

January 20, 2015 — Although catch shares are promoted as a means to protect the fish and small-scale fishermen, the new system has had a devastating effect on the latter. Individual fishing operators, the small businesses of many coastal areas, were turned from entrepreneurs and business owners into sharecroppers and day laborers. All but the largest and most “efficient” operators were beached.

For years, many of the world’s wild fish stocks have dwindled as we pursued too many fish in the effort to feed growing populations. The North Atlantic cod is close to extinct from a commercial standpoint, and Atlantic oyster production has fallen 99 percent from its high in the 1920’s.

This type of problem is well known to economists as the so-called “tragedy of the commons,” first recognized in England in the early 1800s. Too many sheep were let loose on public land, and their overgrazing ruined the fields for all. Since then, policymakers have struggled to devise solutions for managing shared resources – grazing lands, forests, fisheries, air and water – to preserve their value for future generations. Sometimes, seemingly good solutions backfire.

Until a few decades ago, fisheries were managed on the principle of “first come, first served.” Catches weren’t managed or limited, and some fisheries were decimated. Then an approach called “Individual Transferable Quotas” was implemented. Under this approach, each fisherman was awarded the right to catch a certain percentage of the total annual allowable catch, which was set each year. The idea was that if each fisherman owned a percentage share of the total, they would have a strong incentive not to overfish and destroy the fishery, since that would of course destroy the value of what they owned. This was supposed to protect the fishing ground, and also protect the economic security of individual fishing operators.

Read the full opinion from US News & World Report

 

January 19, 2015 — The New York Times on New England groundfish – so seemingly close but so very off target.

On December 14 the Times had an article titled Water warms and cod catch ebbs in Maine by Michael Wines and Jess Bidgood. Obviously the article focused on the observed water temperature increases in the Gulf of Maine and the impact on local fishermen. After reading it one is left with the feeling that the plight of Gulf of Maine and other New England fishermen is due to some combination of overfishing and increasing water temperatures.

The article wasn't notable for what it contained, but rather for what it ignored, which is the added – and very possibly dominant – impact of predation on our inshore and offshore fisheries.

But the Times isn't alone in ignoring the impacts of predation. Fisheries managers haven't shown much interest in it, possibly because all that they are able to effectively manage is fishing. Why pay any attention to anything that you can't effectively, or for that matter ineffectively, manage? Equally predictably, the anti-fishing ENGOs have shown zero interest, because they seem all too willing to ignore anything above and beyond – or let's make that beneath and below – selling the fallacy that fishermen and fishing are to blame for most of the oceans' ills.

There are many species, primarily marine mammals, that have experienced population "booms" since the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972 and the Endangered Species Act in 1973.

 

View the full PDF of the opinion at FishNetUSA