Management & Regulation Archives - Page 538 of 665

Audio recordings of Yellowtail Flounder Working Group now available

May 31, 2012 – NOAA has posted the audio recordings from the recent Georges Bank yellowtail flounder working group meeting with the fishing industry and others in New Bedford, MA on the Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder News webpage

Visit the Georges Bank Yellowtail Flounder News webpage to download the audio recordings or view other posted materials.

SAVING SEAFOOD RADIO: NOAA Fisheries Administrator Sam Rauch on the Yellowtail Flounder crisis

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) May 30, 2012 – Sam Rauch, NOAA Fisheries' Acting Administrator, discusses a working group meeting held on May 23 in New Bedford which brought together fishermen, scientists, managers, and the public to explore options to mitigate the low catch limits on yellowtail flounder on Georges Bank. He answers questions about suggestions made at the meeting including issues raised with NOAA's research vessel the Bigelow and the equipment used during survey tows, the possibility of a quota transfer from the scallop industry, and a possible zero-possession limit.

Listen to the show here.

Coastal Conservation Association says industry “crossed the line” at ASMFC Menhaden Technical Committee

May 29, 2012 – The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Technical Committee (TC) and Stock Assessment Committee (SAC) process is supposed to be a simple one that allows the members, who come from state agencies, federal agencies and academia, to do the technical work necessary to manage marine fisheries. One primary object of this process is to allow only qualified, independent scientists to populate the committees, who can be expected to produce results that are not biased towards any one sector or another. Such scientists insulated from the grind of fishery politics are the very engine on which marine fisheries management runs.

The Commissioners may be the drivers, but the TC and SAC folks provide the horsepower. This process can quickly fall apart if it appears that someone with an agenda is sitting on the committee. Earlier this week, I witnessed just such an event, perhaps the most egregious I’ve seen in attending TC and SAC meetings for 13 years.

To set the scene, the Menhaden Stock Assessment Subcommittee and Technical Committee met to determine what information will go into an assessment update, essentially the data from 2009-2011 which was collected since the last benchmark assessment. As is well known, menhaden are undergoing overfishing and the Board recently set new fishing mortality reference points that are more conservative than the old reference points. To end overfishing, the Board is currently developing Amendment 2 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Atlantic menhaden, which will reduce menhaden harvest for all harvesters.
As is also well known, this will be the first time the menhaden reduction industry – Omega Protein in Reedville, Virginia – will have to operate under a quota and will have to limit its harvest to end overfishing.

It was no surprise, then, that Omega Protein hired two pre-eminent stock assessment scientists to represent them at the TC and SAC meeting. Many groups, including Coastal Conservation Association, had representatives there to observe the proceedings. But the Omega representatives went a step further and interacted freely with the Committee. One of them spoke more than any member of the stock assessment committee. At one point, he essentially led the discussion on whatsensitivity analyses were appropriate for the assessment.

Read the full story at Save Menhaden.

Analysis: Richen Brame of the Coastal Conservation Association writes that the participation of Drs. Michael Prager and Doug Butterworth “cast doubt on the validity” of a recent meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) Menhaden Stock Assessment Subcommittee. However, Brame does not offer evidence that the participation of Drs. Prager and Butterworth unduly influenced the process, and does not mention that such participation in the stock assessment process is common.

Drs. Prager and Butterworth are internationally recognized experts in stock assessment methodology, as Brame recognizes. Their work at the hearing was not to advocate an agenda, as Brame alleges, but to use their undisputed technical expertise to work with the committee to produce the best possible stock assessment that will ensure the health of the menhaden population. Because the committee process eventually resulted in a consensus agreement among the members, it is more likely that Drs. Prager and Butterworth’s participation positively contributed to the process, rather than hindered it.

Dr. Prager has impeccable credentials to participate in the workshop, having previously been the Senior Fisheries Scientist at NOAA’s Southeast Science Center. During his time as a NOAA employee, Preger previously studied the uncertainties in menhaden stock assessment models, publishing papers on the topic. This background knowledge and his employment as a government scientist at NOAA for 21 years make him a more than an appropriate candidate to provide opinions in the Menhaden Stock Assessment Subcommittee meeting.

Rather than being a breach of protocol, participation by outside experts in stock assessment workshops is commonplace. Dr. Butterworth has a wealth of experience in the stock assessment field and has been brought in on numerous other surveys as a contributing specialist. Below is a list of some of the assessments he has contributed his expertise to:

●    NOAA Gulf of Maine Cod Stock Assessment
●    California Department of Fish and Game Stock Assessment: Red Abalone 2009
●    Marine Stewardship Council Russian Pollock Assessment Team, West Bering Sea Team
●    NOAA SCAA/ASPM Assessment of White Hake
●    Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organzation: Report of the Fisheries Commission Working Group on Greenland Halibut Management Strategy Evaluation (WGMSE) (EU and Canada)
●    NOAA Gulf of Maine Winter Flounder Stock Assessment 2011
●    Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)
●    Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) – 2001 Southern Bluefin Stock Assessment
●    Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)/ Food and Agriculture Organization – Third FAO Expert Advisory Panel for the Assessment of Proposals to Amend Appendices I and II of CITES Concerning Commercially-Exploited Aquatic Species, 2009
●    South African Marine and Coastal Management Stock Assessments for all major fisheries and deepwater species
●    Food and Agricultural Organization Workshop on the Assessment and Management of Deepwater Fisheries 2003: Orange Roughy off of Prince Edward Island
●    NOAA GARM III Groundfish Assessment Review 2008
●    International Commission for the Conservation of the Atlantic Tunas – Assessment of North Atlantic Bluefin Tuna
●    Among many others with contributions across the globe in Argentina, the Caribbean, Chile, Iceland, Namibia, Norway, and Japan. With a wide variety of specimens such as whales, hake, redfish, and seals.

Here is a short list of some of the many international conferences Dr. Butterworth attended as a specialist invitee and expert speaker on assessments:
●      Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCBST)
●      International Commission for the South East Atlantic Fisheries (ICSEAF)
●      International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)
●      International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas ICCAT
●      International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
●      International Whaling Commission (IWC)
●      North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission (NAMMCO)
●      North Atlantic Fisheries Organisation (NAFO)

Other well-known independent scientists contribute to a wide variety of stock assessments and provide expert advice about stock assessments to conferences and workshops. Here we include Drs. JJ Maguire, Andre Punt, and Frank J. Hester as examples of distinguished scientists who have similarly used their independent expertise for the betterment of survey studies and modeling assessments.

Dr. Jean Jacques Maguire is an independent consultant on fisheries science and management since 1996. His previous work includes prominent positions in the fishing divisions of the Canadian government. Below is a list of some of the assessments he has contributed his expertise to.

●    Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Maryland Striped Bass Stock Assessment
●    MSC Northwest Atlantic Canadian Longline and Harpoon Swordfish Commercial Fisheries Full Assessment
●    Scottish Fishermen Federation: analysis of the rebuilding potential of North Sea white fish stocks and technical support 2000
●    Monkfish Defence Fund (Northeast USA) : Stock assessments and monkfish specific co-operative survey with the USA National Marine Fisheries Service (ongoing since May 2000).
●    Fisheries and Oceans Canada Technical Report Herring and Mackerel Resources on the East Coast of Canada
●    Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources Review of Northeast Fishery Stock Assessments
●    MSC Gulf of St. Lawrence Northern Shrimp Full Assessment
●    International Development Research Centre : evaluation of the Chilean Fisheries Research Institute (IFOP), 2000
●    Canadian Auditor General: evaluation of the performance of the DFO in managing fisheries for invertebrate species, 1998
●    Government of Japan Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna
●    Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna : external expert charged recommending improvements to the stock assessment process, 1998.
●    Norad (Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation) : chairing of a hake stock assessment meeting in Namibia (October 1997).
●    Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Nova Scotia and Fisheries Research Division, Québec worked on Atlantic mackerel, cod (2 stocks), pollock, redfish (sebastes) and bluefin tuna
●    Faeroese Fisheries Laboratory and Marine Institute, Ireland: technical support to the stock assessment teams.

Examples of conferences Dr. Maguire attended as a specialist invitee and scientific advisor on stock assessments:
●    International Baltic Sea Fisheries Commission (IBSFC)
●    Northeast Atlantic fisheries Commission (NEAFC)
●    North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO)
●    Chair of Advisory Committee on Fishery Management (ACFM) which advises International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the European Commission, IBSFC, NEAFC, and NASCO.
●    ICES North Western Working Group
○    Stock assessments for stocks in Greenland, Iceland and the Faeroes reviewed
●    North Sea Commission Fishery Partnership and North Sea Regional Advisory Council
●    North Sea Regional Advisory Council (NSRAC) formulation of position on MSY.

Dr. Andre Punt is a professor at the University of Washington. His lab works on developing new methods for assessments and analyzing current models for accuracy and uncertainty. Below is a list of some of the assessments he has contributed his expertise to.

●    National Marine Fisheries Service West coast Groundfish Stock Assessment (2000-2003)
●    International Whaling Commission Modeling of North Atlantic Humpback Whales
●    SGS New Zealand Hoki Stock Assessment
●    Many others including sea lion populations and Bluefin tuna.

Conferences attending as a specialist invitee and an expert speaker on stock assessments:
●    NOAA 11th Annual National Stock Assessment Workshop
●    Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) Fisheries Management Studies Working Group 2001.
●    DFO Workshop on Implementing the Precautionary Approach in Assessment Advice 2001.
●    24th Annual North Atlantic Fisheries Organization meeting, Santiago de Compostela,2002.
●    American Fisheries Society, 133rd Annual Meeting, Quebec, 2003.
●    Workshop on Assessment and Management of Deepsea Fisheries, 2003.
●    Deep Sea 2003 Conference, Queenstown 2003.
●    World Fisheries Congress, Vancouver, 2004.
●    2004 World Conference on Natural Resource Modelling, Melbourne, Keynote Speaker
●    International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Symposium on Fisheries Management Strategies 2006.
●    10th National Stock Assessment Workshop, Port Townsend, 5-8 2008.
●    5th World Fisheries Congress, Yokohama, 2008. Keynote Speaker
●    National Ecosystem Modelling Workshop II, Annapolis, 2009.

Dr. Frank J. Hester began his career in fisheries in 1960 working on studying the tuna fishery for the US Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Since 1974, he has been an independent consulting scientist advising on fisheries management for the industry, government and non-governmental fishery organizations. Below is a list of some of the assessments he has contributed his expertise to.

●    International Whaling Commission for St. Vincent and the Grenadines Scientific Advisor since 1989
●    Directed Shark Fishery Association and NOAA Shark Evaluation Workshop (SEW) and Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) evaluation and assessments.
●    International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna Bluefin Tuna Stock Assessment Meeting
●    Southeast Fisheries Association Red Snapper in SEDAR 15
●    Southeast Fisheries Association SEDAR 25-RW10 On Steepness 2011
●    South Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s King Mackerel Stock Assessment
●    Directed Sustainable Fisheries Inc Consultant on SEDAR 15 Stock Assessments
●    California Seafood Council Project Report on Pacific Sardine
●    And many others including work with NOAA on skipjack tuna and several other shark assessments for different councils

Public Trust Project alleges that outisde experts “hijacked” menhaden stock assessment

May 25, 2012 – The following is an excerpt from a Public Trust Project report:

At a meeting this week in North Carolina, government scientists were largely silent on the question of how the Atlantic menhaden population should be assessed in 2012.

Fishing industry consultants, on the other hand, dominated the process — so much so that some in attendance questioned whether efforts by industry representatives to steer the discussion might have violated protocol.

The meeting was billed as an official workshop of the Menhaden Stock Assessment Subcommittee, a group of state and federal fisheries experts tasked with updating estimates of menhaden abundance in the Atlantic Ocean by re-running a computer model that was developed and peer reviewed in 2010.

Menhaden is an important prey fish that its defenders say has been depleted from sustained overfishing during the majority of the last fifty years. In November 2011, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) changed the reference points used to judge the health of the stock, which will result in a reduction to the amount of menhaden that can legally be netted by commercial interests.

But the ASMFC has yet to set a timeline for the proposed changes, arguing that the Commission is waiting for the results of the 2012 stock assessment. (“We don’t know what the assessment is going to say,” Jack Travelstead, an ASMFC Commissioner from Virginia said at a recent menhaden regulatory meeting on May 2nd. “It may say that we are no longer overfishing.”)

Read the full story at the Public Trust Project.

Analysis: While the Public Trust Project sets out to prove industry interference at Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) Menhaden Stock Assessment Subcommittee through participation of independent scientists, its article does not demonstrate that any wrongdoing occurred. It did not produce an example of the science that they allege is being unduly manipulated, and it ignores the extensive scientific credentials of Drs. Prager and Butterworth, and the fact that such outside consulting is neither uncommon nor unusual.

The Public Trust Project states that the participation by outside consultants representing the menhaden industry “might have violated protocol” and suggested that Drs. Prager and Butterworth “dominated” the discussion and were “looming over government scientists,” ostensibly in an attempt to lobby for the interests of the industry. However, Drs. Prager and Butterworth are internationally recognized experts in stock assessment methodology, and their work at the hearing was not to advocate an agenda but to use their undisputed technical expertise to work with the committee to produce the best possible stock assessment that will ensure the health of the menhaden population.

The author fails to demonstrate that the points Drs. Prager and Butterworth raised were illegitimate, or that their participation did not contribute to the scientific process. The two instances used as examples — both involving the validity of data used in the survey — had support from other members of the Council, in one case unanimously. The article quotes committee chair Erik Williams as saying, “ultimately, this is a scientific process, so to the degree that they can contribute to the science, that’s great.” The committee process eventually resulted in a consensus agreement among the members, making it much more likely that Drs. Prager and Butterworth’s participation contributed, rather than interfered with, the scientific discussion.

Dr. Andre Punt is a professor at the University of Washington. His lab works on developing new methods for assessments and analyzing current models for accuracy and uncertainty. Below is a list of some of the assessments he has contributed his expertise to.

Dr. Frank J. Hester began his career in fisheries in 1960 working on studying the tuna fishery for the US Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Since 1974, he has been an independent consulting scientist advising on fisheries management for the industry, government and non-governmental fishery organizations. Below is a list of some of the assessments he has contributed his expertise to.

No easy solution to yellowtail woes

May 24, 2012, NEW BEDFORD, Mass. – A newly formed group aimed at helping fishermen outlast an 80 percent cut in their yellowtail flounder catch offered no certain solutions Wednesday to a battered fishing industry some warn will soon collapse.

The steep cut on yellowtail in Georges Bank, east and southeast of Cape Cod, went into effect May 1. The yellowtail flounder isn't a big money fish, but worries about exceeding the low catch limit on it prevents fishermen from chasing the more valuable bottom-dwelling groundfish the yellowtail swim among, such as cod and haddock.

Richie Canastra of BASE-New England, which runs fish auctions, pushed talks to obtain more yellowtail from Canada, which shares the yellowtail catch, but likely won't use much of their allotment and might help.

A big concern was whether regulators truly understood how urgently action is needed.

If fishermen exceed their yellowtail allotment, they must stop fishing for all fish. Several people said the low quota means some boats will soon be done for the year just a few weeks into the fishing season, with the opportunity for millions in catch lost.

This year's yellowtail cut, from about 1,120 metric tons in 2011 to about 216 metric tons currently, was a shock to much of the fishing industry. At the time, the industry was trying to figure out how to handle a separate, major cut to the cod catch in the Gulf of Maine.

But fishing industry advocates questioned the dismal estimates, saying poor science was leading to undercounting.

Tony Alvernaz, a New Bedford scalloper and former groundfisherman presented a statement signed by 40 fishermen who said they'd never use the inefficient fishing gear researchers on a survey vessel use to catch yellowtail samples.

Sam Rauch, acting head of NOAA's fisheries arm, said whatever the solution to the yellowtail problem, it's got to be a collaborative effort.

"I think it may be achievable given the attitudes … we heard here," Rauch said. But "I'm not sure what that (solution) would be."In 2010, regulators estimate just 900,000 new yellowtail were born into the population, well below the average 20 million new yellowtail added annually since 1973.

Read the full article from the Associated Press by Jay Lindsay.

Statement by Acting NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, Samuel Rauch, and New England Fishery Management Council Chairman, C.M. “Rip” Cunningham

May 24, 2012 – The following was released by NOAA Fisheries and the New England Fisheries Management Council:

Fishermen, scientists, managers and interested members of the public met today in New England’s
largest fishing port to explore options that could mitigate the low catch limits that now constrain
catches of yellowtail flounder on Georges Bank.

“We formed a joint NOAA Fisheries Service and New England Fishery Management Council working
group and scheduled this meeting in New Bedford, MA, to proactively engage scallop and groundfish
fishermen and others in discussions to identify potential solutions to the problem,” said Samuel Rauch,
acting Assistant Administrator, NOAA Fisheries Service. “Only by working together can we find workable
solutions that we can all live with.”

To get everyone on the same page, presenters shared information on how stock status is determined
and how the joint U.S./Canada management body makes catch allocations for this shared stock. Other
information was presented about existing efforts that are underway to reduce yellowtail bycatch in the
scallop fishery via gear modifications and real‐time communications among vessels so they can avoid
high concentrations of yellowtail flounder.

Suggestions included updating scientific information, possibly expediting transfers of yellowtail flounder
from the scallop fishery to the groundfish fishery, exploring the feasibility of setting a zero possession
limit for yellowtail and other options.

“We need to take a hard look at many of the good ideas aired here today and advance workable
solutions as quickly as possible,” said C.M. “Rip” Cunningham, chair, New England Fishery Management
Council.

Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Closure: Fishermen raise questions about communication, data, goals and policies

The following is a Saving Seafood special report:

by Sarah Hanselman and John Cooke
Saving Seafood staff writers

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) May 24, 2012 — On April 19, NOAA announced that areas in the Gulf of Maine will be closed to gillnet fishing for the months of October and November to prevent the accidental deaths of harbor porpoises. Local fishermen, who say that the closure will have severe economic consequences, criticized the measure. NOAA determined that porpoise bycatch by gillnets is too high, and that the closure is necessary to protect the porpoise population.

Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), marine mammal “takes,” or accidental injury or death, are prohibited by law. Each year, NOAA calculates the bycatch rate and projected takes of harbor porpoises. Gillnetting is restricted if this projection exceeds a specific limit determined by historical bycatch highs. This year, the takes were deemed excessive and parts of the Gulf of Maine that have significant numbers of porpoises will be closed to gillnetters for two months in the fall.

However, the closure has met with resistance from many who believe it is not necessary. Northeastern fishermen argue that the decision is based on flawed data. They question both the methodology used in the bycatch estimates, and NOAA’s determination of the rate of compliance to requirements enacted to reduce takes.

A lack of communication?

NOAA formed the Gulf of Maine Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Team, the body that enacted this closure, in 1996 with the goal of reducing harbor porpoise takes in the area to zero. It includes industry and environmental representatives, members of the fishery management councils, gear researchers, and state and regional management. However, the Take Reduction Team has been criticized by the fishing community for a lack of transparency in its decision-making process. One gillnet fisherman on the team, Bill McCann, told Saving Seafood that he has not been contacted by the organization in five years, since their 2007 meeting in Philadelphia, yet was still listed as an active member.

Jackie Odell, Executive Director of the Northeast Seafood Coalition, criticized the overall Take Reduction Plan as misaligned with the existing sector management system that went into place in 2010. According to Odell, under the current sector management system, the fishery is well suited to deal with bycatch and regulatory compliance issues, and could possibly work directly with the fisheries regulators in a timely manner.

“[Issues surrounding porpoise bycatch are] not being communicated on a real-time basis with the fishing industry – or sectors who are presently required to report weekly to NMFS ,” Odell says. “[Sector managers] can deal with these consequences in real-time as opposed to waiting nine months for a NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) analysis.” Odell was also critical of the process explaining that the Take Reduction Team should have been convened to review and discuss the data prior to the closure taking effect.

The 2010 Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan, put out by the team, established the bycatch limit for harbor porpoises in several different regions. In the Gulf of Maine, if the take estimate exceeds .031 harbor porpoises per metric ton (1 porpoise per 71,117 lbs) for two consecutive years, the Gulf of Maine Costal Consequence Closure Area is closed to gillnetters from October through November. This year’s findings, when averaged with last year’s data, created an estimated number of takes that was determined to exceed the limit.

The wrong metric?

Fishermen have criticized the porpoise take limits and estimates as inaccurate, noting that they are not based upon the observed number of harbor porpoise takes in a year, but instead on estimates. The estimates are based on past bycatch trends and the amount of gillnetting that occurred in the Gulf of Maine. There are several concerns about the methodology used to calculate the bycatch rate. These include a failure to account for uncertainty in the fishery data, the shift to sector management, changes in fishing patterns, a reliance on old data sets, and environmental factors including changing ecosystem dynamics and climate change.

“They basically just go by poundage, the more fish you catch and land, the more takes,” McCann says. The estimated bycatch rate is calculated by taking the observed number of takes in an area and dividing it by the pounds landed in that area (landings are used as a measure of fishing effort). This rate is then applied to the entire mass of fish caught with gillnets; creating the estimated number of porpoise takes across the Gulf of Maine. The more fishing that occurs and the higher poundage brought in, the more porpoise takes that will be recorded.

Using the amount of fish landed as the metric to measure effort is viewed by many in the fishing community as inherently inaccurate. The current measure emphasizes the number of fish caught, rather than the efficiency of the fleet or the amount of time the nets spend in the water, which would have a more direct impact on porpoise takes than the number of fish landed. As Odell mentioned, many argue that the fishery’s move to a catch share-based system has fundamentally changed the way in which the fishery operates, and that the Take Reduction Plan, designed between 2007-2010, does not reflect this.

“Based on the way we fish now this is not an accurate metric.” Odell says a measurement that reflects the industry’s efficiency, such as basing measurements on gear deployments, would be a better way of estimating porpoise takes. Some have even suggested that the number of hauls could be the most accurate information available.

Best available data may not be good enough?

NOAA officials claim that the reason pounds landed are used as a measure of fishing effort is because there is no complete, reliable data set for other measures cited by fishermen as a more accurate representation of effort. They say that Vessel Trip Reports (VTRs), the source of data on other measures of effort, are not being filled out accurately and consistently by the fishermen and therefore using these kinds of measurements would make estimates even more flawed.

“Right now we are using the only matrix that we can, and those other matrices might be a good source down the road, but we don’t know because we don’t even have enough information to make the analysis to compare and find out which is the best way to move forward,” says David Gouveia, coordinator of the NOAA Northeast Regional Office’s Marine Mammals Program. He says that landings data is the only consistent information available to calculate the harbor porpoise bycatch rate, and indicates NOAA’s willingness to adjust if better science becomes available.

Fishermen also argue that the growing biomass of the porpoises has not been properly accounted for in the take calculation. With a growing number of porpoises, the risk of accidentally entrapping one increases. NOAA officials have recognized that this is an issue, while they are looking into the situation, they did not factor it into the decision to proceed with this year’s harbor closing. NOAA is expected to release their 2012 Atlantic Harbor Porpoise Stock Assessment by the end of the month. After looking at the numbers from this report, NOAA states that it will reconvene the Take Reduction Team to make the proper adjustments to the policies, whether finding the stock in good or poor health.

Fishermen consider the scheduling of that meeting to be problematic, since although the team will reconvene to discuss the harbor closure, it will not be until after it has already been imposed on the gillnetters. “[The] current window is late October-early Nov, 2012 so that the draft abundance estimate for 2011, the bycatch estimate for entire population in 2011, and year two bycatch analysis for the consequence closure areas can all be available for the meeting,” writes Teri Frady, Chief of Research Communications Branch of the NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

Is zero takes a realistic goal?

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) mandates that marine mammal takes eventually conform to a concept defined in the 1994 revision of the Act as the Zero Mortality Rate Trigger (ZMRT). For harbor porpoises, this is a number of animals that is 10 percent of the Potential Biological Removal (PBR). The PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population. For harbor porpoises at the last stock assessment, the ZMRT is about 70; this number could change upon the release of the new stock assessment.

Many believe that this goal is emphasized too much and ultimately unattainable. “They aren’t looking to rebuild the stocks and protect the harbor porpoises. They’re looking for zero takes,” McCann says. “The only way you’re getting zero takes is zero gillnetters.” If the group isn’t accounting for the growth of the population and keeping up do date on the biomass, the take limits and ZMRT may not be appropriate. This reflects a possible issue of priority within the science. NOAA states that, historically, the ZMRT was consistently close to being reached between the years of 1998 and 2005, indicating that zero takes is a future possibility.

Controversy over “pingers”

In an attempt to reduce the number of takes, NOAA began to require, in specific fishing seasons, an instrument called a “pinger,” a small device attached to the top of the gillnet that emits a high frequency “ping” every four seconds. The ping warns the porpoise that something is in the area. According to NOAA, pingers are 90 percent effective in preventing porpoise takes. Without a pinger, or the correct number of pingers, harbor porpoises are attracted to the food in gillnets, and can become entangled, resulting in a take.

NOAA claims that the cause of a high porpoise bycatch is the low percentage of fishing boats that are fully compliant with pinger regulations. Though the low pinger compliance rate did not factor into the decision to close the harbor, NOAA believes it may be the cause for the bycatch exceeding the limit this year. “We were hoping to find out why the bycatch rate was so high, and that could be a possible reason why,” says Debra Palka, a research biologist for NOAA’s Northeast Fisheries Science Center. Fewer pingers in functional use translates into more harbor porpoise takes.

The calculated full pinger compliance (vessels with the correct number of pingers, all in working order) was measured by NOAA staff to be at only 41 percent, which reinforced their concerns about the harbor porpoise bycatch. However, area fishermen believe that the real compliance rate is much higher, perhaps even one hundred percent.

Bill McCann explains that pingers are temperamental and that the NOAA calculation of compliance is not lenient in regards to this. Pingers that are out of batteries, broken, or lost are still considered non-compliant. When fishing, a boat is required to have one pinger on each end of a string, and then one for each gillnet in between. Boats must have the correct number of pingers to be considered compliant. McCann expresses grief over this, claiming that the policy is too strict: “If you are missing one pinger out of one hundred nets, therefore you are in non-compliance.” He holds the opinion that pingers can fall off very easily in the fishing process, thereby allowing a boat making all efforts to follow the pinger policy easily fall into non-compliance. He believes that the accusation of a low compliance rate reflects poorly on the fishermen that are attempting to comply with NOAA’s policies.

Emergency measures

NOAA released a warning to gillnetters in late 2011 that stated the initial examination of the bycatch estimates appeared to exceed the limits. They warned that the closures outlined in the Take Reduction Plan might be enacted, in an effort to give gillnetters time to prepare. In response to this announcement, the Northeast Seafood Coalition wrote a letter to NOAA requesting that a Take Reduction Team meeting be convened to discuss the results of the initial analysis and to collaborate on ways to improve pinger compliance rates, which could potentially lower the ultimate bycatch rate. The letter was sent on December 27, 2011 to then-Regional Administrator Patricia Kurkul. When no response was received before Ms. Kurlul left that position, the NCS reminded NOAA that they awaited a reply. Ms. Kurkul was succeeded by Acting Regional Administrator Daniel Morris. and a reply has still not been received.

Shortly after the Consequence Area closure was announced on April 19, 2012, seven industry members of the Take Reduction Team wrote to NOAA requesting an emergency meeting of the team, stating that the gillnet industry was currently too weak to handle such a restriction. The letter included a request for the TRT to look into alternatives to meet the limits and PBR that would have less disastrous results than the closures.

NOAA Acting Regional Administrator, Daniel Morris refused their request in a May 15th letter explaining that the Consequence Closure Area is what the team had initially agreed to five years ago. He argued that the plan was strong incentive for compliance and maintenance of pingers, and that full cooperation in this would have led to corresponding lower bycatch. He also argued that it would not be productive to convene the team before the scientific results from the porpoise stock assessment and another season of bycatch estimates were completed and analyzed. Morris also wrote than any changes made to the Take Reduction Plan, including changing the policy on closures, would be subject to the standard rulemaking process, passing through a number of procedures before going into effect.

Catch limit for dogfish increased for 2012 fishing year

May 23, 2012 – The catch limit for commercial fishermen targeting dogfish has increased by more than 5 million pounds over last year, a significant increase that reflects the abundance of the species.

The commercial quota has been set at 35.694 million pounds or 16,191 metric tons and the overall catch for the 2012 fishing year has been set at 44.737 million pounds or 20,292 metric tons, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced on Tuesday. The new measures go into effect on June 21.

Spiny dogfish were declared overfished in 1998 requiring conservation measures to rebuild the stock. Those measures proved successful and the stock was declared to be rebuilt in 2010, allowing regulators to permit much larger catches. In 2010 the catch limit was 15 million pounds and it was just 10 million pounds the previous year.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times.

New Bedford Yellowtail Meeting Confirms Some Suspicions of Industry; Former Mayor Accuses Feds of “deliberate incompetence”

NEW BEDFORD, Mass. (Standard-Times) May 23, 2012 – NOAA officials took a blast of criticism for their scientific methods, including the slowness of processing and the use of the new research vessel, the Bigelow, to estimate biomass in the fishery.

Seafood auction owner Richie Canastra cast doubts on the Bigelow’s dire findings, saying about the yellowtail, “If they weren’t out there we wouldn’t be catching them.” Bigelow’s assessments, Canastra argued, might very likely be the result of using inappropriate fishing gear that makes it almost impossible to catch yellowtail.

Under questioning later from New England Fisheries Management Council member Laura Foley Ramsden of Foley Fish, NOAA scientist Russ Brown conceded that the fishing gear is a compromise designed to target many species of fish, confirming suspicions in the room.

Yellowtail are not subjected to a targeted survey; few species are other than scallops and shrimp. There simply isn’t the time or money, Brown explained.

That didn’t sit well with some such as former city Mayor Scott Lang, who told The Standard-Times that the government is being “deliberately incompetent.”

Fishing interests pleaded with the panel to speed up the scallop fishing data so some decisions can be made about transferring yellowtail quota in time to avert disaster. When they were met with reluctance from the panelists, including Samuel Rauch, acting assistant administrator for U.S. fisheries, they got an earful from Vito Calamo of Sen. Scott Brown’s office, who told them, “Nobody in America says they can’t do it and succeeds.”

Quota transfer away from the scallopers looks possible because for the past two years the fleet has been participating in a real-time yellowtail mapping experiment along with the UMass School of Marine Science and Technology. In it, boats report yellowtail hot spots and a daily map is prepared as a grid on Georges Bank.
Fishermen then avoid the hot spots.

The result: Only 31 percent of the yellowtail quota was used by the scallop fleet last year.

Since scallopers have shown they can avoid yellowtail, that system would cut down on bureaucracy among scallopers.

In an ironic twist, the overfishing that has been blamed for the decline of many species is admittedly not the cause of the yellowtail’s decline, said Rauch, because reducing fishing on them hasn’t worked. Any emergency changes would be needed just to survive this period while answers are found.

Several participants suggested that a rise in ocean temperatures on Georges Bank may be the cause. Canastra read aloud from a letter by fishing captain Mark Phillips, spelling out a dozen reasons why the yellowtail’s decline is happening, along with notes on their behavior that may be thwarting an accurate assessment.

Among his observations: “Until this spring, yellowtails have been starving to death. … This tells us that the environmental conditions will not support a larger population, but may be improving.”

The groundfish committee of the New England Fishery Management Council meets next week, the panel said, and will probably address emergency measures to rescue the groundfishing season.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times.

North Carolina to ban industrial menhaden fishing

May 21, 2012 – North Carolina will soon ban industrial-scale purse seine fishing for menhaden, a species long at the center of conflict between marine conservation interests and producers of a valued dietary supplement.

Citing large by-catch kills, the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission has agreed to prohibit the practice of deploying smaller boats with purse seines from mother ships within the three-mile state limit.

The boats encircle schools of menhaden with the nets, and once the fish are ensnared, they are sucked through pipes into the larger ships.

Mother ships have sometimes been seen almost to the breakers along the Outer Banks in pursuit of the fish. Slicks of oil are usually left behind.

Planes are also deployed to spot the schools from above.

“This is a conservation measure we think needs to be put in place,” commission Chairman Rob Bizzell said in a statement.

Read the full story at the Outer Banks Voice.