Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

North Carolina Fisheries Association Annual Meeting, Monday, January 25th

January 19, 2016 — The following was released by the North Carolina Fisheries Association:

Attached above is a pdf flyer for several meetings this coming Monday, January 25th, all to be held at the Riverfront Convention Center in New Bern.

Please print out the flyer and post it on your bulletin board if you have one, or distribute to encourage fishermen to attend the Annual Meeting!

10:00 – 2:00  Bycatch Reduction Workshop

2:00 – 3:00    Southern Shrimp Alliance Survey

3:00 – ?          NCFA’s Annual Meeting

Attendance at NCFA’s Annual Meeting is very important as critical issues will be discussed, including southern flounder and the election of the Board of Directors will be held. If you cannot attend, please send a proxy to davidbush@ncfish.org or call (252) 633-6232 ext 102. 

View a PDF of the agenda

Real-time fishery management significantly reduces bycatch

January 12, 2016 — DURHAM, N.C. – Using real-time management policies to regulate fisheries can reduce the accidental bycatch of juvenile fish and endangered species with substantially less economic impact on fishermen, a new Duke University-led study finds.

The study compared results from six different types of fishery closures commonly used to reduce bycatch.

It found that “dynamic closures” — which typically involve setting smaller portions of the ocean off-limits for shorter periods, based on fine-scale, real-time assessments of changing conditions — are up to three times more efficient at reducing bycatch with lower costs to fishermen than static measures that close large areas and remain in force longer.

“The ecological patterns that create bycatch don’t occur on monthly or 100-square-kilometer-size scales or larger. They occur at much smaller time-space scales,” said Daniel C. Dunn, lead author of the study and a research scientist in the Marine Geospatial Ecology Lab at Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “Our study provides empirical evidence that if we’re not managing the ocean at these smaller scales there is an inherent inefficiency in the system that costs both fishermen and species alike.”

The study appeared the week of January 6 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The success of dynamic fisheries management hinges on recent advances “that extend the real-time technology at our fingertips and take it into the ocean,” said Sara M. Maxwell, assistant professor of biological sciences at Old Dominion University, who co-authored the study.

Read the full story at EurekAlert

 

Factory trawlers praised for halibut conservation

December 26, 2015 — What a difference a year makes for the halibut bycatch controversy in the Bering Sea at the December meetings of the North Pacific Fishery Management Council in Anchorage. The flatfish factory trawlers, vilified for much of this year, reported vigorous and voluntary efforts at halibut conservation, and even received praise from the Pribilofs. Their zeal was prompted by what might be termed resolution number two-by-four of the fish council last summer, which slashed halibut bycatch by 25 percent.

“It was a huge hit to our sector,” said Chris Woodley, executive director of the Groundfish Forum said last week.

But voluntary efforts by the flatfish fleet have already saved 265 metric tons of halibut this year, he said, exceeding the goal of 217 metric tons.

He cited the benefits of a special federal permit allowing deck sorting that gets the halibut back into the water faster and with greater chances of survival. With the halibut removed from the net and returned to the water from the top deck of the boat, only about half the halibut die, down from the 83 percent that perish when kept inside the huge trawl net for up to two hours while below decks in the factory area, he said.

At last week’s NPFMC meeting, representatives of the factory trawlers in the Amendment 80 fleet said that they were already taking measures to limit halibut bycatch, getting out ahead of the 25 percent cut that takes effect next year.

Read the full story at The Bristol Bay Times

 

Canadian government stands ground on surf clam review

December 24, 2015 — The Canadian government will not back down on a decision to order further review of a plan to expand harvesting in the country’s offshore surf clam fishery, the Chronicle-Herald reported.

The recently elected government of Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau is reconsidering the previous government’s plans to increase the Arctic surf clam quota for 2016, and allow new firms to enter the fishery.

In July, months before the October defeat of previous prime minister Stephen Harper, Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) said science supported the expansion of the country’s offshore Atlantic surf clam fishery, with a potential increase to the total allowable catch (TAC) from 2015’s 38,756 metric tons to 52,655t, plus bycatch, in 2016.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

MASSACHUSETTS: Study eyes fish freed from hooks

December 24, 2015 — Researchers at the New England Aquarium, in conjunction with those from state agencies, are getting closer to releasing study results on the collateral impact of recreational haddock discards on the overall mortality rate of the species.

Dr. John Mandelman, director of research at the Boston-based aquarium, said the the field work for the study was completed in early November. He expects the New England Fishery Management Council, which helped fund the study, to complete vetting the analysis sometime early next spring.

The field work was performed with significant assistance from recreational fishing operators such as Gloucester-based Yankee Fleet and Seabrook, New Hampshire-based Eastman’s Docks Fishing Fleet.

“As with all studies, what we very much tried to do was to work as much as possible as part of a legitimate fishing effort, or what we call a fishery-dependent exercise” Mandelman said. “This was a really nice partnership.”

Mandelman said project researchers made about eight trips last spring aboard some of the Yankee Fleet’s larger party boats, focusing on observing how a full range of anglers — from novice to veteran — performed catch-and-release of haddock discards, while also charting catch gear, catch conditions, injuries to the fish, time out of water and sea temperatures.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times

Activists and fishermen team up to address record whale entanglement

December 10, 2015 — Past efforts have pitted the wildlife experts and fishermen against each other and offered little additional protection for whales. This year, the two camps are trying something different: cooperation.

Fishermen have long been at odds with wildlife experts who claim lobster and crab traps are killing whales. And unusually warm waters off the coast of California this year have already caused 60 whales to become entangled in offshore fishing gear.

In response to a 400 percent increase in whale entanglements this year, whale advocates and fishermen teaming up to find solutions that protect both whales and area fishermen whose livelihoods depend on traps in the sea.

Prevention strategies over the last twenty years haven’t done much to help whales and only served to bankrupt the fisherman, says Geoff Shester, California campaign director for Oceana. This time around, wildlife advocates and fishermen are trying a new strategy: cooperation.

“We’ve got pots in the water, we’ve got ropes in the water and we’ve got whales in the water,” crabber Jim Anderson told the Associated Press. “What can we do to make this a safe place for everybody?”

Read the full story at The Christian Science Monitor

Alaska working on flatfish tax fix to capture foregone revenue

December 9, 2015 — A state tax rate glitch let groundfish trawlers off the hook for more than $10 million of fishery taxes in the last half decade, and there’s no concrete fix just yet.

The fishery resource landing tax taxes groundfish based on ex-vessel price. Processors turn flatfish caught as bycatch into low-value fishmeal, so the only known ex-vessel price for certain flatfish species is artificially low. Nine species have this price uncertainty, but most flatfish volume comes from yellowfin sole and Atka mackerel.

By only having an ex-vessel value based on the price paid for bycatch turned into fishmeal, the state has no idea what the ex-vessel value is for the direct flatfish fishery that has annual harvests measured in hundreds of thousands of metric tons.

According to state research estimates, the state has lost out on $1.8 million to $2.5 million per year, or more than $10 million over the last five years. Researchers haven’t yet looked back further due to paucity of data, but the fishery resource landing tax has existed since 1994.

Lori Swanson, assistant executive director of groundfish trawler group Groundfish Forum, did not say whether the industry knew it had been underpaying since the tax’s birth.

“They pay what the state tells them to pay,” she said.

The state doesn’t really know

The Department of Revenue, however, hasn’t been calculating a realistic view of fleet’s tax rate, and is only starting to rework the system. The state began this tax specifically for factory trawlers and catcher-processors, but overlooked a systemic flaw from the beginning.

“It’s actually two things,” said Kurt Iverson, a research analyst with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “First, a very small amount of the total harvest is in the (Commercial Operator’s Annual Report), and on top of that, that harvest is not representative of a true ex-vessel valuation because it’s coming in as bycatch.”

Anna Kim, the Department of Revenue chief of revenue operations, said she can’t speculate why the issue went for so long without being noticed. Iverson said the problem isn’t intentional. The Department of Revenue simply attached the tax to shoreside sales, which don’t happen for some species.

Read the full story at Alaska Journal of Commerce

 

DAVID SCHALIT: Report from ICCAT

December 7, 2015 — The following is a commentary submitted to Saving Seafood by David Schalit, the Vice President of the American Bluefin Tuna Association:

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) used to be the regional fishery management organization everybody loved to hate.  Its dysfunctionality was legendary.  ICCAT became famous because it is the regional fishery management organization responsible for Atlantic bluefin tuna, the famously “iconic” and “charismatic” tuna stock that has been the subject of intense media interest for a very long time and the only tuna species to star in its own cable television series. 

ICCAT’s Problem

In the mid-late 1990’s, due to concerns expressed by ICCAT scientists about the status of Atlantic bluefin, ICCAT began adopting measures to limit harvest of both east and west stocks.  Only the west Atlantic harvesters heeded the advices of ICCAT scientists.  European Union fishing countries and other eastern harvesters who target east Atlantic bluefin weren’t listening.  During the next several years the east Atlantic stock was subject to consistent and increasing overfishing, illegal fishing and unreported fishing.  In 2007 – the worst year on record for east Atlantic bluefin – ICCAT scientists estimated that catch in the east Atlantic could be as high as 60,000 MT, almost twice the allowed quota.  

As a consequence, “the plight of the Atlantic bluefin” became the subject of ongoing public relations campaigns by numerous environmental organizations.  Annual meetings of ICCAT in the years leading up to 2008 developed a circus atmosphere, consisting of a full complement of delegates, a large number of industry representatives, media and environmental observers as well as environmental activists who regularly demonstrated outside of the meeting venue.  As a result, ICCAT meetings were regularly covered by media worldwide.  

ICCAT’s Redemption

ICCAT finally began to redeem itself during its 2008 meeting when it mustered the political will to cease overfishing and begin the process of rebuilding east Atlantic bluefin stock.  Today, both east and west Atlantic bluefin stocks have become a fishery management success story. 

The New Problem

However, ICCAT may be returning to its old ways.  This time, the problem is with Atlantic bigeye tuna.  ICCAT scientists turned in a stock assessment on Atlantic bigeye this October indicating that the stock is presently overfished and with overfishing presently taking place.  ICCAT scientists urged the adoption of conservation measures to immediately address this problem.  Last week, the 24th annual meeting of ICCAT was held in Malta.  Unfortunately, when the meeting came to a close on November 17, ICCAT had failed to achieve meaningful conservation measures for Atlantic bigeye tuna.  Sound familiar?

What Were the Objectives?

The scientists recommended steps that would lead to increasing “future chances that the stock will be at a level that is consistent with the convention objectives.” The primary means available to ICCAT for achieving this were a reduction in harvesting of mature bigeye in the central/south Atlantic and a reduction in bycatch of juvenile bigeye in the Gulf of Guinea skipjack fishery.  Neither of these goals was met.

Major Harvesting Forces

The Atlantic bigeye tuna fishery consists of 8 major harvesters and 11 minor harvesters.  The eight major harvesters (China, EU, Ghana, Japan, Panama, Philippines, Korea and Chinese Taipei) are, in total, a fleet of 659 longline vessels plus assorted “support vessels”, mostly fishing in the equatorial Atlantic, in deep water, for mature bigeye.  The EU alone has 269 vessels in this fleet, and Japan has 245.  

In addition, there are 51 purse seine vessels permitted by ICCAT to operate in the Gulf of Guinea skipjack fishery that are responsible for significant bycatch of juvenile bigeye and yellowfin.  Of those 51 vessels, the EU (France and Spain) is the largest fleet, with 34 vessels.

To put this in perspective, in 2014, the 8 major harvesters were responsible for over 53,000 MT of bigeye catch, whereas the 11 minor harvesters, including the U.S. and Brazil, were responsible for just under 14,000 MT.  (The U.S. reported 800 MT of catch in 2014.)  And there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the level of mortality on juvenile bigeye in the purse seine fishery. 

The Negotiations

During the negotiations at last week’s meeting, the U.S., Brazil and a few other minor harvesters squared off against the very well prepared forces of the EU and Japan who had the backing of their formidable fishing industries.  It is said that those who have “the most skin in the game” tend to prevail and so, notwithstanding the efforts of the U.S., Brazil and others to reduce fishing effort by these major harvesters, the EU, Japan and the 6 other major harvesters were the winners and Atlantic bigeye tuna was the loser.

Curiously, the major harvesters can make the claim to have reduced the overall TAC.  Atlantic bigeye harvesting is presently governed by an Atlantic-wide TAC from which each of the 8 major harvesters are given a fixed, “not to exceed” individual TAC. Last week, the major harvesters agreed to reduce their combined allowed TAC from its present level of 79,000 MT to to 58,000 MT.  This gives the distinct impression that significant conservation measures were taken.  However, landings averaged over the last 5 years are below 58,000 MT.  In actual fact, this agreement allows these harvesters another 9,000 MT above their reported landings of 2014.  Consequently, no actual cuts in catch were made. 

The Fiasco in the Gulf of Guinea

The problem in the Gulf of Guinea is an issue that has plagued ICCAT since the 1990s. ICCAT has made various attempts, beginning in the late 90’s, to reduce bycatch of juvenile bigeye and yellowfin typically weighing no more than 3-6 lbs, in the Gulf of Guinea purse seine skipjack fishery.  According to the scientists, none of these attempts yielded any reduction in bigeye bycatch.  Why?

At each ICCAT meeting in which this bycatch problem was addressed, the EU has tendered its own fully detailed proposal to address the problem.  In each instance, their proposal involved a variation on the concept of a time/area closure in the Gulf of Guinea for a fixed period during each fishing season.  Since the EU purse seine fleet is the dominant force in the Gulf of Guinea skipjack fishery, it is difficult to imagine why ICCAT would have ever seriously considered an EU proposal.  Clearly, the EU’s interests are best served by thwarting any conservation action that would have a negative effect on its seining activities in the Gulf.  However, in each instance, ICCAT has adopted the EU’s proposal.  And in every instance, ICCAT scientists subsequently found that these closures did not result in the reduction of bycatch.  Today, these facts are well known to ICCAT member countries.  So, why did ICCAT, in last week’s meeting, adopt a new EU-authored solution to the problem of bigeye bycatch that is likely to achieve nothing?  This, too, is reminiscent of the “old” ICCAT.

Final Outcome

We can point to other successes that came out of the ICCAT meeting such as significant progress on Convention amendments, eBCD and the development of harvest control rules; all important issues.  But if ICCAT fails in its primary task – the “conservation of Atlantic tunas” – all other successful initiatives are diminished in importance because of that failure. 

Fortunately for ICCAT, it has a chance to partially redeem itself at next years’ meeting, when it will address Atlantic yellowfin tuna, a stock that has some of the same problems as Atlantic bigeye.  Unfortunately, ICCAT will have to wait until 2018 to have a chance to again address the issue of conservation of bigeye tuna.

Say Goodbye to Bycatch: Fishing Smarter in the 21st Century

November 23, 2015 — Fishing nets are blind. They have been for thousands of years.

Just like our ancestors, today’s commercial fishermen drop their nets, or “trawls”, into dark, opaque waters. What they pull up is anyone’s guess.

In addition to the fish being targeted, their trawls also contain “by-catch”: unintended fish species and ocean wildlife that are tossed back because they cannot be sold. The thing is, by the time the nets are hauled up, most of the by-catch is already dead.

So what’s the problem with catching a few extra fish?

What if I told you that by-catch is a major contributor to overfishing and poses a significant threat to the world’s oceans? Currently, in the United States, approximately 1 in 5 fish caught by commercial fishermen are by-catch. That’s 2 billion pounds of fish and other marine species wasted each year. Imagine inadvertently capturing, killing, and disposing of 4,800 blue whales…what an enormous, destructive waste.

In attempting to solve the by-catch problem, Rob Terry, founder of SmartCatch, asked himself: what if commercial fisheries could see inside their trawls before they reel them in?

In 2014, the Lindblad Expeditions-National Geographic (LEX-NG) Fund issued a grant to Rob Terry to develop SmartCatch’s Digital Catch Monitoring System, or DigiCatch for short. With DigiCatch technology, fisherman can reduce by-catch by having eyes underwater to monitor their trawls.

Read the full story at the National Geographic

The European Commission sees the light

November 16, 2015 — On Tuesday November 10, the Director General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Mr.  João Aguiar Machado announced that the European Commission had dropped its proposal to ban all kinds of drift nets throughout EU waters. Addressing the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament, DG Aguiar Machado stated that the regulation of drift nets would rather be addressed through regionalisation and the framework proposal on technical measures due to be published in early 2016.

Small scale fishers across Europe had been dismayed by the former Commissioner Damanaki’s announcement in May 2014 that she was determined to “eradicate once and for all” fishing with drift nets in European waters, with a ban to be implemented on January 1 2015.

Damanaki’s decision was backed by an impact assessment that had reached the conclusion, that due to signs that the number of vessels partaking in driftnet fishing had seen a decrease, ‘the overall socio-economic impact of the total ban is therefore considered irrelevant’. The impact assessment by its own admission, was inherently flawed, noting it had “not been possible to collect accurate landings data from driftnet fisheries apart from Italy and UK, which made it almost impossible to identify the economic importance of the gear at the European level.”

Read the full story at Low Impact Fishers of Europe

 

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • Next Page »

Recent Headlines

  • Murkowski, Whitehouse, Pingree, and Moylan reintroduce legislation to address ocean acidification
  • MSC announces USD 6.4 million investment in fishery sustainability fund
  • US senators lambast IUU fishing and abuse in foreign fleets during hearing
  • NORTH CAROLINA: Fishermen fight Senate’s push to restrict shrimp trawling
  • ALASKA: Alaska lawmakers introduce bill to ban metals mining in Bristol Bay watershed
  • NORTH CAROLINA: Dewey Hemilright advocates for US commercial fishing fleet
  • FAO releases a detailed global assessment of marine fish stocks
  • NORTH CAROLINA: NC considers ban on inshore shrimp trawling to protect estuaries. Opponents call it ‘disgraceful.’

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Hawaii Illegal fishing IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon South Atlantic Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms

Daily Updates & Alerts

Enter your email address to receive daily updates and alerts:
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2025 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions