Fish migration Archives - Saving Seafood

Tropical fish off the Massachusetts coast? Warming ocean temperatures changing the catch.

November 5, 2026 — When you think of tropical fish, Massachusetts probably isn’t the first place that comes to mind. But fishermen are finding some unexpected species in New England waters, and warming ocean temperatures may be playing a role.

Max Harvey has spent decades on the water, and he’s noticed some unusual catches.

“There was a cubera snapper caught on Nantucket like last week. And it’s happened before, but it’s very uncommon,” Harvey said.

The cubera snapper is typically associated with warmer waters farther south. But it’s not the only surprising fish to turn up off the Massachusetts coast.

“Four or five years ago there was a rush of king mackerel in Vineyard Sound. And you could go out and actually realistically catch one,” Harvey said.

Warm water species have occasionally made their way into New England waters for decades. Harvey says the Gulf Stream, which carries warm water north along the East Coast, has been getting closer to shore, allowing pockets of warmer water to break off and bring different species into the region.

Read the full article at CBS News

Six Fish These Small Sound-Emitting Tags Are Helping Save

November 5, 2026 — An app tells beachgoers in Massachusetts and Maine if a shark has entered the area. Fishermen in Delaware check their phones to avoid accidentally catching endangered Atlantic sturgeon. Dwindling American shad, once cut off from their spawning grounds by dams, are returning in droves.

Each of these stories became possible in part because of tiny “acoustic telemetry” tags and a vast network of researchers deploying them along the East Coast of the U.S. With acoustic telemetry technology, each tag emits a unique, ultrasonic “ping.” Along the Eastern seaboard, thousands of electronic receivers are listening for those pings, ready to detect any tagged animal that swims within about half a kilometer.

Researchers in the Atlantic Cooperative Telemetry Network, or “ACT” for short, have been tagging animals for over two decades. Now managed by the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, the network unites scientists from over 120 organizations from Maine to North Carolina. Together, they’ve tagged more than 17,000 animals and 92 species. By sharing data from all of their receivers, they’re making discoveries about animal movement no single team could have made on their own.

“Many fish migrate long distances,” says Matt Ogburn, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC). “The ACT Network supports researchers by making it easy and efficient to exchange data across projects as the fish they tagged move along the coast or even across oceans.”

This fall the network published a new paper, its first to highlight how acoustic telemetry is shaping real-world conservation. From sturgeon to sharks (a lot of sharks), here are six fish the ACT scientists and their tags are helping preserve.

Read the full article at Smithsonian Magazine

Environmental Bullies: How Conservation Ideologues Attack Scientists Who Don’t Agree With Them

March 11, 2016 — The following is an excerpt from a commentary from Dr. Molly Lutcavage, the head of the Large Pelagics Research Center in Gloucester, Massachusetts. It was originally published on Medium :

Back in the 90s, bluefin fishermen said that spotter pilots could see, in a single day, as many adult bluefin that were supposed to exist in the entire western Atlantic in just a few surface schools in the Gulf of Maine alone. No federal fisheries scientists would fly to validate the fishermen’s observations, so Dr. Scott Kraus, director of the right whale research group and whale aerial surveys, stepped in to find out. And he hired me to run the surveys after an inquiry about his sea turtle data. I’d completed an oceanography PhD, two postdocs, and recently left a job in the Dept. of Interior as an endangered species scientist to get back to research, which I loved. I had been studying leatherbacks, a warm bodied turtle, and bluefin tuna were a warm bodied fish. And incredibly interesting. My UBC postdoc supervisor, Dr. David R. Jones, was an expert on their blood. And there were huge gaps in biological understanding – in other words, a scientific frontier to explore!

In his clumsy communication to discredit our survey work, Carl Safina made no attempt to confirm the scientific credentials of the scientist running the study (me), nor her highly respected collaborator, Dr. Scott Kraus. In fact, by doing our job as scientists, using aerial survey methods to investigate real-time, surface abundance of bluefin schools, we were disrupting the ocean conservation group’s efforts, especially that of Safina, to list Atlantic bluefin tuna as an endangered species. Apparently, by whatever means necessary. The published spotter survey results eventually provided independent observations that rebutted Safina’s portrayal of western Atlantic bluefin as an endangered species down to a few thousand individuals. The study established the local assemblage as larger than one hundred thousand giant bluefin, at the surface alone.

Since our first research projects over 25 years ago, my lab and our collaborators and students have built a diverse body of peer reviewed science covering extensive aspects of the biology, life history, physiological ecology, reproduction, diet, oceanographic associations, and fisheries dynamics of Atlantic bluefin tuna. We published over 75 research studies on western bluefin. Most of it was new, or challenged the status quo of bluefin biology used in stock assessment. We documented a lower age at maturity, extensive, Atlantic-wide mixing, complex annual migration patterns, and effects of prey dynamics and ocean conditions on their movements. This holistic body of research showed the western Atlantic bluefin population to be far more resilient and larger than that being represented by some NGO’s. Yet this substantial scientific body of evidence, most of it noted by historic studies by Frank Mather and Peter C. Wilson, has been conveniently ignored by those with ideological agendas, even today.

Enviro Bullies rarely confront their targets face to face. Since the 1990’s, they’ve made pretty impressive attempts to mislead about bluefin science. And to influence US fisheries managers, politicians and the direction of research funding, all the way up to the White House. We stuck to our research goals, but when Congressional earmarks funding the Large Pelagics Research Center (LPRC), and its role model, the Pacific Fisheries Research Program, went away, we faced vastly downsized research budgets. Actually, just when the Centers had amassed a substantial body of credible, cutting edge fisheries science, and established their true worth, both pelagic fisheries science Centers went off the cliff, into real extinction. Meanwhile, major funding began streaming in to some ocean-focused NGO’s, and their spokesperson scientists.

In 2013, former students, collaborators and I witnessed the Pew Oceans Campaign and partners mislead, in their press releases and statements to US and Canadian fisheries managers, experts’ consensus regarding the status of the Atlantic bluefin population in Pews Fact Sheet representation of Best Available Science. And more specifically, that LPRC’s peer reviewed research that challenged their take away message, that the Atlantic bluefin population trajectory was downward, and that they were in danger. They labelled our work as well as consensus science from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), as “unsubstantiated hypotheses”. Amanda Nickson, director of the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Bluefin Campaign, phoned from Vancouver to berate my colleagues and I for responding to the Pew Fact Sheet, which dramatically misrepresented science. We had corrected it with our own fact sheet, and they were not happy to be called out by credentialed bluefin experts.

Maybe it’s because National Geographic’s Wicked Tuna reality show, on roll out, put me up against Safina’s video blurb about the overfished, endangered bluefin on the show’s website. What can you do when a lauded environmental writer, one with a PhD in seabird ecology, that receives accolades and is often the go to authority on Atlantic bluefin for the New York Times, National Public Radio, high media profile journals Science and Nature (even though he’s not exactly running a research lab, is he?), lacks the ethics most of us practice when we conduct science. To claim to be an expert where you are not, to mislead the public, to falsely disparage those that don’t support your ideology, to repeatedly and falsely allude to a woman scientist being bought by fishermen, “in their pockets”, whatever works, when his ideology or views expressed in books or blogs or lectures are shown to be false. Is this what conservation leadership has become? Incidentally, another blatant attempt to disparage and mislead was accomplished by Pew and their scientists in Quicksilver, by Kenneth Brower, published in National Geographic Magazine March 2014 story on Atlantic bluefin tuna.

The quotes looks pretty familiar:

Tuna science, always politicized, has recently become much more so. As it is no longer possible for ICCAT to simply ignore scientific advice, there is now an effort to massage the science. “There are inherent uncertainties about these stock assessments,” Amanda Nickson, director of global tuna conservation at the Pew Charitable Trusts, told me. “We’re seeing a mining of the areas of uncertainty to justify increases in quota.”

Industry-funded biologists propose that there might be undiscovered spawning grounds for Atlantic bluefin. It is possible, of course, but there is no real evidence for the proposition. The idea seems awfully convenient for an agenda favoring business as usual.

Wow, “awfully convenient for an agenda”, in this Nat Geo story repeating Pew’s positions and only their scientists that support it, Drs. Barbara Block and Safina. So now we have even more evidence that their representations are wrong. Jee, National Geographic Society Research and Exploration had actually funded two of my research projects. Let’s see if they print a correction.

Here we are again, Carl Safina. Yes, you’re certainly not the only enviro bully out there, not the only one wrong again, but this time, I’m calling you out. Let the ocean conservation community represented by Pew tuna campaigns and their chosen scientists see the latest, peer reviewed science finding on Atlantic bluefin tuna spawning areas in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, early edition on 7 March 2016 “Discovery of a new spawning ground reveals diverse migration strategies in Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)” by Richardson and coauthors.

Read the full opinion piece at Medium

Climate change poses threat to fish stocks, study finds

February 3, 2016 — Over the coming decades, dozens of marine species from the Carolinas to New England will be threatened by the warming, changing currents and the increased acidity expected to alter the region’s waters, according to a new study by scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Atlantic salmon, winter flounder, bay scallops, ocean quahogs, and other species may face the kind of trouble from climate change that has been linked in previous research to the decline of Atlantic cod, which has lost an estimated 90 percent of its population over the past three decades, the study found.

The authors of the study, released Wednesday by the journal Plos One, found that half of the 82 species they evaluated along the northeastern coast are “highly” or “very highly” vulnerable to the effects of climate change, meaning their populations and ability to reproduce are likely to decline.

“The results show that climate change presents significant challenges to the region’s fishery management and to its ability to sustain fishing communities,” said Jonathan Hare, a NOAA oceanographer who was the lead author of study.

The study also found that 80 percent of the species studied are likely to move beyond their normal habitats.

Read the full story from the Boston Globe

Inside North Carolina Science: DNA markers track fish migration

November 1, 2015 — On a cloudy spring day last year, I had the opportunity to go out on the Roanoke River with biologists from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. I collected fish with them as part of my job as a geneticist at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences. We work in conjunction with NCWRC and use genetics to track and manage stocking programs for American shad, a native fish currently in decline.

In an effort to bring American shad back to traditional population numbers, NCWRC goes out on the Roanoke and Neuse rivers every spring to collect adult American shad returning to spawn. These fish are taken to hatcheries to spawn; eggs are allowed to hatch safely without being eaten by the predators that share their river ecosystem. The baby fish, called fry, are then released back into the river. In the fall, NCWRC goes back onto the rivers to see how many juvenile fish they can find.

Read the full story at The Charlotte Observer