Science

A letter from Oceana Senior Campaign Director David Allison in Washington, D.C. to Governor Deval Patrick — also submitted to the New England Fisheries Management Council as a public comment — has come under fire.  In the letter, Mr. Allison says "the scallop fishery is one of the most destructive fisheries in operation today" — a perennial argument of the ocean advocacy group that was demonstrated to be false four years ago by research conducted by the University of Massachusetts. Scientists from the University of Massachusetts tell Saving Seafood that scientifically valid experimental studies assessing dredging impacts of the scallop fleet in actual fishing areas are rare. Most work has been descriptive, looking at the immediate impacts of one dredge pass (often not a real scallop bed) without monitoring a valid control site (without fishing) to test the impacts question in context.  A frequently cited case study was a test in which the researchers examined the impacts of a scallop dredge in a muddy habitat in a Maine river which had little similarity to Georges Bank.

The impacts of fishing gear on the seabed need to be evaluated in the context of natural disturbance. For example, there is an environmental impact to building a sand castle below the tide line but the recovery of the disturbed site occurs within a few hours, rendering the long-term affect of the disturbance insignificant.

A paper entitled "Impact of limited short-term sea scallop fishery on epibenthic community of Georges Bank closed areas", by Kevin D. E. Stokesbury and Bradley P. Harris of the School for Marine Science and Technology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, tested the hypothesis that scallop dredging changes the benthic community by comparing actual scallop fishing grounds which were open to those which were closed. Changes resulting from real fishing fleet activity were compared with the changes that occurred naturally and they found no difference. They did find, regardless of fishing activity, that the composition of the seabed changed a great deal from year to year (e.g. sand was washed away exposing gravel, gravel was buried by moving sand).

Read the paper "Impact of limited short-term sea scallop fishery on epibenthic community of Georges Bank closed areas" here.

Read the letter to Governor Patrick from Oceana Senior Campaign Director David Allison

Ahab's Journal is published by the (North Carolina) Outer Banks Sentinel

This is the story of how a handful of scientists set out from Oregon with an unshakable belief that they knew what was best for the rest of us. They ended up conquering the world (or at least the watery portions of it) and got rich along the way, while the fishermen and their families only worked harder and got poorer.

When their scientific dogma connected with nearly unlimited resources, the earth quaked and the resulting tidal wave swept aside all the usual checks and balances. It carried along the media, the politicians, the government agencies and the non-governmental organizations with such force that seemingly no one could stand against the tide.

Read the complete story at Ahab's Journal.

Fishermen complain almost every time a new regulation comes down the pike, usually to no avail. But this time their protests broke through the noise and won widespread political support, and now the New England Fishery Management Council will review and "possibly" reconsider the decision to place further limits on scalloping.

That is good news.

A growing number of supporters agree that the council should take into account recent scientific surveys that reportedly show scallops are abundant and in no danger of being overfished.

It's not as if a wait-and-see approach would do no harm. Scallop boats — the vessels credited with making New Bedford the top-earning fishing port in the country for years — are projected to lose $250,000 to $300,000 each in 2010.

Read the complete story at The South Coast Today.

The agenda for the Southern New England Chapter of the American Fisheries Society's winter meeting on January 28th has been released. See the agenda here [.pdf]

Scientists and fishermen have known for a long time that cod prefer certain areas of the ocean over others.

But what scientists are beginning to document is the extent to which the same cod return to the same area to spawn year after year, the way salmon and river herring return to specific water bodies, and how critical protecting those areas may be to the success of rebuilding those fish stocks to healthy levels.

"The whole field is now moving towards that (theory)," said Mike Armstrong, the assistant director of the state Division of Marine Fisheries. "The sad part is, we probably have lost 50 percent (of the distinct spawning populations)."

Good "cod bottom" doesn't have to be as massive as Georges Bank. It can be as small as a slightly raised plateau, covered in pebbles and small rocks, that offers food and shelter from predators.

Successful fishing is all about finding the fish, and good fishermen know where fish are at certain times of the year. With modern technology such as the Global Positioning System, which uses satellites to pinpoint fishing spots, it's possible to home in when fish are most vulnerable as they group together to reproduce.

"If these are distinct spawning groups … an unfettered fishery can wipe the whole thing out," Armstrong said. And once a group has been lost, there's a much slimmer chance of recolonizing it with random roving fish that don't have the fidelity to the area, he said.

If that is the case, it could mean that bringing back cod stocks to healthy levels is a lot more complicated than placing limits on the catch. The operating theory in New England fishery management has been to build a big mass of fish, hoping they will spread out in search of food and repopulate the areas that were wiped out by overfishing.

Read the complete story at The Cape Cod Times.

Friction prevails these days among fishermen, regulators and the environmental community, but the one thing they all agree on is that better science is needed.
That’s why once a year, Jimmy Rhule, who normally uses his boat to land squid and herring, takes a group of scientists on board for a trawling survey.

Five marine biologists from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science board Rhule’s 90-foot trawler Darana R. every summer and tow a specially designed net on the ocean bottom from Montauk, N.Y., to Cape Hatteras, N.C., with trips to Rhode Island Sound and Block Island Sound, searching for answers.

In October, they were towing off Wildwood and Cape May. The event is known as the NEAMAP — Northeast Area Monitoring & Assessment Program — survey, and it is funded by fees paid by fishermen.

The NEAMAP survey works ocean waters of 60 feet or less and is one of several East Coast trawl surveys that gather information on fish stocks.

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection runs its own trawl survey in shallower waters, while the federal government tows a net farther offshore in deeper waters from the vessel FSV Henry B. Bigelow.

Rhule, 61, of Wanchese, N.C., is there because he doesn’t believe the scientists know how to catch fish. If a government-set net doesn’t bring in a lot of fish, that could be the start of another fishing quota, or even a moratorium, he says.

Read the complete story at The Press of Atlantic City.

Last week on Dec. 2 NOAA Administrator, Jane Lubchenco, testified before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming in a hearing called "State of Climate Science."  Many of the questions were related to the climate emails stolen and released from East Anglia University.

Go to the House Committee Web site to see video of opening statements, Dr. Lubchenco’s ocean acidification science demonstration and the question and answer segment.

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

See this story at NOAA News.

While ocean acidification is predicted to threaten marine biodiversity, the processes that directly impact species persistence are not well understood.

For marine species, early life history stages are inherently vulnerable to predators and an innate ability to detect predators can be critical for survival. However, whether or not acidification inhibits predator detection is unknown. Here, we show that newly hatched larvae of the marine fish Amphiprion percula innately detect predators using olfactory cues and this ability is retained through to settlement.

Aquarium-reared larvae, not previously exposed to predators, were able to distinguish between the olfactory cues of predatory and non-predatory species. However, when eggs and larvae were exposed to seawater simulating ocean acidification (pH 7.8 and 1000 p.p.m. CO2) settlement-stage larvae became strongly attracted to the smell of predators and the ability to discriminate between predators and non-predators was lost.

Read the complete story from World Press.

James Delingpole keeps needling me about climate change. Can’t I see that it’s the biggest swindle of our era? Aren’t I bothered about being ruled by a global eco-technocracy? Haven’t the leaked emails put the issue beyond all doubt?

James has certainly had a spectacular couple of weeks. I’ve argued many times before that the Internet pulverises media monopolies, and James’s blog neatly proves the thesis. A story that was ignored by most environment correspondents blew up online until, grudgingly, the MSM were forced to limp along behind.

Oddly enough, though, I don’t believe that “warmergate” has altered things very much. I always assumed that some of the research on both sides was likely to be results-driven. It could hardly be otherwise, human nature being what it is. We all tend, unconsciously, to press new data into our existing Weltanschauung. There’s a fancy phrase for it (fancier even than Weltanschauung): “cognitive dissonance”. Scientists don’t stop being human beings when they enter their research centres. You would expect those whose grants depend on the Kyoto apparatus to have a different take on climate change from those who are funded by energy companies. Not always; but sometimes.

Read the complete story at the Telegraph.

President Barack Obama’s top science adviser urged lawmakers to act to curb emissions of greenhouse gases, despite the uproar over emails in which some prominent climate scientists appeared to advocate squelching the views of researchers skeptical that human activity is driving a dangerous rise in global temperatures.

The adviser, John Holdren, said scientists generally are capable of defensiveness, bias and "misbehavior." But he said the meaning of some of the statements in the emails isn’t clear, and that the significance of others has been exaggerated.

Human activity is "beyond any reasonable doubt" the primary cause of warming temperatures, Mr. Holdren said.

Mr. Holdren’s comments drew a unanimously supportive response from Democrats and unanimous skepticism from Republicans, some of whom called for a congressional inquiry into the dispute over the integrity of climate science.

Read the complete story at The Wall Street Journal.