Saving Seafood

Global Extinction Risk for Sharks and Rays Is High, United States may Provide Haven

December 9, 2024 — Overfishing of sharks and rays has depleted many populations, causing widespread erosion of ecological function and exceptionally high extinction risk. NOAA Fisheries coauthored a study in the journal Science that quantifies the extinction risk for the world’s 1,199 sharks and ray species over 50 years. They found that while sharks and rays are at high risk of extinction and biodiversity loss globally, this risk differs by habitat and region. There are some “bright spots” that could help species survive.

Sharks Are In Rough Shape Globally

We found that sharks and rays globally are in a worse conservation state than all other vertebrate groups, apart from amphibians. We also demonstrated the “fishing down” of shark and ray biodiversity and ecosystem function. This shows that the largest species declined first and most rapidly.

Most sharks and rays have slow population growth rates, which makes them highly vulnerable to overfishing and subsequently takes populations longer to rebuild. Around the world, sharks and rays are targeted for their fins, meat, gill plates, and liver oil. They are also caught incidentally—as bycatch—in other fisheries.

Read the full story at NOAA Fisheries

Warmer, oxygen-poor waters threaten world’s ‘most heavily exploited’ fish

January 7, 2022 — In 2008, a team of researchers boarded an expedition vessel and set sail for the anchovy-rich waters off the coast of Peru. They were searching for a place to extract a sediment sample that would unearth secrets about the ocean from 130,000 years ago, a time when the planet was experiencing its last interglacial period. About 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of Lima, the researchers found an ideal spot; they bore into the seabed and drew out a 20-meter (66-foot) core sample.

Over the next 13 years, researcher Renato Salvatteci and a team of colleagues worked to date the core and measure fish debris. They were trying to figure out what fish were living along the Humboldt Current system off the coast of Peru during that interglacial period, when the ocean contained little oxygen and was about 2° Celsius (3.6° Fahrenheit) warmer than the average temperature experienced in the current Holocene epoch — conditions that almost match what scientists project for 2100 as climate change rapidly transforms our modern world.

Today, the Humboldt Current contributes to more than 15% of the global annual fish catch, mainly due to its abundance of Peruvian anchoveta (Engraulis ringens), a species in the anchovy family. It’s also what global conservation authority the IUCN calls “the most heavily exploited single-species fishery in world history.”

Every centimeter of the sediment held an astonishing amount of information — about 90 years’ worth, said Salvatteci, a fisheries engineer at Kiel University in Germany. What they found embedded in the ancient sediment wasn’t anchoveta, but the vertebrae of “considerably smaller” fish, such as mesopelagic and goby-like fish, that were able to cope with the low oxygen levels in the water. They published their findings in Science on Jan. 6.

Read the full story at Mongabay

New Study Shows How Much Fish Is Caught & Where

May 4 2018 — May 4, 2018 — In February, a paper published in Science Magazine mapped the “footprint” of fisheries, showing that fishing vessels are fishing in 55% of the world’s oceans. While some concluded that this study indicated immense overfishing, critics pointed out that the study did not show the intensity of fishing. However, a new paper in Marine Policy does show how much fish is caught and where. This new study is a true map of global fisheries.

The following is excerpted from an article published yesterday by Sustainable Fisheries UW:

A new paper out in Marine Policy ($) gorgeously illustrates global fisheries over the past 150 years. The figures tell the story and are cool as hell:

Where is fish caught?

Geographical representation of where fish is caught. Areas shaded by amount of catch in metric tons.

This is one of the coolest figures we’ve ever seen. You can see that areas with lower catch (like the high seas) correlate to areas with lower primary productivity—we go into further detail about primary productivity and fisheries here, in Seafood 101. A few weeks ago a different paper was published in Science that mapped the “footprint” of fisheries, essentially showing where fishing boats travel in the ocean. The paper was criticized for failing to show what the above figure shows clearly: how much fish is caught where. This is the true map of global fisheries.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

 

Dr. Ray Hilborn: New Study on Fishing Effort ‘Does Not Provide Any New Insight’ on How Fishing Impacts Oceans

WASHINGTON — February 23, 2018 — A new study published in Science Magazine found that large-scale commercial fishing covers more than 55 percent of the world’s oceans. Today, Dr. Ray Hilborn, a respected fisheries expert and professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, responded to the study in a statement, saying in part that it “does not provide any new insight on the impact of fishing on the oceans.”

“The media claims that this paper shows that fishing has a wider impact than previously known is simply wrong,” Dr. Hilborn said. “For most of the areas where there are data in this study, fish stocks are actually increasing and tuna populations are well documented and globally stable.”

Dr. Hilborn’s full statement is reproduced below:

This new study in Science using the AIS data does provide detailed information on fishing effort of specific vessels, but it does not provide anything new about the global pattern of fishing.  High seas fishing for tuna, which constitutes the majority of the “footprint” shown in the Science paper has been mapped for 40 years, and the widespread nature  of high seas tuna fishing is well known.  The footprint of bottom trawlers has been mapped in much finer scale already in many places, and the Science paper overestimates the proportion of the seabed impacted by trawls by 10 fold.

The media claims that this paper shows that fishing has a wider impact than previously known is simply wrong.   For most of the areas where there are data in this study,  fish stocks are actually increasing and tuna populations are well documented and globally stable.

The comparison to agriculture fails to note that the 50 million square kilometers under agriculture have destroyed the natural ecosystem as the plow or new pasture eliminates the native plants.   The areas fished, particularly for tunas, have changed very little.  Fishing does not impact the primary production (plants), and in very few cases does it impact the species that graze on the primary producers.  So the 50 million square kilometers of the earths’ surface that is used for agriculture is totally transformed,  most of the oceans that are being fished (high seas tuna)  have some changes in top predators abundance.

Certainly AIS data is very interesting and can let us look at specific things we could not do before, but it does not provide any new insight on the impact of fishing on the oceans.

 

Ask a Scientist: Why NOAA matters for the West

February 17, 2017 — On Feb. 5,  Congressional Republicans, led by Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chair of the Science, Space and Technology Committee, released a press release asserting that one study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — which found a hypothesized “hiatus” in the planet’s warming trend to be nonexistent — was incorrect. According to the press release, NOAA “retroactively altered historical climate change data (which) resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the ‘climate change hiatus.’” The press release cited an interview with former NOAA employee John Bates in the British tabloid Daily Mail.

The research done by current NOAA scientists, and published in the prestigious research journal Science in June 2015, concluded that the “hiatus” was an artifact of the source of their sea surface temperature measurements, and not an actual reflection of climate trends. The new work presented a more accurate climate change model based on a comprehensive look at available global data.

It’s not the first time the agency has gotten tied up in political wrangling. NOAA was created in 1970 when former President Richard Nixon combined several federal agencies. Its roots stretch back to the 1800s, though, when Americans began to make large scale, coordinated efforts to take the measure of their world: Their financial wellbeing—and their lives—depended on it. The young nation lacked even the most basic standardized information about its weather or coasts. Early agencies that eventually became NOAA worked to fill the gaps. These efforts have not always been well received in the halls of government.

In 1870, for example, former President Ulysses Grant created the Office of Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries — precursor to NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service, which regulates the nation’s commercial and recreational ocean fishing — to investigate why Eastern commercial fisheries were collapsing. Some Congressional Republicans ridiculed the idea, moving to include an investigation into the state of the nation’s grasshoppers and potato bugs.

Political drama aside, NOAA’s mission is to “understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, to share that knowledge and information with others, and to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources.” High Country News recently asked Waleed Abdalati, director of the University of Colorado’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) — a joint program with NOAA based in Boulder — to explain NOAA’s work and how it impacts Westerners. Research topics at CIRES range from the effects of climate change on Western water to the effects of hydraulic fracturing on air quality.

Abdalati, a former chief scientist for NASA, got his PhD from the University of Colorado in 1996 for work on the Greenland ice sheet. Today, his graduate students continue those studies, trying to understand how its melt contributes to rising sea levels.

High Country News: What kinds of things does NOAA do out West?

Waleed Abdalati: We say NOAA’s “from the surface of the sun to bottom of the ocean and everything in between.”

We have a global monitoring division here that basically monitors what’s in our air and where it came from — things like ozone, methane released from fracking, trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

We’re also developing systems that improve weather forecasts and systems, and help us understand how our climate is changing and why, and the implications for water resources out West.

An aspect of NOAA’s work that doesn’t get a lot of attention is the Space Weather Prediction Center. A lot of people don’t realize the sun has weather! Our satellite systems, our navigation systems – a lot of the electronics that we rely on – are vulnerable to major events from solar activity. So there’s a whole enterprise here that’s working to understand what the sun is doing.

Another area that NOAA works in is called the National Centers for Environmental Information, which are the stewards of environmental information.

Read the full interview at High Country News

Environmental Bullies – Conservationists or Agenda-pushers?

March 22, 2016 (Saving Seafood) – Dr. John Sibert, an emeritus professor at the University of Hawaii, has come to the defense of scientists whose research conflicts with the agendas of conservation ideologues. Dr. Sibert specifically targets Carl Safina and others who have painted recent research by Dr. Molly Lutcavage as “controversial.” Dr. Lutcavage’s research, which appeared in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and was featured in NPR, presented evidence that Western Atlantic Bluefin tuna may be more resilient to harvesting than previously thought.

In an article for CFOOD, a University of Washington project chaired by Dr. Ray Hilborn that corrects erroneous stories about fisheries sustainability, Dr. Sibert criticizes environmentalists who resort to personal attacks on researchers whose findings they oppose. Saving Seafood partners with CFOOD to help deliver these facts to the public.

“Instead of attacking the messenger and implying that Lutcavage and her colleagues are industry tools, Safina should have embraced the science, supported tuna conservation, and applied pressure in ICCAT to change its antiquated management. By attempting to smear Lutcavage and her NOAA colleagues, he demeans science in general and those of us who try to apply scientific approaches to resource management in particular,” Dr. Sibert wrote.

Last week, Dr. Lutcavage wrote a piece about her own struggles with environmental bullies.

Dr. Sibert’s full comments are below:

I, like many other scientists, practice my profession with the expectation that my work will be used to improve management policies. However, scientists who choose to work on subjects that intersect with management of natural resources sometimes become targets of special interest pressures. Pressure to change or “spin” research results occurs more often than it should. Pressure arrives in many forms— usually as phone calls from colleagues, superiors, or the media; the pressure seldom arrives in writing.

I have had a long career spanning several fields and institutions and have been pressured to change my views on restriction of industrial activities in intertidal zones in estuaries, on the necessity of international tuna fisheries management agencies, on the limited role of commercial fishing in the deterioration of marine turtle populations, on the lack of accuracy and reliability of electronic fish tags, and on the inefficacy of marine protected areas for tuna conservation.

My most recent experience with pressure came from a stringer who writes for Science magazine. Some colleagues and I had just published a paper that analyzed area-based fishery management policies for conservation of bigeye tuna. Although the paper was very pessimistic about the use of MPAs for tuna fishery management, this particular stringer contacted me about MPAs. We had an exchange of emails in which he repeatedly tried to spin some earlier results on median lifetime displacements of skipjack and yellowfin tuna into an argument supporting creation of MPAs. We then made an appointment to talk “face to face” via Skype. His approach was to play word games with my replies to his questions in order to make it seem that my research supported MPAs. I repeatedly explained to him that our research showed that closing high-seas pockets had no effect whatsoever on the viability of tuna populations and that empirical evidence showed that the closure of the western high seas pockets in 2008 had in fact increased tuna catches. We hung up at that point, and I have no idea what he wrote for Science.

When critics run out of fact, some resort to personal attack. During discussions about turtle conservation in the early 2000s, an attorney for an environmental group told a committee of scientists that we were in effect a bunch of fishing industry apologists with no knowledge of turtles or population dynamics. More recently, my friend and collaborator, Molly Lutcavage was recently subject of a personal attack by Carl Safina after she and her colleagues published an important discovery of a new spawning area for Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. This discovery ought to push the International Commission of the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna to abandon its simplistic two stock approach to management of ABFT. (Whether ICCAT will actually change its approach is another question.) Safina made the outrageously false assertion that the authors’ “… main concern is not recovery, not conservation, but how their findings can allow additional exploitation.”   Instead of attacking the messenger and implying that Lutcavage and her colleagues are industry tools, Safina should have embraced the science, supported tuna conservation, and applied pressure in ICCAT to change its antiquated management. By attempting to smear Lutcavage and her NOAA colleagues, he demeans science in general and those of us who try to apply scientific approaches to resource management in particular.

Read the commentary at CFOOD

 

Cleaner fuels for fishing boats could backfire on the climate

February 5, 2016 — Fish is better than pork and beef—not just for your body, but for the planet. That’s long been the thinking, anyway. But a new study has uncovered a hidden climate impact of the fishing industry—one that, ironically, will get worse as boats switch to cleaner fuels. In some cases, the effect could make fishing for tuna as hard on the climate as raising pork, and trawling for shrimp about half as bad as raising beef.

Hogs and cattle get a bad rap because they—and their manure—emit a lot of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. But the fishing industry also contributes to climate change: mostly from the carbon dioxide (CO2) from burned diesel fuel that persists in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. The boats produce other short-lived pollutants, such as sulfur oxides and black carbon, which have cooling and warming effects, respectively. But they have typically been neglected as unimportant in the grand scheme of things.

The new study may change that. Elliott Campbell and Brandi McKuin, environmental engineers at the University of California (UC), Merced, estimated fishing industry emissions by combining fisheries catch records with the amount of fuel typically needed to catch various species. Given the total burned fuel, they estimated the amounts of the pollutants, using information about engine types and fuel types. Black carbon, a form of soot that arises from incomplete combustion, has been underestimated by an order of magnitude in previous studies, the team reports in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

Read the full story from Science Magazine