Conservation & Environment

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — November 23, 2012 — Virginia is paying for a scientific study to determine how harmful dredging for blue crabs in the Chesapeake Bay may be to the ecosystem and crab population.

State regulators have a moratorium on winter dredging because they contend that it protects hibernating females and allows the next generation of crabs to be born in the spring. But watermen want it lifted, saying the harmful effects of dredging have long been exaggerated.

Watermen say sportsfishing and environmental groups have unfairly painted their industry as harmful, and they contend the study will shed scientific light on dredging.

“You have mortality rates with any fishery,” waterman James Dean Close said. “Ours has been totally exaggerated by these special-interest groups.”

The Virginian-Pilot reports (http://bit.ly/TjhkNu) that state regulators have pledged more than $130,000 toward the study.

The study will be overseen by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science. It will pay four watermen to dredge as many as 40 bushes of crabs a day that they can sell for a profit. Among others things, officials and regulators on board the boats want to see how the dredges tear up mud, sand and underwater grasses and whether the dredges maim crabs.

“Everyone has an opinion of the winter dredge fishery, but we need facts, not opinions,” said John Bull, a spokesman for the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. “Let’s do our homework before we make any future decisions.”

 

Read the full story at the Washington Post

 

 

November 26, 2012 — The senior attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation — the only intervenor allowed by the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals in Gloucester’s, New Bedford’s and other plaintiffs’ fishing industry lawsuit challenging the legality of NOAA’s and the New England Fishery Management Council’s radical restructuring of the Northeast groundfishery based on assigned fishermen’s catch shares — has posted an angry condemnation of the government’s fishery management.

Peter Shelley’s denunciation, which portrays the government’s management of the Northeast groundfishery as an abject failure, is notable because he is allied legally with NOAA in opposition to the fishing industry’s lawsuit. His posting last Wednesday, however, will not become part of the legal public record on which the court will base its decision, expected by the end of January.

Shelley’s argument faults the government for caving to industry pressure to allow too much fishing and, in the long run, has done a disservice to fishermen, especially the small day boat operators. Many associated with industry have faulted the government for the opposite – caving to conservation interests, setting limits too low, managing the fishery based on the weakest stock, and tolerating mistreatment of fishermen by NOAA law enforcers.

The acting secretary or commerce last September conceded the legal point that the fishery has declined into a disaster, acceding to filings for a disaster dating to November 2011 by Massachusetts and January 2012 by New Hampshire and Maine. Connecticut, Rhode Island and New York also filed for a disaster declaration. Yet no funds have been made available by the Commerce Department for relief, leaving it to Congress, which has made no apparent progress with a month to go before the 112th Congress expires.

“This Thanksgiving, I want to give an overdue thanks to the region’s remaining fishermen who brave the elements and bring my family fish and seafood products to eat,” Shelley wrote. “All of us have failed to provide you with a rational, predictable and equitable business environment in which to nourish your hopes of being part of the American dream.

“The system has failed you and will continue to fail you as long as it continues to give each of you what you individually demand.”

Shelley’s harsh judgment comes as a time when NOAA, led by Jane Lubchenco, is under fire from industry groups and congressional figures from both parties for its policies.

The re-engineering of the Northeast groundfishery has been disputed legally fro the start, and, since it was imposed on May, 2010, the industry has fallen into a chaotic crisis — traced by many to erratic science of diminishing credibility.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has also become known for protecting discredited law enforcers, especially the team in Gloucester and the former national director Dale Jones, who were guilty of imposing illegal fines on fishermen and businesses, according to the Commerce Department inspector general and a special judicial master. None were disciplined, all were reassigned, and, even after paying more than $650,000 in reparations, the Commerce Department has withheld for more than eight months the second volume of 66 alleged cases probed by special invdstigator, Charles B. Swartwood III, commissioned by the Inspector General’s office.

The lawsuit, led by the lead port cities of Gloucester and New Bedford contends the groundfishery was converted illegally into a limited access privilege program. The transformation featured an allocation of the allowable catch based on catch history. But with the abrupt and arbitrary change in the currency, which had been days at sea, many fishermen found their permits rendered worthless.

The government and CLF’s Shelley have countered that the system was legally developed, approved by the New England Fishery Management Council and NOAA and is not a limited access program because fishermen were given an option to fish under the old system of effort controls using days at sea. Yet few, if any, did so successfully.

In his posting, Shelley said that, despite the signs of a decline in the health of fish stocks, government again is caving in to industry.

“They want to open up more areas to fishing, even though they only have a vague sense of the benefits those closed areas are providing to fish,” Shelley wrote. “The resource sharing agreements with Canada cramping this expanded harvest? To hell with the Canadians.

“Now they are charging their science advisors, who are supposed to provide objective science advice, with developing rationales for continuing to fish at high mortality levels,” he added. “The science models for some of these species are now so rotten that the scientists can’t seem to figure out whether some stocks are fully rebuilt or completely overfished.

“An overfished population or stock is one that has been depleted so much that the yield to the fishery is compromised, possibly jeopardizing the future of the stock,” Sheley wrote. “The abundance of an overfished stock is too low to ensure safe reproduction and to support optimal levels of fishing. In the U.S., law dictates that a rebuilding plan is required for stocks that are deemed overfished. Populations usually rebuild, or grow, when fishing is reduced sufficiently,” Shelley wrote.

An immediate rebuttal to Shelley’s posting on the CLF website came from journalist, researcher and consultant Nils Stolpe.

 

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

Read Mr. Shelley's post from TalkingFish.org

 

 

GLOUCESTER, Mass. — November 25, 2012 — Fishermen say they’re being diligent about avoiding harbor porpoises after they were given a reprieve from a scheduled shutdown of key fishing grounds.

The shutdown was scheduled for October and November in the Gulf of Maine after too many porpoises got caught in their stationary nets, called gillnets. Regulators said too few fishermen were installing required ‘‘pingers,’’ which make a sound that drive porpoises away.

But regulators rescheduled the closure after fishermen said the timing of the shutdown would be devastating. Critics of the reprieve said regulators were endangering porpoises by caving to a small industry segment.

The Northeast Seafood Coalition, an industry group, says it urged its members to deploy twice the required pingers in October. And they’re working on new pingers that are easier to confirm are working.

 

Read the full story from the AP at the Boston Globe

 

 

November 26, 2012 — The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) sets a standard for sustainable fishing that is known throughout the world and to date has certified 184 fisheries as being responsibly managed. Its blue eco-label, which appears on more than 15,000 products, is generally recognized by retailers as providing the best evidence that this seafood comes from a sustainable source.

However, there is now evidence that standards for some fisheries are being allowed to slip in order to swell the MSC’s coffers. Much of its income derives from logo license fees which are payable as a percentage of the value of the final product on supermarket shelves. Therefore it is in the MSC’s interest that more and more seafood products are so labeled.

Assessments of fisheries are carried out by teams of experts employed by independently accredited companies. An assessment against the MSC standard is a relatively lengthy and complex process where the fishery is evaluated for the management of the target stock, wider environmental impacts and the robustness of the management system.

Recently, however, several of these experts are privately expressing their concern that the MSC is allowing its standard to be diluted in order to bring lucrative tuna fisheries into its fold.

Concerns focus particularly on the element of the standard which requires that a system be in place to control catches in relation to the status of the stock. This type of system is generally referred to as ‘harvest control rules’. Basically, if scientists report that a species population has declined below a given level, the rules set out in advance how catches will be reduced so that the population can recover.

However, some Indian and Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries have been accepted as sustainable by the MSC simply on the basis that scientific evaluation of the stock by the relevant regional fisheries management organization (RFMO) suggests that its status is good without any formal certification having been carried out.

 

Read the full story here

 

 

November 13, 2012 — The Marine Stewardship Council announced today that The Foley Fish Company, a fourth generation, family-owned, New England seafood business, renowned for its commitment to quality and stewardship, has obtained Chain of Custody certification in the Marine Stewardship Council program.  The company sells to fine dining restaurants, resorts, hotels and specialty retailers across the country.

The Foley Fish Company is an active participant in fishery management.  Laura Foley Ramsden, owner of Foley Fish serves on the New England Fishery Management Council and Bill Gerencer, Foley’s Portland, Maine fish buyer serves as the chairman of the Northeast Groundfish Advisory Panel and on the Highly Migratory Species Panel. Laura Foley Ramsden, great granddaughter of founder Michael Foley, said MSC certification is a natural step for the company as it has a deep commitment to protecting ocean resources and to meeting the needs of their customers for seafood that is harvested sustainably.

“We are excited to announce our participation in MSC as part of our three-prong effort to support sustainable seafood – we participate actively as fishery managers, we promote local sustainable species through our own traceability program for New England fish and shellfish and, now MSC can help us promote species that are harvested sustainably beyond our local waters,” said Ramsden.

Kerry Coughlin, MSC regional director, Americas, said, “The Foley Fish Company is recognized nationally as a leader in the seafood business and their participation in the Marine Stewardship Council program will expand awareness of seafood sustainability with buyers across the United States.  As a multi-generation, family-run company, Foley Fish has a unique appreciation for good stewardship of resources and the importance of ensuring a legacy for the next generation.  Laura Foley Ramsden and others at the company continue the commitment to protecting ocean resources established by her great grandfather 106 years ago. The company serves as an important voice for preservation of wild fish stocks and we welcome them into the MSC program.”

 

Read the full release from the Marine Stewardship Council

 

 

PAGO PAGO, American Samoa — November 15, 2012 — American Samoa is banning shark fishing in its waters in hopes of stopping the population’s decline.

American Samoa is among a number of Pacific islands to record a dramatic drop in shark numbers. Sharks are often harvested for their fins, which typically end up in restaurants as shark-fin soup.

The rules taking effect this week make it illegal to catch or possess sharks within three nautical miles of the shoreline. The ban extends to three species of reef fish.

Doug Fenner, who monitors sharks for the Department of Marine & Wildlife Resources, says the rules cover most of the territory’s coral reefs and will prevent shark trafficking.

 

Read the full story from the AP at the Boston Globe

 

 

November 15, 2012 — The following is an excerpt from The Frederick News Post:

I am reminded of the old carnival shell game. Just when you think you can win, the guy shuffling the shells takes your money. Over a year ago, we all wrote our letters telling the decision-makers how strongly we felt about menhaden. Now they are knocking at the door again. One more time, we have to stand up and be counted. We have to tell the people in charge that we still don't want the big commercial harvesters of the fish that has been called "the most important fish in the sea" to continue their rapacious ways.

My friend John Page Williams, chief naturalist for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, points out that abundant critters such as oysters (harvested by the bushel) are taken for granted, even when they are essential to the health of the bay. The menhaden's harvest takes it to another level. The fish are not even touched by human hands. The schools are surrounded by purse seine nets after airplane spotters pinpoint the location of the school. Then, as the noose of the net is pulled tighter, strangling the caught fish into a mass of struggling fish, a vacuum hose from the factory ship is lowered into the mass of panicked fish sucking them up into the ship where they are placed in a refrigerated hold. The menhaden are vulnerable to the nets because tight schooling is something that they do to look like a large fish as a defense mechanism.

So what are these finny little creatures? Menhaden, also called bunker, pogy, alewife or bugfish, are a small, silvery fish belonging to the herring family. Their range is from Florida to Maine. After spawning offshore, the young of the year and year-old fish migrate into Atlantic estuaries. I am old enough to remember when the bunker migrated up the bay in the spring followed by huge bluefish and rockfish. We caught them all. Now the larger bunker tend to migrate up the coast to the waters off New England. Not surprisingly, so do large predatory fish.

Read the full story in the Frederick News Post

Analysis: In the Frederick News Post article, “Atlantic menhaden threatened — still,” Jim Heim relies on anecdotal stories and misleading facts as support for his allegation that menhaden are the “most important fish in the sea.” This is just one of several exaggerated claims made about the species in the article, which ultimately misrepresents the status of menhaden in its account.

When the article references menhaden as “the most important fish in the sea,” a frequently used idiom in articles about the species, it fails to include a proper explanation of the quote. Originating from Rutgers University English Professor, Dr. H. Bruce Franklin’s book, The Most Important Fish in the Sea, the phrase stems from entirely qualitative judgements made by the author. There is no scientific evidence supporting the hyperbolic statement that any one species of fish is "most important," and promulgating this idea represents only the author’s opinion, rather than any scientific consensus.

In an attempt to explain changes in menhaden migration, the article states that, “After spawning offshore, the young of the year and year-old fish migrate into Atlantic estuaries. I am old enough to remember when the bunker migrated up the bay in the spring followed by huge bluefish and rockfish…Now the larger bunker tend to migrate up the coast to the waters off New England.” However, the author’s interpretation of the migration of menhaden is incorrect. When released, the eggs and larvae of menhaden are transported into the Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries. Once there, they grow into juvenile, filter-feeding menhaden which begin forming tight-knit schools, famous for their large size. When these menhaden reach about a year old, many of them migrate out of the Chesapeake Bay and these estuaries to join the full migrating stock. This stock of older fish, as data indicates for as long as the population has been studied, migrates north into the waters of New England. These fish have never “migrated up the bay,” as the article suggests.

Describing a recent fishing trip on a charter boat, the author points out that the rockfish he had caught seemed to be severely underfed, though none of them had sores from mycobacteriosis. He blamed these few underfed fish on the diminished menhaden population, claiming that, “they were not fat and sassy like the rock that we caught 20-plus years ago.” However, like much of the Chesapeake Bay’s current ecological problems, environmental degradation from nutrient runoff is likely to play a key role in the malnourishment of striped bass and the spread of mycobacteriosis. Excess nitrogen and other nutrients that enter the Bay from sources such as agriculture and urban development lead to algal blooms, the excessive growth of phytoplankton and algae. When these blooms die off, the process of decay consumes the oxygen in the surrounding water, creating hypoxic (low oxygen) areas. These hypoxic areas are usually in deeper, cooler waters, which bass inhabit during the summer. But because the hypoxic conditions make them uninhabitable, the bass are forced into shallower, warmer waters for which they are not ideally suited. The sub-optimal temperature makes them unable to feed properly, and makes them more susceptible to disease. This phenomenon, known as the thermal niche/oxygen squeeze, was documented in striped bass in reservoirs by Charles Coutant, a scientist now retired from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Coutant published three scientific journal articles (one in 1988 and two in 1990) describing the same phenomenon for striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay.

Though the Heim’s article states, “Other predators that feed on them include numerous birds of prey — eagles, osprey and gulls — who feed on the fragments when predator fish slash through the schools,” this statement does not fully explain the situation. Most predator species in estuarine environments eat menhaden whole (with the notable exception of bluefish, which do slash through schools.) Therefore, the article’s notion that slashing through schools will somehow provide other species with food is not likely, with the small exception of bluefish.

In “Atlantic menhaden threatened — still,” the author manipulates facts and uses personal anecdotes in order to convince readers that the menhaden population is in a more dire situation than reality.

 

   

November 8, 2012 — The following is an excerpt from a story published by the Chesapeake Bay Journal.

In the 1940s, a company in Reedville, VA, that fished Atlantic menhaden for "reduction" (industrial processing) described the little silvery fish as "made for Man to harvest." To them, the supply was inexhaustible, with no other value except crab pot bait.

Today, that viewpoint seems outrageous, but it dies hard. It has caused big problems for the menhaden, aka bunker, pogy, or alewife. These herring relatives have ranged along the coast in astronomical numbers for thousands of years. Most of the fish winter and spawn off the Carolina coast.

…

Why such vast numbers? Simple: Menhaden eat low on the food web. They are omnivorous filter feeders, straining whatever water they swim through. Depending on a fish's age, it might catch phytoplankton (tiny algae cells), zooplankton (tiny invertebrate animals), or — especially in estuaries — detritus (semi-decayed plant material).

The success of this ecological niche lies in tapping these vast food sources and converting them to oily, protein-filled flesh for the next level of the coastal food web. Menhaden feed predators like rockfish, bluefish and sea trout, plus ospreys, loons, gannets and marine mammals. Their value to these fish and birds is immense.

We humans make scant use of menhaden as food. They are mostly valued as bait for finfish and shellfish, or for their oil. The oil goes into industrial products, including paints, cosmetics and Omega-3 diet supplements. The leftover high-protein meal becomes livestock feed.

The reduction industry came to the Chesapeake in the 1870s. Today, small airplanes help find menhaden schools, then skillful captains and crews use purse seines to surround them. The harvest is highly automated, using twin 32-foot "purse boats" and 175-foot-long "steamers" (mother ships). Reedville is the fishery's hub. The industry supports 250 good-paying jobs. (To learn more, visit the Reedville Fishermen's Museum at www.rfmuseum.org.)

As bait, the menhaden's oily flesh exudes a trail to lure crabs and lobsters, as well as rockfish and bluefish. It has been particularly valuable in the Chesapeake since the invention of the crab pot in 1928.

The bait fishery is concentrated between Virginia and Massachusetts. Every watermen's village from Hampton Roads to Rock Hall is dependent on bait as well as coastal North Carolina, Delaware Bay, New Jersey and Long Island. With the recent closure of most river herring fisheries because of depleted stocks, menhaden are now critical for New England's lobster fishery. Though more spread out than the reduction fishery, the bait fishery supports more jobs.

How many menhaden do these human fisheries need? Several-hundred-thousand metric tons per year. According to peer-reviewed fishery science, though, the current stock stands at only 8 percent of an unfished population, the lowest point on record. Are we wise enough to back off before we crash it?

Consider these alarming statistics: Historically, they provided 70 percent of an adult rockfish's diet, but that number has fallen to 8 percent. The percentage for Chesapeake ospreys has fallen from 70 percent to 28 percent, causing serious chick mortality.

Read the full story at the Chesapeake Bay Journal

Analysis: While the Chesapeake Bay Journal correctly details the many ways in which menhaden are economically and ecologically significant, several of the statistics cited overstate the problems currently facing the stock, specifically in reference to the size of the current menhaden population and their role in the Chesapeake food chain.

The author writes, “the current stock stands at only 8 percent of an unfished population, the lowest point on record.” This refers to Maximum Spawning Potential (MSP), which is an estimate of a theoretically unfished population, rather than an historical figure. While menhaden are currently at an MSP of around 8 percent, this does not by itself mean that the population is overexploited or that there are too few menhaden. Historically, in the 50-plus years of data available for the fishery, MSP has averaged less than 10 percent — sometimes dipping even lower than the current 8 percent rate. At that level, the fishery has traditionally been able to rebuild itself, given the large number of eggs that an individual menhaden can produce. According to recent assessments, the stock is currently producing enough eggs to sustain itself, meaning that it is not overfished.

The article also makes the claim that menhaden’s current population level is having a negative impact on striped bass, stating, “historically, [menhaden] provided 70 percent of an adult rockfish’s diet, but that number has fallen to 8 percent,” and that, “at 8 percent, there aren’t enough to go around.” However, this is not clearly the case given the available data on striped bass diet. Striped bass are opportunistic predators, consuming a variety of prey species depending on their availability and location. The 2010 annual report of the Chesapeake Bay Multispecies Monitoring and Assessment Program noted that bay anchovies, small crustaceans, and worms are all significant parts of the striped bass diet, in addition to menhaden. Given the variety and variable nature of striped bass diets, it is not likely that they are dependent on any one single food source for survival.

 

 

November 7, 2012 — When West Coast groundfish fishermen switched to a 100 percent monitored fishery management system last year, they immediately shouldered new costs of carrying federal observers who document their catch and gather important scientific data.

lthough observer costs are currently shared with the federal government, that arrangement is slated to end in January 2015, when the projected observer day-rate of USD 400-600 will be borne entirely by fishermen.

This leaves many fishermen in a tight spot. While federal observers ensure the high quality data essential to a sustainable fishery, added costs could mean the difference between a successful fishing business and one that no longer exists.

What can West Coast processors, distributors, retailers and consumers do to support fishermen as they adapt to their new, sustainable fishing practices? They can ask about the “No Overfishing – Guaranteed” label.

Giovanni Comin of Central Coast Seafood, Huff McGonigal, a consultant with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and David Crabbe, a member of the Pacific Fishery Management Council, spearheaded the new label.

 

Read the full story here