Saving Seafood

Oregon wants to untangle whales from crab fishery

July 23, 2019 — Oregon fishery managers are changing how the state’s lucrative Dungeness crab fishery will be managed to avoid tangling whales in commercial fishing gear.

Though the changes happening this season are relatively minor for commercial fishermen, difficult discussions are on the horizon.

The number of whales entangled so far this year off Oregon, Washington state and California appears to be down compared to prior years, according to preliminary reports. But Oregon wants to avoid a lawsuit like the one brought against California by the Center for Biological Diversity. That lawsuit, over impacts to whales from commercial fishing activities, settled in March.

For now, fishery managers will eliminate a two-week postseason cleanup period in the commercial Dungeness fishery — a grace period for fishermen to clear gear out of the water. Instead, all commercial gear must be out of the water by the last day of the season on Aug. 14.

The measure, along with others, including the introduction of new buoy tags to help better identify gear, were among a list of recommendations proposed by the Oregon Whale Entanglement Working Group. The stakeholder group, which includes fishermen and industry representatives as well as researchers and fishery managers, began meeting in 2017 following several years of record-high incidents of whale entanglement.

Read the full story at The Astorian

New Area 2A Halibut Season-Setting Process Begins in September

July 19, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The Pacific Fishery Management Council, in an effort to reach out to non-Indian commercial fishermen, is requesting public comment on structuring the Area 2A (West Coast) commercial halibut fishery for the upcoming year at the September and November Council meetings.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife also plans to hold public meetings to discuss the issue.

The process is part of the transition from International Pacific Halibut Commission management to the Council.

In June, the Council committed to working closely with the IPHC and stakeholders on the transition, according to a Council press release. The Council will focus on a smooth transfer of management authority for the commercial directed fishery, and will rely on the IPHC to continue to issue licenses for this fishery in the near-term. The Council intends to maintain the current management structure, but may consider changes to vessel poundage limits and open periods.

At its September and November 2019 meetings, when the Council typically considers changes to its halibut Catch Sharing Plan, it will also make management recommendations for the 2020 directed commercial halibut fishery trip limits and fishing periods. These meetings will provide an opportunity for public, agency, and advisory body comment. The Groundfish Advisory Subpanel meetings held in conjunction with the September and November Council meetings will also provide an opportunity for public comment on this issue. As always, public comment will be accepted through the Council’s e-portal (pfmc.pcouncil.org) before the meetings, the statement said.

The September meeting will be held September 11-18 at the Riverside Hotel in Boise, Idaho. The November meeting will be held November 13-20 at the Hilton Orange County/Costa Mesa in Costa Mesa, California.

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife will hold public meetings August 5-8 to discuss fishing periods and trip limits for the 2020 directed commercial halibut fishery. Meeting dates and locations will be posted online at http://tinyurl.com/y58ccqn3; information is also available at (541) 867-4741.

Currently, the Departments of Fish and Wildlife for Washington and California do not have public meetings scheduled to discuss the non-Indian commercial directed halibut fishery season structure for 2020.

This story was originally published on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Rep. Huffman Announces Healthy Oceans & Fisheries Listening Tour In Advance of Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Bill

July 11, 2019 — The following was released by The Office of Congressman Jared Huffman (D-CA):

As Chair of the Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee, Representative Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) today announced that he will hold a series of roundtable discussions throughout the United States to engage diverse perspectives, interests, and needs of individuals who have a stake in management of our ocean and fisheries resources.

This listening tour, which kicks off this Fall, is a part of Huffman’s broader work as Chair of the Water, Oceans, and Wildlife subcommittee to foster a more transparent, deliberative, and science-based process for developing natural resources legislation than the backroom deals and partisan power plays that have frustrated good policymaking in recent years. The input Huffman receives from this listening tour, and from other stakeholder outreach that is already underway, will inform his introduction of a Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill next Spring. Through this comprehensive and inclusive approach, Huffman hopes to restore the historically bipartisan character of marine fisheries policies including prior successful Magnuson-Stevens reauthorizations.

“From coast to coast, American families and communities depend on healthy oceans and productive fisheries to sustain jobs, businesses, and recreational enjoyment,” said Rep. Huffman. “As Chair of the Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee, I want to hear from you on how Congress can help manage our oceans and fisheries to be as environmentally and economically resilient as possible. This public process will inform and improve future marine policy to meet the challenges our oceans and fisheries face in the 21st century, such as climate change, the need to utilize advances in science and technology, to support coastal economies, and to protect ocean and fishery resources to keep faith with future generations.”

The nation’s main fisheries law, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, is proof that an emphasis on science and sustainability works. Through its science-based annual catch limits and other provisions, overfishing has been reduced and more than 45 fish stocks have been rebuilt since 2000.

Rep. Huffman’s goal for this listening tour is to assess whether improvements to the Magnuson-Stevens Act are needed and if so, what they should be. Topics covered in the roundtables will include, but are not limited to:

  • Climate change impacts on fisheries and whether managers have the tools and resources they need to ensure resilient fish populations and stability to fishing communities;
  • Challenges of modernizing and improving our data collection systems;
  • Supporting working waterfronts, coastal communities, and subsistence fishing, such as improving the fisheries disaster relief system and mitigating the harmful impacts of trade wars and unfair, illegal fishing practices;
  • Examining how current fisheries management practices are maintaining ecosystem roles and functions, protecting important habitats, and minimizing bycatch;
  • Challenges associated with stocks that are still unhealthy or experiencing overfishing; and
  • Ensuring equitable access to resources and a sustainable future for seafood.

Rep. Huffman is committed to holding at least one public forum in each of the regions managed by Fishery Management Councils under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and to introducing a draft Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill, informed by this public process, by next Spring. Huffman believes the lack of transparency, limited stakeholder engagement, and partisan nature of recent Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization efforts contributed to their demise; and that this new approach will not only produce better legislation, but also a broader, non-partisan base of political support to improve the bill’s chances of passage.

Specific dates and locations will be announced soon so that stakeholders around the country can determine how best to participate in shaping next year’s Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill.

Read the full release here

The Fish Is Boneless. (Fishless, Too.)

July 10, 2019 — First, there was the meatless burger. Soon we may have fishless fish.

Impossible Foods, the California company behind the meatless Impossible Whopper now available at Burger King, is joining a crowded field of food companies developing alternatives to traditional seafood with plant-based recipes or laboratory techniques that allow scientists to grow fish from cells.

So far, much of Impossible’s work has focused on the biochemistry of fish flavor, which can be reproduced using heme, the same protein undergirding its meat formula, according to Pat Brown, the company’s chief executive. Last month, Impossible’s 124-person research and development team, which the company plans to increase to around 200 by the end of next year, produced an anchovy-flavored broth made from plants, he said.

“It was being used to make paella,” Mr. Brown said. “But you could use it to make Caesar dressing or something like that.”

The fishless-fish project is part of Impossible’s grand ambitions to devise tasty replacements for every animal-based food on the market by 2035. Whether that aim is achievable, either scientifically or financially, remains to be seen. But for now, Mr. Brown said, he’s confident Impossible’s plant-based beef recipe can be reconfigured to simulate a new source of protein.

It’s unclear whether consumers — even those who eat meatless burgers — will embrace fish alternatives. Those faux-beef products owe their success partly to the enthusiasm of so-called flexitarians, people who want to reduce their meat consumption without fully converting to vegetarianism, but flexitarians are not necessarily motivated by a desire to save the planet. Indeed, industry experts say, many of them are drawn to plant-based meat more for its perceived health benefits than for its role in reducing the food industry’s reliance on production techniques that release greenhouse gases.

Read the full story at The New York Times

Why are so many whales washing up on West Coast beaches?

July 9, 2019 — The past year and a half has been harrowing for the world’s largest mammals, as an unusual number of gray whales have stranded on West Coast beaches this year, following excessive whale entanglements in 2018.

Gray whales have been washing ashore with alarming regularity, particularly in the San Francisco area and the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, but also at some beaches in San Diego.

On March 29, San Diego lifeguards found a 30-foot-long dead whale off the shore near Mission Beach, just a day after another whale carcass was towed away from the coast off Torrey Pines.

As of June 27, a total of 171 whales have stranded on West Coast beaches off North America, with 85 of those turning up on the U.S. coastline and 37 beaching in California alone. Since most whales that die either sink or float out to sea, the beached whales represent just about 10 percent of total mortalities.

Gray whale deaths hit a peak in May, and continued through June. With whale carcasses drifting on shore, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on May 31 declared an “unusual mortality event,” which triggers heightened investigation and response to the strandings.

Read the full story at The San Diego Union-Tribune

Ad Hoc Climate and Communities Core Team to Hold Webinar August 8, 2019

July 9, 2019 — The following was released by the Pacific Fishery Management Council:

The Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (Pacific Council) Ad Hoc Climate and Communities Core Team (CCCT) will hold a meeting via webinar, which is open to the public.  The webinar will be held Thursday, August 8, 2019, from 9 a.m. until 11:30 a.m, Pacific Daylight Time.  The webinar time is an estimate; the meeting will adjourn when business for the day is complete.

Please see the CCCT August 8, 2019 webinar notice on the Council’s website for participation details.

A listening station is available at the Pacific Fishery Management Council office in Portland, Oregon.

For further information:

  • Please contact Pacific Fishery Management Council staff officer Dr. Kit Dahl at 503-820-2422; toll-free 1-866-806-7204.

Conservation Group Sues NMFS Over West Coast Anchovies For a Second Time

July 8, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The more things change, the more they stay the same.

In this case, NMFS issued a final rule regarding management of the central subpopulation of anchovy off California, and the conservation group Oceana sued. NMFS applied best available science and approved policy to update the rule using recent biomass estimates, as directed by the Court, and re-filed it last month. Oceana sued again last week.

The lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service was filed over the agency’s “continued failure to prevent overfishing, use the best available science, or account for the food needs of ocean animals in managing anchovy,” Oceana said in a press release.

The rule established a multi-year, unchanging catch limit for anchovy that does not account for the frequent, and sometimes rapid, cycles of booms and busts in the size of this population, Oceana said. The final rule is a near carbon copy of an earlier proposal by the Fisheries Service in 2016 that was struck down in court because it did not use best available science and did not prevent overfishing.

Oceana, represented by Earthjustice, said NMFS continues to manage certain fish populations, including northern anchovy, by setting multi-year catch limits that stay in place regardless of the population’s status. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District Court of California, claims that in failing to actively manage the anchovy population based on current population size, NMFS has again failed to use the best available science, prevent overfishing and ensure adequate forage fish for dependent predators, the press release said.

The recent NMFS final rule employed the same harvest policy as originally approved and updated the reference points based on recent years of anchovy biomass estimates. The new overfishing limit, which represents a long-term average maximum sustainable yield, is close to the original estimate. The acceptable biological catch and annual catch limit also conform with the original harvest policy, which is based on 25% of the OFL. The anchovy population is acknowledged to be close to historic abundance, which is why the numbers are similar, industry members say.

The NMFS acoustic trawl survey method on which the management levels are based is at the heart of the issue. Both the California Wetfish Producers Association and the West Coast Pelagic Conservation Group say the survey does not capture an accurate picture of the anchovy biomass; for example, it misses the nearshore areas that anchovy frequent as well as the upper 10 meters of the water column, the acoustic “dead zone.” The model used to estimate anchovy biomass also is missing critical age information from earlier decades.

“… despite Oceana’s claim that acoustic trawl surveys are ‘state of the art’ science, the 2018 Acoustic Trawl Methods Review down-weighted the AT survey biomass estimates to a ‘relative’ index of abundance because it omits a substantial portion of the biomass inshore of the existing survey tracks, as documented by our collaborative [California] Department of Fish and Wildlife aerial surveys,” CWPA Executive Director Diane Pleschner-Steele said in an email.

Both the CWPA and WCPCG have developed collaborative methods to survey the nearshore areas for forage fish utilizing exempted fishing permits. The groups are working with both state and federal researchers to get a fuller picture of the anchovy — and other pelagic species — stock.

Oceana representatives have said the acoustic trawl survey, with the state-of-the-art technological equipment, does represent the best available science. Industry members argue that the best equipment and a model that relies primarily on that data does not represent the “best science” since it cannot survey many areas where the anchovy spend much of their time.

“We remain frustrated that the Fisheries Service continues to ignore state of the art fish population surveys produced by their own scientists when deciding how many anchovies fishermen can catch on an annual basis,” Geoff Shester, Oceana California Campaign Director and Senior Scientist, said in a statement, noting that predators such as other fish, whales, pelicans, sea lions depend on anchovies and other forage fish species.

“Oceana has dismissed concerns industry has expressed about the survey, such as lack of data on the inshore components of the stock,” WCPCG member Mike Okoniewski said in an email. “While industry is actually working collaboratively with the science centers and state agencies to explore alternative survey methodology … , we wonder why Oceana would rather litigate, than collaborate with ongoing efforts the science staff and industry are undertaking to gain a better knowledge about the population size and behavior of our coastal pelagic stocks?”

Meanwhile, Pleschner-Steele said California fishermen have ben seeing abundant anchovy since 2015. At least now NOAA’s acoustic surveys are beginning to validate fishermen’s observations to a degree, but the still missing nearshore component is a problem that has been recognized as necessary to fully assess the central anchovy stock. The stock historically fluctuated between very high and very low abundance, even absent any fishing activity. The Pacific Fishery Management Council and NMFS have established a very precautionary management approach by capping the harvest at 25 percent of the estimated OFL. The harvest rule is based on a long-term average biomass, not a single-year stock assessment. Even with a 25,00 mt harvest cap, fishermen have landed far less, averaging only 8,000 mt per year or less.

“Industry will always have more ‘sea’ time than the survey or research ships. Our livelihoods depend on what we observe,” Okoniewski said. “While we are not scientists we do first hand surveillance of these stocks and their environment. This has motivated us to work more closely with the scientific staff, and in most cases this has been reciprocated by the science community. Coastal Pelagic stocks are difficult to survey and fishery observations often differ from scientific observations. We believe it is best to work together to resolve some of these differences in observation.”

This story was originally published on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

US operator to slash Pacific tuna fleet, citing lack of gov’t support

July 3, 2019 — The South Pacific Tuna Corporation (SPTC), a major player in the US-flagged tuna fleet based in the US territory of American Samoa, will sell eight purse seiners and lay off a dozen captains by year-end, the company said.

The company will also make cuts at its corporate office in San Diego, California, as it cuts its fleet to six vessels.

Doug Hines, SPTC’s executive director, cited a lack of US government interest and support as the major drivers behind the decision.

“Our fleet reduction is due in part to the US government’s continued lack of support and the lack of interest in ratifying the 1988 South Pacific Tuna Treaty, renegotiated in 2016,” said Hines said. “Despite our efforts to work with the Trump Administration, the National Marine Fisheries Service has not reciprocated and continues its overly aggressive compliance and enforcement actions.”

SPTC suggested in a press release that the diminishing of the US fleet in the western Pacific will mean a decline in US influence in the region during a time when China, Korea, and Russia take a larger role.

“In the global priorities of the US Government, the Western Pacific has become an afterthought,” said Hines. “But as president Ronald Reagan recognized in 1988, the South Pacific Tuna Treaty is a critical step to ensuring American vessels and commerce continue to lead in the region and the world. The reduction of the U.S. fleet will be a devastating blow for the international policy community as well as the Western Pacific sustainable fishery ecosystem.”

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Pacific Council Slows Process on U.S. Management of Area 2A Commercial Halibut Fishery

July 1, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — After a couple years of exchanging ideas with the International Pacific Halibut Commission about management of the non-Indian commercial halibut fishery in Area 2A — Washington, Oregon and California — the Pacific Fishery Management Council plans to take incremental steps to take over management of the fishery.

Commercial fishermen have gone to IPHC meetings and pushed for individual quota systems and the IPHC has gone to the Council to propose longer seasons than single 10-hour openings. The Council and its advisory bodies have struggled with how to transition from IPHC management to U.S. management.

The Council decided last week when it met in San Diego to continue to work closely with the IPHC and stakeholders. And instead of a workshop, the Council will fold ideas into its traditional two-meeting catch-sharing plan discussion that takes place during September and November meetings. At the next Council meetings, in Boise, Idaho in September and in Costa Mesa, Calif., in November, the Council will consider small changes for the 2020 season.

Fishermen will likely see little change to the fishery in the next two years as the Council, NMFS and the IPHC work on background issues to support a management transition.

The Council also decided that:

– for 2020-2021, and maybe beyond, the Council would request IPHC continue to issue commercial licenses for the Area 2A fishery while NMFS works on development of new permitting regulations;

– it will request the IPHC and NMFS/Council share data regarding the 2A licensing system and commercial logbook data;

– it will reach out to fishery participants to let them know the Council’s intent to not consider major changes to the fishery for the next few years.

This story was originally published on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

PFMC: June 2019 Council Decision Summary Document Online

June 28, 2019 — The following was released by the Pacific Fishery Management Council:

The Pacific Fishery Management Council met June 20-25, 2019 in San Diego, California. The June 2019 Council Meeting Decision Summary Document contains the highlights of significant decisions made at that meeting. Results of agenda items that do not reach a level of highlight significance are typically not described in the Decision Summary Document.