Opinion

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [Letters] — May 14, 2014 — Several points made in a recent Seattle Times article titled “Update of fisheries law pits West Coast against East Coast” may have been taken out of context and I wish to set the record straight to the extent that’s possible.

To the Editor: RE: "Dueling drafts of Magnuson Act reauthorization pit East Coast against West Coast "  SeafoodNews May 12th

Several points made in a recent Seattle Times article titled “Update of fisheries law pits West Coast against East Coast” may have been taken out of context and I wish to set the record straight to the extent that’s possible.

First and foremost, as far as I’ve heard in my communications with many fishing groups and fishermen around the country, the East Coast and West Coast are not “pitted” against one another when it comes to reauthorizing the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA).

Let me say that again. As far as I’m aware, there is no “split” between the two coasts over MSA Reauthorization.

Everyone I’ve spoken with agrees that the MSA must be reauthorized. Furthermore, the Regional Fishery Management Councils established under the Act must retain the authority to develop management measures specific to regional issues and concerns, guided by the best available science.

This is not an East Coast vs. West Coast issue. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. Regardless of party affiliation, where we live, or which fishery we participate in, as far as I’ve heard we all want the exact same thing. We all want viable commercial fisheries now and into the future, and we all want to see coastal communities thrive. End of story. 

It would be very unfortunate if the Times story leads readers to a different conclusion.  I am quoted in the story as saying the current law “is not perfect, but it’s largely working.” I stand by that comment 100%. I’m reluctant to speak for the entire North Pacific industry, but I believe most of my industry colleagues would agree the law has been very successful in providing a framework for sustainable fisheries management in the North Pacific.

I think the 30-year plus track record in the North Pacific is all the evidence you need in that regard. But I never said the MSA was perfect.

I would refer the reader to North Pacific Fishery Management Council Executive Director Chris Oliver’s testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries & Coast Guard this past February. In his testimony Mr. Oliver speaks to the fact that additional flexibility for Councils may be warranted in some circumstances, although he does offer “some important cautionary notes.” Once again, I never said the law was perfect. I said that for the most part it’s working well in the North Pacific.

That does not minimize or otherwise negate the fact that the Act may not be living up to its promise in other parts of the country. Many fishermen and fishing communities around the country have asked for changes to the existing law to provide for more effective implementation at the regional level.

These requests should absolutely be considered and I believe Chairman Hastings’ discussion draft offers many changes intended to address these regional disparities.  Senators Magnuson and Stevens understood in 1976 that one size does not fit all when it comes to fisheries management.

Mr. Hastings’ discussion draft simply continues this regionally based approach. If I said that Mr. Hastings’ proposed changes were not needed, as the article states, I meant that if certain provisions of the existing law are changed to address regional considerations outside of the North Pacific, then maybe those changes should be limited to the regions for which they are intended. To imply that proposed changes would eventually undermine the health of fisheries or “squander” conservation gains made since 2006 was certainly not my intent. 

As to the Senate discussion draft, I think it would serve readers well to start by focusing on two important but possibly overlooked words that appear in the article: Alaska and Florida. Senators Begich and Rubio are working in a bi-partisan manner to craft a bill that will address the broad suite of issues facing the commercial fishing industry not only in their home states, but also across the Nation. They are also trying to balance the perspectives of coastal communities, the recreational fishing sector and related support businesses, the conservation community, tribal interests, and subsistence users. This is not an easy task, nor one that Congress seems to be taking lightly. The “dozen hearings on how to rewrite the law,” as mentioned in the article, provide considerable evidence of that fact.

Both the House and Senate have circulated discussion drafts, not “dueling drafts” nor bills as the article indicates. The intent of these drafts is to get the discussion going and in that respect I’d say both have been a resounding success. The letter submitted by several North Pacific commercial fishing organizations (including, but not limited to United Catcher Boats and Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers) was intended to contribute to that discussion and help inform members of Congress as they move forward in drafting their respective bills. My hope is that we can focus our efforts and energy towards making sure the Magnuson Stevens Act works for everyone, rather than focusing on a controversy that doesn’t exist.

Mark H. Gleason, Executive Director
Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers

This opinion piece appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

May 13, 2013 — To require fish stocks to rebuild within a fixed timeframe of 10 years, while the target they must reach is itself unfixed, not to mention uncertain, is unrealistic. In plain language, the MSA as it is written today mandates that stock projections hit a moving target that cannot be defined within a defined period.

NEW BEDFORD, Mass., — May 13, 2014 — According to the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA), the primary legislation governing U.S. fisheries, regional fishery management councils must develop a rebuilding plan for every overfished fishery, and must “specify a time period for rebuilding … that shall be as short as possible … and not exceed 10 years.” In other words, if a species of fish is deemed overfished, a plan must be implemented to rebuild the fishery within 10 years.

While this may seem reasonable to the casual observer, nothing could be further from the truth. No scientific analysis at all was involved in choosing a period of 10 years; the requirement was an arbitrary political decision. In fact, according to the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council, there are no scientific grounds for justifying any length of time as a standard for a fish stock rebuilding time.

Factors contributing to this conclusion by the NRC are numerous. Ecological and environmental conditions weigh into the skepticism, along with uncertainties surrounding fish population projections. Of particular concern is the very basis for rebuilding itself.

To require fish stocks to rebuild within a fixed timeframe of 10 years, while the target they must reach is itself unfixed, not to mention uncertain, is unrealistic. In plain language, the MSA as it is written today mandates that stock projections hit a moving target that cannot be defined within a defined period.

Read the full opinion piece at The Providence Journal 

 

 

MONTAUK, N.Y. — May 10, 2014 — But with the striped bass population in decline, competition for the prized catch has intensified between recreational and commercial fishermen, setting up a showdown over a fishery that generates, according to one study, several billion dollars a year.

As summer approaches, the view from Long Island’s easternmost point transforms at dawn as anglers casting for striped bass begin taking their places along the surf. By June, the fish will be racing through these waters on the way to coastal New England as part of their northern migration, a biological spectacle akin to the movement of salmon on the West Coast.

But with the striped bass population in decline, competition for the prized catch has intensified between recreational and commercial fishermen, setting up a showdown over a fishery that generates, according to one study, several billion dollars a year. On Tuesday, fishery managers will begin meeting to decide how best to respond. Their decision could be the most pivotal since the 1980s, when a series of fishing moratoriums wreaked havoc on the industry. As Billy Joel, who was raised on Long Island, lamented in song: “I was a bayman like my father was before. Can’t make a living as a bayman anymore.”

Then, as now, there were warning signs that the species was in trouble: Habitat destruction, pollution and overfishing during the previous decade severely reduced its numbers. By 1983, scientists had warned that virtually no new stripers were joining the migration.

And then as now the biggest management challenge is the stripers’ seasonal passage, which takes them through the territorial waters of multiple states on a journey from their primary spawning grounds in the Chesapeake Bay to the coast of Maine.

Since 1981, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, with representatives appointed by governors along this route, has managed the striped bass to make sure its numbers remain healthy. But from the start, the commission was crippled by the parochial interests of its members, whose constituents all vied for a cut of the migration. Even after it was clear that the population was on the brink of collapse, the commission was unable to agree on measures to save it.

Read the full opinion piece at The New York Times 

May 13, 2014 — This year, new restrictions are going into place per order of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees fisheries. The new rules place various limitation on the fish caught by recreational fishermen who head out on deep-sea fishing trips.

For those who grew up fishing in local waters, the slow death of cherished traditions continues.

The commercial fishing fleet’s woes have been well publicized, as the federal government has changed its method for managing the fleet and has dropped the allowed catch considerably. The double whammy has led many a fisherman to give up his business.

Now it spreads to charter boats, and for ports across the North Shore, this is a serious and substantial blow. This year, new restrictions are going into place per order of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees fisheries. The new rules place various limitation on the fish caught by recreational fishermen who head out on deep-sea fishing trips.

The harder blow comes on Sept. 1, when the “closed season” begins. This is two months earlier than the prior rules had set. September is one of the best months, if not the best month, for recreational fishing in the region. The weather and temperature are often ideal for being out on the sea, and fish are migrating and active.

Charter boat fishing is a substantial waterfront business locally, employing dozens of captains and crew members.

Read the full opinion piece at The Salem News 

 

 

 

FishNet USA — May 9, 2014 — To equate what a recreational fisherman pays to catch a fish to what a commercial fisherman is paid to catch that same fish is to equate the total cost an equestrian pays to ride her horse for a mile to what Amtrak would charge to move her the same distance on a train.

The people at the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) are embarking on the second year of a campaign to convince anyone who will listen that recreational fishing is equally as or more important than commercial fishing and that in their estimation the federal government should not be putting so much emphasis on managing the commercial fisheries. It began with a press release announcing the completion of an ASA commissioned study by Southwick Associates on May 6 of last year and has progressed to a YouTube video starring gumballs as fish surrogates and with Michael Nussman, the President of the ASA, in a strong supporting role.

In the press release Nussman stated "the current federal saltwater fisheries management system has historically focused the vast majority of its resources on the commercial sector, when recreational fishing is found to have just as significant an economic impact on jobs and the nation's economy."

You might ask what the point of this exercise is.

According to Nussman "we're not releasing this report in an effort to demean commercial fishing. Commercial fishing is very important to our nation's economy! Our goal is to highlight the importance of recreational fishing to the nation. As our coastal populations continue to grow, along with saltwater recreational fishing, significant improvements must be made to shape the nation's federal fisheries system in a way that recognizes and responds to the needs of the recreational fishing community."

Among other things, “demean” means to lower in standing, and in spite of Nussman’s assurances to the contrary, it sure seems like that’s exactly what the ASA and their Southwick Associates report is attempting to do.

From the report:

“In 2011 anglers landed 204.9 million pounds of saltwater fish. In pursuit of these fish, saltwater anglers spent $26.8 billion on fishing tackle and equipment and trip-related goods and services. Including multiplier effects, their spending generated $70.3 billion in economic output (sales), created $32.5 billion in value-added growth and supported 454,542 jobs with $20.5 billion in income…. Of the commercial sector’s landings, 4.9 billion finfish pounds were the same species frequently targeted by anglers, with a landed value of $2.1 billion. Including multiplier effects along the entire value chain from harvesters to processors to final consumers, commercial finfish harvest of species also sought by anglers generated $20.5 billion of economic output. This is the “sales impact,” which is not to be confused with expenditures or retail sales which created $10.6 billion in value-added impacts and generated 304,611 jobs with $7.5 billion of income.”

If that isn’t an attempt to lower the standing of commercial fishing, particularly when Nussman introduced the report with the words "the current federal saltwater fisheries management system has historically focused the vast majority of its resources on the commercial sector,” it’s hard to imagine what would be.

The entire report centers around the idea that expenditures on recreational fishing services, equipment and supplies are somehow equivalent – on a dollar to dollar basis – to dollars generated by commercially caught and landed finfish (The Southwick people disregard commercial shellfish landings, which will be discussed below).

In reality commercial fishermen and the people in every other business in the seafood supply chain are dedicated to producing the best possible product at the lowest possible price, as are any business owners engaged in producing products in a free market system. If they weren’t they wouldn’t be in business for very long, because there is a world’s worth of alternative center of the plate proteins competing for the US consumers’ dollars. On the other hand recreational fishermen aren’t buying fish when they go fishing, they are buying a recreational fishing experience, and the more pleasurable that experience is the more they are likely to spend. Within limits this isn’t determined by the amount of fish caught. Recreational fishermen aren’t driven by anything approaching the bottom-line constraints that commercial fishermen and others in the seafood supply chain face.

To equate what a recreational fisherman pays to catch a fish to what a commercial fisherman is paid to catch that same fish is to equate the total cost an equestrian pays to ride her horse for a mile to what Amtrak would charge to move her the same distance on a train. Apples and oranges doesn’t come close to describing how unapt the Southwick comparison is, maybe Ferraris and oranges does.

Why omit shellfish?

In the Southwick report the authors also ignore the value and the economic contributions of the commercial shellfish fisheries (mollusks and crustaceans), stating as their rationale “shellfish are rarely targeted by anglers.” This implies that there is no relationship between commercial shellfish fisheries and commercial or recreational finfish fisheries. The impact that the yellowtail flounder fisheries have on the New England/Mid-Atlantic sea scallop fishery, the most valuable commercial fishery in the US, demonstrates how a seemingly unrelated fishery can have a profound effect on another, and how “dismissing” any of our fisheries, recreational or commercial, can leave naïve readers with severely distorted impressions.

The New England/Mid-Atlantic sea scallop fishery is constrained more by the catch of yellowtail flounder, which supports a small recreational fishery in New England, than it is by sea scallop abundance. If the small allocation of yellowtail flounder is inadvertently exceeded by the sea scallop fleet the sea scallop fishery will be closed for a predetermined period in the subsequent fishing year depending on the amount by which the allocation is exceeded. The allocation of yellowtail flounder to the scallop fleet has been on the order of 500 metric tons annually. The sea scallop fishery, the most valuable commercial fishery in the US with landings that have averaged over a half a billion dollars a year in recent years, is dependent on catching just over a million dollars’ worth of these flounder (that have an ex-vessel value of around a dollar a pound). If the yellowtail flounder population declines for any reason the allocation of them to the sea scallop fishery will be reduced proportionally, as will the sea scallop catch.

The Gulf of Mexico/South Atlantic shrimp fisheries provide another example of how closely intertwined commercial shellfish fisheries and commercial/recreational finfish fisheries are. Domestic shrimp fishermen exert a tremendous effort – at a tremendous expense – to avoid bycatch of juvenile stages of important finfish species, particularly snapper and grouper. The Mid-Atlantic/New England squid fishery is managed in large part for the butterfish bycatch (more on butterfish later). And there are similar finfish interactions in other shellfish fisheries.

Also, and it’s kind of surprising that the Southwick people ignored this, a small yet significant part of the “commercial” shellfish harvest goes to providing bait to recreational anglers, and the price that they pay for their clams, shrimp, squid and clams tend to be quite a bit higher than what consumers are willing to pay for the same products at the seafood counter.

In ignoring the value of the commercial shellfish fisheries the report makes it appear as if fish caught by recreational fishermen add three times as much value to the economy as fish caught by commercial fishermen. The inclusion of all commercially caught fish and shellfish would definitely affect this ratio, meaningless as it is. In fact, well over half of the commercial finfish catch is composed of relatively low value per pound species and virtually all of the commercially caught shellfish are high value per pound. In 2012 the ten most valuable commercial finfish species had an average landed value of less than 26 cents per pound while the ten most valuable shellfish species had an average landed value of over two dollars per pound.

Fishery: SCALLOP, SEA
Landings (MT): 25798.30
Landings (lbs): 56874880.00
Value ($s): 558809255.00
$s/lb: 9.83

Fishery: LOBSTER, AMERICAN
Landings (MT): 67831.90
Landings (lbs): 149542284.00
Value ($s): 429269331.00
$s/lb: 2.87

Fishery: POLLOCK, WALLEYE
Landings (MT): 1302815.40
Landings (lbs): 2872186903.00
Value ($s): 343311377.00
$s/lb: 0.12

Fishery: SHRIMP, WHITE
Landings (MT): 53683.50
Landings (lbs): 118350634.00
Value ($s): 234435088.00
$s/lb: 1.98

Fishery: SALMON, SOCKEYE
Landings (MT): 96542.50
Landings (lbs): 212837690.00
Value ($s): 209934238.00
$s/lb: 0.99

Fishery: SHRIMP, BROWN
Landings (MT): 49637.60
Landings (lbs): 109431019.00
Value ($s): 197883631.00
$s/lb: 1.81

Fishery: COD, PACIFIC
Landings (MT): 325737.90
Landings (lbs): 718121778.00
Value ($s): 186595472.00
$s/lb: 0.26

Fishery: CRAB, BLUE
Landings (MT): 81209.10
Landings (lbs): 179033583.00
Value ($s): 183527265.00
$s/lb: 1.03

Fishery: CRAB, DUNGENESS
Landings (MT): 24303.20
Landings (lbs): 53578848.00
Value ($s): 180671629.00
$s/lb: 3.37

Fishery: CRAB, SNOW
Landings (MT): 40018.90
Landings (lbs): 88225773.00
Value ($s): 166807600.00
$s/lb: 1.89

Fishery: HALIBUT, PACIFIC
Landings (MT): 15382.40
Landings (lbs): 33912005.00
Value ($s): 151887093.00
$s/lb: 4.48

Fishery: SABLEFISH
Landings (MT): 18733.60
Landings (lbs): 41300008.00
Value ($s): 140746491.00
$s/lb: 3.41

Fishery: MENHADEN
Landings (MT): 639754.30
Landings (lbs): 1410402326.00
Value ($s): 107747893.00
$s/lb: 0.08

Fishery: OYSTER, EASTERN
Landings (MT): 10825.90
Landings (lbs): 23866753.00
Value ($s): 104600262.00
$s/lb: 4.38

Fishery: SALMON, CHUM
Landings (MT): 68015.30
Landings (lbs): 149946474.00
Value ($s): 101260007.00
$s/lb: 0.68

Fishery: SALMON, PINK
Landings (MT): 106734.00
Landings (lbs): 235305761.00
Value ($s): 101164489.00
$s/lb: 0.43

Fishery: CRAB, KING
Landings (MT): 7419.90
Landings (lbs): 16357952.00
Value ($s): 90789682.00
$s/lb: 5.55

Fishery: TUNA, BIGEYE
Landings (MT): 6908.80
Landings (lbs): 15231239.00
Value ($s): 70680823.00
$s/lb: 4.64

Fishery: SQUID, CALIFORNIA MARKET
Landings (MT): 97460.50
Landings (lbs): 214861518.00
Value ($s): 63883456.00
$s/lb: 0.30

Fishery: CLAM, PACIFIC GEODUCK
Landings (MT): 1116.60
Landings (lbs): 2461568.00
Value ($s): 54451870.00
$s/lb: 22.12

No matter what the reasoning, not considering the entire commercial fishery relative to the entire recreational fishery leaves readers with an incomplete and very possibly distorted picture.

What about exceeded quotas?

In every discussion about inequities in recreational fisheries management this seems to be the 800 pound gorilla lurking invisibly in the corner.

If you are at all familiar with the current state of fisheries management in the US you know that it’s next to impossible for commercial fishermen to overfish their quota (or TAC or whatever it’s called) in federal waters. Unfortunately that’s not the case with recreational fishermen in recreational fisheries or in those that they share with their commercial colleagues.

At this point virtually every commercial fishery that takes place in federal waters is under one form of limited entry or another. What this means is that you need a federal permit to participate in those fisheries. The number of permits allowed in each fishery is limited. Accordingly it takes more than a boat and a desire to participate in a particular fishery to fish. The controls on the limited number of commercial fishermen in a particular fishery can (and usually do) limit where they can fish, when they can fish, how they can fish, the size and horsepower of their boat, the type and amount of gear they can use and the size and amount of the fish they can catch. Depending on the fishery, when a predetermined amount of a particular species is caught the fishery may be shut down. If the amount caught exceeds the commercial quota, as with yellowtail flounder in the sea scallop fishery, the excess amount may be deducted from the following year’s quota.

Recreational fishermen are managed with various combinations of size, season and bag limits (the number of a particular species of fish that they can have in possession). However, there is no limit to the number of fishermen who can participate in a recreational fishery, nor in how many trips they may make in which they catch a particular species. It seems obvious that a fisheries management system that for all intents and purposes has no cap on the number of participants nor on the number of fish of a particular species each of those participants can take can be pretty far from effective. Recognizing this and effectively dealing with it is one of the improvements that is definitely necessary to, in Mr. Nussman’s words, “reshape the nation’s federal fisheries system.”

As the chart below (from NOAA/NMFS) shows, the number of saltwater recreational anglers, which remained reasonably stable for the last two decades of the twentieth century, grew significantly in most of the first decade of the twenty-first, until the “Great Recession” began. Whether most of those who left come back to the sport or not, there are and will continue to be millions more than there were a decade ago while the productive capacity of our waters isn’t going to increase significantly. 

 

What of what seems to be an underlying theme of Mr. Nussman’s remarks in the press release and in his gumball presentation; the idea that the commercial fisheries are making off with most of the fish and that’s costing the US economy billions of dollars? Coincidentally NOAA/NMFS in the 2012 edition of Fisheries of the United States included a graph titled Top Ten Recreational Species-Harvest Vs. Commercial Harvest reproduced below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With the exception of Atlantic cod and summer flounder, well over half of the harvest of each of the most recreationally sought species nationally are taken by recreational anglers (I’ll note here that the commercial Atlantic cod fishery was historically our most significant commercial fishery since well before the founding of the United States and the summer flounder fishery has been one of the most important commercial fisheries in the Mid-Atlantic for most of the last hundred years).

Could it be that Mr. Nussman wants even more of these and other species to meet what from a management perspective appears to be the uncontrollable demands (by managing what an angler can catch per trip but not the number of anglers/number of trips) of the recreational anglers? The commercial landings of these ten species and any others that support both recreational and commercial fisheries seem meager indeed, particularly when one considers commercial landings in the US in their entirety. But they certainly aren’t to the fishermen, recreational, party/charter and commercial, who catch them and the businesses they support. And, while Mr. Nussman lumped all commercial finfish fishermen and fisheries together, that is certainly not the real world case. The most valuable commercial fisheries generally involve large companies, big boats, a lot of onshore or onboard processing and a lot of capital. The smaller ones generally don’t, and in them are the fishermen who would suffer the greatest harm from any reallocation. They are also the fishermen who have been the bedrock of our fishing communities from Maine to Alaska and beyond, and as we’re already seeing, as we lose them we lose those communities as well.

The final chart, again from NOAA/NMFS, shows how the number of fish taken home by saltwater anglers each year has declined to less than half of what it was in the 1980s. While I’m in no way expert on the saltwater recreational angling industry, this seems to be a pretty unsustainable trend, but does its continuation have to be inevitable? No more inevitable than the constant whittling down of commercial and recreational quotas are.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there a solution to what I’ll call the saltwater recreational anglers’ dilemma?

Every year more commercial fishermen and the people in fishing dependent businesses are realizing that better science almost always means more fish – and when it doesn’t we definitely don’t want to be catching too many. As long as the precautionary principle is applied only to protect the fish and not to protect fishing communities and is rigidly controlling fisheries management decisions, what we don’t know about fish stocks is going to hurt us. Some of us have come to terms with this and are committing to collaboration with researchers ashore and on the water. One of the most recent positive results of this was announced by the Mid-Atlantic Council last week, reporting that a just completed stock assessment determined that butterfish were presently not overfished and hadn’t been for at least twenty-three years. This assessment was the result of several years of cooperation and collaboration between the Council staff, researchers at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center and several universities, fishermen and their representatives. It wasn’t easy, but it’s getting easier, and the reward is going to be larger – but sustainable – harvests of both butterfish and squid. And it didn’t involve any fishermen trying to grab quota from any other fisherman. All it involved was getting the science closer to right.

A recent NOAA/NMFS publication (Fish Assessment Report – Fiscal Year 2014 Quarter 2 Update available here) reported that only 59.6% of the fish stocks listed on that agency’s Fish Stock Sustainability index had “adequate” assessments (from NOAA/NMFS “generally a minimally adequate assessment can be conducted where there is good information on the level of annual catch and an indicator of the degree of change in stock abundance over time”). Over 40% of our important fish stocks do not. What that means is that, because of the precautionary principle the harvest of almost half of our important fish stocks are too low because we don’t know enough about them because the science isn’t there to adequately assess them. 

There’s definitely a message in there for Mr. Nussman and his members. And it wouldn’t require gumballs to illustrate it.

I would be remiss if I didn’t finish this with a reminder that we are importing on the order of 90% of the seafood we consume in the U.S. and fresh, locally produced fish is getting harder and harder to find and increasingly expensive. There are more fish out there. We need to find or force the funding to provide our scientists and our managers with the science necessary to adequately manage our fisheries. That would be good for everyone, not just the recreational fishermen, the commercial fishermen or the party/charter fishermen.

 

May 9, 2014 — In the early 1960s, the situation seemed dire for humpback whales. A century of industrial hunting had reduced the North Pacific population to around 1,000, a minuscule fraction of historic levels. Extinction, once unthinkable, appeared not only possible, but likely.

Five decades after the International Whaling Commission imposed a moratorium on hunting in 1966, however, humpbacks have made a remarkable recovery. Over 60,000 of the bus-sized beasts now swim the world’s oceans, and the North Pacific population is up to 22,000. In U.S. waters, federal law has also helped rejuvenate humpbacks: The whale was among the first species protected by the Endangered Species Conservation Act – the Endangered Species Act’s predecessor – when it was passed in 1970, and it’s remained on the endangered species list since. Humpbacks are a genuine ESA success story, and a considerably more visible one than the Oregon chub.

The creature’s comeback also raises a tough question: Now that we’re not plunging harpoons into their backs, are humpbacks still endangered?

Last month, Canada answered that question in the negative, downlisting North Pacific humpbacks from “threatened” to “special concern.” The reclassification means that the government no longer has to protect critical whale habitat off the coast of British Columbia. While Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s administration has been no friend to conservation, many scientists agree that the health of the humpback population — now increasing by around 4 percent annually — indeed warrants delisting. “There are lots of times the government chooses to ignore science,” Canadian marine biologist Jane Watson told The Toronto Star, “but in the case of the humpback whale, the process worked extremely well.”

Read the full story from High County News

May 7, 2014 — Healthy oceans and well-managed fisheries improve coastal economies, enhance recreational fishing opportunities and provide fresh, local seafood to consumers. And while many fisheries around the world are in serious decline, the United States benefits from one of the most sustainable and profitable fisheries management systems in the world.

It is a system that is built on sound science and incorporates strong local input from fishermen and others. Under current law, our management practices are rebuilding many depleted stocks of fish and ensuring a sustainable fishing future for fishing communities long struggling with a variety of economic and environmental challenges.

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, introduced in 1976, which has been at the center of much of this progress, is presently before Congress for reauthorization. Initially, the law used subsidies and other programs to provide access to and manage what was perceived as a near-limitless supply of fish. Over time, however, many of our iconic fisheries — such as the New England cod and Gulf of Mexico red snapper — became severely depleted. In response, fishermen, conservation groups and congressional leaders came together in 1996 and again in 2006 to improve the law and protect our fishermen’s livelihoods. These changes formed the foundation of our current sustainable fisheries management system.

Read the full opinion piece at Roll Call

May 7, 2014 — The Magnuson Stevens Act is critically important to the economy of our state and our coastal communities across the nation. As chair of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, I am working to protect Alaska interests as we fulfill our responsibility to reauthorize this national legislation.

The late Sen. Ted Stevens had a great idea 40 years ago: kick unregulated foreign fishing fleets out of our waters and give those jobs to American fishermen. And while we’re doing that, let’s apply science to ensure the resource lasts forever.

Working with his bipartisan ally, Sen. Warren Magnuson of Washington state, they later created the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, better known today as MSA.

The wise vision behind this law created a powerful economic engine for Alaska. Fishing had always been part of our history, but MSA increased Alaska’s catch by almost 5 billion pounds and doubled the nation’s production of seafood.

Unalaska/Dutch Harbor and Kodiak were instantly propelled to the top of the leader board among the nation’s top fishing ports. And MSA did this with rules and tools that ensured our fisheries were sustainable. No Alaska species is overfished.

Now it’s time for MSA to be reauthorized — a process that happens every few years. This doesn’t mean the law goes away or ceases to apply, but rather it’s a periodic opportunity to renew the bill and make changes as needed.

From Alaska’s perspective, things are going pretty well. A few tweaks will be helpful, but not much more is needed for Alaska.

But MSA is national legislation. It covers fisheries around the country where problems do exist. The last time it was reauthorized, our successful, sustainable management practices were “exported” to the rest of the country, and not a moment too soon.

Read the full opinion piece at the Juneau Empire

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS — May 6, 2014 — USDA organic designation for aquaculture is being killed by USDA hostility and efforts to discredit aquaculture by Food and Water Watch, along with other groups that are basically hostile to any net-pen farming.

At issue is a long struggle to reach consensus over how USDA organic standards should be applied to aquaculture.  The key question for seafood industry advocates is whether the Organic Standards Board, which is the group that has say over the rules, will treat aquaculture in a similar manner to land based animals.  The answer appears to be no.
 
As George Lockewood writes below, the board rejected all ten of the aquaculture industry proposals that would control how and when medicines and nutrients – that are all allowed for land animals under the USDA standard, be applied to seafood.  The political motive is to make seafood organic standards economically unviable, in effect killing them in the cradle.
 
The basis of the rejection was primarily hostility to farmed salmon, led by an anti-aquaculture coalition.
 
This may seem like inside baseball, but the net impact is to deny any hope for a USDA organic type designation for domestic aquaculture.   It will likely lead companies to continue to rely on European organic designations, or certification from groups such as Naturland in Germany.
 
This is another example of the toxic nature of the relationship between USDA and seafood.
 
Below is the report George Lockwood, chair of the aquaculture working group that was advising the USDA on these issues, on the recent National Organic Standard Board meeting:
 
"I have discouraging news to report about the NOSB meeting that was held last week on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
 
The meeting got off to a very bad start. To begin with, there was an ugly confrontation when an official of one of the organic organizations disrupted the meeting with loud protests and had to be removed by the police who physically carried her out. That took six or so officers to accomplish.
 
There were basically two major issues that set the tone for the meeting. The first was the apparent unilateral decision by NOP to revise how synthetic material on the National List are reinstated after their five-year allowance is scheduled to expire. The second was that the head of NOP, Miles McEvoy unilaterally became the chair of NOSB to run the meetings and control the agenda.
 
The Organic Food Production Act requires NOSB to elect its own chair. It appears that Miles, a USDA employee, wants to be chair himself which some people say is contrary to the law. As a result of these two matters, I am told that a very hostile atmosphere permeated the NOSB members. I can imagine how upset the NOSB members must of been as they tried to do their work later in the meeting.
 
There was a well organized anti-aquaculture effort involving the Organic Consumers Association, the National Organic Coalition, Consumers Union, Cornucopia,  Food and Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety, and Beyond Pesticides.
 
Their people spoke against (1) salmon net pens, (2) the use of any synthetic materials in aquaculture, and (3) they strongly objected to NOSB processing the AWG petitions before the adoption of a final rule. The later argument carried the day so all ten of our petitions were referred back to the Livestock Committee for further consideration. There were many negative comments by NOSB about our petitioned materials in spite of the fact that each is allowed for growing terrestrial crops, livestock, and in prepared organic foods.
 
I am told, that behind the scenes the AWG was badly smeared and we are seen as a tool for commercial fish farmers.
 
Our longtime friend of organic aquaculture, Jim Pierce, of Oregon Tilth spoke against our carbon dioxide petition for use in growing aquatic plants, and against the inclusion of trace minerals for growing aquatic plants. His crops certifiers do not want these materials used in crops. In my opinion these objections by this respected certification organization added considerably to discredit AWG and raise the paranoia of NOSB members.
 
Others questioned chlorine, vitamins, and one asked "should vaccines be used in org aquaculture 2 cover up disease problems in farmed fish?" We were not present to address these and other concerns.
 
In my mind, all of this is due to the unwillingness of Miles McEvoy to allow the AWG to do its job of providing expert advice to NOSB on aquaculture matters. AWG was assigned by NOP in 2009 the task of preparing petitions for essential materials, and then when NOSB began their work, we were deliberately prohibited from interacting with them.
 
This decision by him has two serious consequences. The first is that NOSB members are left to their imaginations to speculate how our  petitioned materials are used in aquaculture rather than to actually know how they are used.
 
The second consequence is that by completely eliminating AWG from discussions we are viewed in a very negative and hostile light. We have not been allowed to build credibility. During the period from 2005 and 2010 when we worked closely with NOSB members in developing the recommended rules, we were able to build considerable confidence and credibility. Without our participation whatsoever, this good working relationship is missing and has caused considerable damage.
 
During the meeting Miles told the board that he now plans to have their proposed Final Rule for aquaculture posted by "the end of the year." We heard this same comments in 2012, 2013, and now 2014. I have considerable doubts if that will happen.
 
It is unclear what will happen next within NOSB and NOP relative to both our petitions and the content of the Final Rule.
 
Clearly our absence at this NOSB meeting worked against us. Since 2010, AWG has not had  funds for attending these meetings, like we had before. If we are to succeed under these adverse circumstances, I will need some financial support in order to make our presence at these critical meetings. We must come up with some sort of funding mechanism.
 
I will continue to work with Mac Stone the retiring Chair of NOSB and John Foster the new Chair in my attempts to develop a working relationship with the NOSB committees that will further consider our petitions. But, without travel funds from some source, our hands will be tied behind our backs. And, without AWG experts being included in telephone conference calls, NOSB members will continue to be paranoid about aquaculture.
 
I wish that I could provide a more favorable report. Our many years of diligent work may be lost."

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

 

May 1, 2014 — California’s drought will have major impacts on salmon – and salmon fishermen. Last fall, declining river levels left some salmon eggs high and dry, killing them. This and other drought-related problems will reduce the salmon run in 2016.

In addition, massive water diversion pumps in the Bay-Delta turn it into a death trap for salmon and this year may be among the worst ever. In response to demands from San Joaquin agricultural interests for more water, salmon protections in the Delta and the San Joaquin River have been greatly weakened. This has made dry year conditions for salmon even worse.

When adult salmon return to spawn this summer and fall, low reservoirs are likely to release water hot enough to kill incubating salmon eggs, cutting into fish we’d otherwise be able to catch in 2017.

In spite of all of these problems, California should have a decent salmon season this year because the adult fish we’ll catch in the ocean this year were born and reared during 2011, which was a wet year. Although fishing should be decent, population levels are still far below the level required by state and federal law and what we could have if water was managed more wisely in California.

Against this backdrop, there are now proposals in Congress to permanently weaken the laws protecting salmon and to block federal fish agencies from protecting salmon when river levels dangerously drop. The Golden Gate Salmon Association suggests this should be stopped.

The concerns of the fishing community are well founded. In 2008 and 2009, California’s salmon fishery was shut down entirely – in large part because of record high levels of Delta water exports. We must avoid repeating those mistakes.

State and federal agencies and elected officials must remember that salmon and our rivers suffer badly during droughts. Two years after droughts, fishing jobs and communities always suffer when adult salmon are missing. Although the pain in our fishing communities is delayed, it’s real, and we shouldn’t respond to today’s drought in ways that makes things far worse for salmon and salmon communities down the line.

Read the full opinion piece at The Sacramento Bee