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

Huffman bill would funnel US offshore energy leasing revenue to fisheries research

December 18, 2024 — U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-California) has introduced new legislation to redirect revenue from offshore energy projects to the priority needs of Tribes and coastal communities, such as fisheries research.

Huffman’s Resilience, Equity, and Sustainability Through Offshore Renewable Energy (RESTORE) Act would establish a new revenue-sharing mechanism for offshore renewable energy development, reinvesting the money tthe government earns from its lease into habitat conservation, climate resilience, and economic development.

Read the full story at SeafoodSource

 

Authors of Recent Research on Forage Fish Respond to Criticism from Lenfest Task Force

WASHINGTON – September 20, 2017 – In April, a team of respected fisheries scientists led by Dr. Ray Hilborn published a study that found fishing of forage species likely has a lower impact on predators than previously thought. This conclusion challenged previous forage fish research, most notably the 2012 Lenfest Oceans Program report “Little Fish, Big Impact,” which recommended leaving more forage fish in the water to be eaten by predators.

The Lenfest task force responded to this new research with a Letter to the Editor of Fisheries Research, where the Hilborn et al. study was published. In response to this letter, Hilborn et al. wrote their own letter, which was published August 5 in Fisheries Research and is reproduced below:

Our paper highlighted that key biological relationships between forage fish and their predators were not included in the models used in the LENFEST report. These missing elements were (1) the high level of natural variability of forage fish, (2) the weak relationship between forage fish spawning stock size and recruitment and the role of environmental productivity regimes, (3) the size distribution of forage fish, their predators and subsequent size selective predation and (4) the changes in spatial distribution of the forage fish as it influences the reproductive success of predators. We demonstrate that each of these elements can have a major impact on how one evaluates the impact of fishing forage species on their predators. The LENFEST report used EwE models without these factors to determine the very specific recommendations they made about how to manage forage fish.

We certainly agree that in some cases fishing forage fish will affect their predators, but in other cases there may be little if any impact – it all depends on the biology that was not included in the models used.

This critique of our paper suggests that we are offering alternative evaluation of the impact of fishing forage fish that are, like the LENFEST recommendations, broadly applicable. We make no such claim and much of their critique is against the straw man they have constructed. We are not arguing that fishing forage fish does not affect predators. Rather we show how, in specific cases, there may be little if any impact of fishing forage fish and that general conclusions simply are not possible.

We suggest that the very specific quantitative measures proposed in the LENFEST report result from models that do not have these components and that if these elements were included in the models the conclusions would likely be different. While the authors of the letter argue that they conducted a comprehensive literature review, the specific recommendations came from their modelling, and it is the modelling we criticize and their critique makes few attempts to defend.

We stated “Pikitch et al. (2012) argued forcefully that their analysis provided general conclusions that should be broadly applied. However, relevant factors are missing from the analysis contained in their work…” Their response is that their recommendations were “tailored to the level of uncertainty and data availability of each system.” What we refer as “general conclusions” contain a set of recommendations for three uncertainty tiers, but our point is that the biology of each system is different, not the availability of data or uncertainty, and the differences in biology should be considered when evaluating management options for forage fisheries.

The specificity of their recommendations is clear – for high information situations (which would include the California Current, Humboldt Current, NE Atlantic sand eel and herring) their recommendation is “In any case, lower biomass limits should not be less than 0.3 B0, an MAX F should not exceed 0.75 FMSY or 0.75 M.” These numbers are not the result of their case studies or literature review but the result of their models that did not include a number of important elements.

Finally, we agree that situations where detailed information is lacking are challenging for management, and that is why it is important to identify species and system attributes that make systems less resilient to fishing. Low trophic level species constitute the largest potential sources of increased fish production in the world and much of the recent suggestions for “balanced harvesting” relies on significant increases in exploitation rates on trophic levels associated with forage fish. Since almost all of these potential low trophic level species would be considered in the “low information tier” the LENFEST recommendation is that new fisheries not be allowed until sufficient data are collected. Given that few countries will devote resources to research on fisheries that do not exist, the LENFEST recommendation essentially says no new fisheries on these species, and thus in effect precludes development of what may be significant food resources.

We believe the authors of our paper and the LENFEST report all accept that in some cases predators may be highly dependent on forage fish, but in other cases there may be little dependence. Management should be based upon what is known about the dependence of the predators on forage fish and the relative importance the local agencies place on maintaining high predator abundance verses the benefits of full exploitation of the forage fish. The major forage fisheries of the world are very valuable and currently intensively studied. What is needed for each of these fisheries is a new set of models that incorporate the elements that were missing from the LENFEST analysis.

Ray Hilborn, Ricardo O. Amoroso, Eugenia Bogazzi, Olaf P. Jensen, Ana M. Parma, Cody Szuwalski, Carl J. Walters

Forage Fish Should Be Managed on a Case-by-Case Basis: Menhaden Science Committee

Findings by ASMFC BERP Workgroup align with recent forage fish research by Hilborn et al.

WASHINGTON – July 31, 2017 – The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition. Saving Seafood previously covered Hilborn et al., which found that previous forage fish research may have overestimated the impact of forage fishing on their predators. Saving Seafood also produced a video about the study, which can be found here:

Earlier this year, a team of scientists led by Dr. Ray Hilborn found, among other conclusions, that forage fish are best managed on a case-by-case basis that accounts for their unique environmental roles. In a memo earlier this month, an inter-state scientific review committee tasked with incorporating the ecological role of menhaden into management determined that this conclusion aligns with their own findings.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) Biological and Ecological Reference Points (BERP) Workgroup, which is leading development of ecosystem-based fisheries management for Atlantic menhaden, reviewed the Hilborn et al. paper earlier this summer. It concluded that the paper’s recommendation of using stock-specific models to evaluate ecosystem needs were similar to models being developed by the workgroup.

“The [workgroup] is currently developing a suite of intermediate complexity menhaden-specific models that align with the general recommendations from both Dr. Hilborn and the 2015 Stock Assessment Peer Review Panel,” said the July 14 memo, Review of Hilborn et al. 2017.[1] “The [workgroup] anticipates that these models will be ready for peer review in 2019.”

The Hilborn et al. study, published in April in Fisheries Research, found that there were several variables in forage fish species that make imprecise, one-size-fits-all management approaches difficult. Most importantly, there seems to be little correlation between the number of predator species in the water and the number of forage fish, making it nearly impossible to determine a catch level that is appropriate for forage fish as a whole. Other variables include the natural variability of forage fish, which is different from species to species, and relative locations of predators and forage species.

“We suggest that any evaluation of harvest policies for forage fish needs to include these issues, and that models tailored for individual species and ecosystems are needed to guide fisheries management policy,” the paper finds.

The ASMFC will consider the work of the BERP, including its review of Dr. Hilborn’s paper, at its upcoming 2017 summer meeting, to be held from August 1-3 in Alexandria, Virginia.


[1] ASMFC Biological Ecological Reference Points Workgroup, “Memorandum: Review of Hilborn et al. 2017,” July 14, 2017

New Study Challenges Earlier Findings Regarding Link Between Predators, Forage Fish

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – April 3, 2017 – A new study published today in Fisheries Research finds that fishing forage fish may have a smaller impact on their predators than previously thought. The study, authored by a team of marine scientists led by renowned University of Washington fisheries expert Dr. Ray Hilborn, calls into question previous forage fish research that may have overestimated the effect of fishing of forage fish on their predators.

The study, “When does fishing forage species affect their predators?,” finds that changes in predator populations are largely unrelated to the abundance of forage fish. It also shows that the distribution of forage fish is more important to predators than their overall abundance, and that many predators prefer smaller forage fish that are largely unaffected by fishing. Based on these results, the authors recommend that forage fishing policies be created on a case-by-case basis.

The paper’s findings point to issues with previous forage fish research, most notably a five-year-old study funded by the Lenfest Ocean Program, managed by The Pew Charitable Trusts, which it says failed to consider important variables like the spatial distribution of forage fish. Arguably the largest oversight in past research was the high natural variability of forage fish populations, even in the absence of fishing, the authors write.

“There is little evidence for a strong connection between forage fish abundance and the rate of change in the abundance of predators,” the authors write. “The fact that few of the predator populations evaluated in this study have been decreasing under existing fishing policies suggests that current harvest strategies do not threaten the predators and there is no pressing need for more conservative management of forage fish.”

The authors suggest that the lack of a strong relationship between forage fish and their predators is the result of “diet flexibility” – the idea that predators can switch between prey species, helping them defend against the high natural variability of forage fish populations.

This finding contradicts the widely reported conclusions of the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force in 2012. The study, “Little Fish, Big Impact,” claimed that forage fish are twice as valuable to humans when they are left in the water, rather than fished, because of their great importance to predator species. Based on this conclusion, the Lenfest group recommended cutting forage fish catch rates across the board by 50 to 80 percent.

But Dr. Hilborn and his coauthors advocate for a more nuanced approach, writing that previous models “were frequently inadequate for estimating impact of fishing forage species on their predators” and that “a case by case analysis is needed.” The team explicitly calls into question the Lenfest study’s recommendations, which it says are “not appropriate for all species.”

“Relevant factors are missing from the analysis contained in [the Lenfest] work, and this warrants re-examination of the validity and generality of their conclusions,” the authors write. “We have illustrated how consideration of several factors which they did not consider would weaken the links between impacts of fishing forage fish on the predator populations.”

These missing elements include how fishing mortality compares with the natural variability of forage species, the spatial structure of forage fish populations, and the overlap between the sizes of forage fish eaten by predators and size taken by the fishery.

“It must be remembered that small pelagic fish stocks are a highly important part of the human food supply, providing not only calories and protein, but micronutrients, both through direct human consumption and the use of small pelagics as food in aquaculture,” the paper concludes. “Some of the largest potential increases in capture fisheries production would be possible by fishing low trophic levels much harder than currently.”

Read an infographic about the study here 

Watch a video about the study here 

CFRF New Executive Director Announcement

December 11, 2015 — The following was released by the Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation:

The CFRF Board of Directors is pleased to announce the appointment of Anna Malek Mercer as Executive Director of the Commercial Fisheries Research Foundation effective immediately. Anna received a Bachelor of Science with a focus in marine biology from the University of New Hampshire in 2008 and a PhD in oceanography from the University of Rhode Island, Graduate School of Oceanography in 2015. Throughout her career, Anna has worked closely with the fishing industry to develop research projects, conduct field work, and communicate and apply results.

Over the past three years, Anna has spearheaded a variety of research projects for the CFRF, with the goal of expanding fishermen’s involvement with scientific data collection and application. Given her background in collaborative research, her knowledge of the scientific process, and her respect for the fishing community, the Board of Directors believes that Anna is uniquely suited to lead the CFRF as Executive Director. 

Upon acceptance of the position, Anna remarked: “I look forward to bringing a new energy to the CFRF’s existing projects and to working with the Board to pursue new initiatives and partnerships. The world of collaborative fisheries research is certainly an exciting place to be and I am committed to ensuring that CFRF continues to be a leader in the field.” 

The CFRF welcomes you to contact Anna at amalek@cfrfoundation.org or (401) 515-4662.

Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program Telephone Town Hall Oct 22

October 20, 2015 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant Program Telephone Town Hall Meeting on October 22

Interested in applying for a Saltonstall-Kennedy Grant? 

To find out how, follow the directions below to join us this Thursday, October 22, at 4 pm (Eastern Standard Time). We are hosting this Webinar/Telephone Town Hall to provide an overview of the application process and to answer questions from anyone interested in applying for funding through this grant opportunity.The solicitation for this grant opportunity is open until November 2.  

To join this online meeting, you will need a computer and a phone. Follow these instructions:

1. Go to Webinar page

2. If requested, enter your name and email address 

3. Provide the event password: Meeting123 

4. Click “Join”

5. Follow the instructions that appear on your screen  

Note:  This webinar does not have audio so you will need to call in with the info below

Dial In: 866-647-1746

Participant Code: 6042534

Background:

On September 4, NOAA Fisheries announced approximately $10 million available to support fisheries projects through the competition. 

The goal of the Saltonstall-Kennedy grant program is to fund projects that address the needs of fishing communities, optimize economic benefits by building and maintaining sustainable fisheries, and increase other opportunities to keep working waterfronts viable. The 2016 solicitation seeks applications that fall into seven priority areas:

  • Aquaculture
  • Fishery data collection
  • Techniques for reducing bycatch and other adverse impacts
  • Adapting to climate change and other long term ecosystem change
  • Promotion, development, and marketing
  • Socio-economic research
  • Science coming from within the U.S. territories

If you have a project in mind, join us on Thursday so we can help you navigate the application process.

Credit: NOAA

Massachusetts: Gov. Charlie Baker approves $30 million for SMAST expansion in New Bedford

October 15, 2015 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — Gov. Charlie Baker approved $30 million in state funding Thursday for the long-planned SMAST expansion at the UMass Dartmouth campus in the South End, clearing the way for a groundbreaking ceremony Oct. 23 and spurring excitement from politicians and UMass administrators.

“I’m ecstatic about this,” said state Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford. “This project is one that, in the past few weeks, I thought we were going to lose.”

Baker’s administration has been scrutinizing proposed bond projects across the state since he took office in January. The administration put a hold about two months ago, Montigny said, on SMAST expansion funding that had been ostensibly secured through a prior agreement with former Gov. Deval Patrick.

Montigny and New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell both said Thursday that they had been pushing hard for several weeks to secure the funding under the Baker administration.

“I’m thrilled that this project is at last going forward,” Mitchell said. “SMAST will continue to be a major counterpoint to federal government-sponsored fisheries research. And in that way, SMAST will continue to help level the playing field for our fishing fleet.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

 

Recent Headlines

  • Judge allows lawsuit challenging Trump’s wind energy ban to proceed
  • “Shrimp Fraud” Allegations Are Rocking the Restaurant World. We Talked to the Company Blowing the Whistle.
  • Scientists warn that the ocean is growing greener at poles
  • NOAA awards $95 million contract to upgrade fisheries survey vessel
  • Fishing council to ask Trump to lift fishing ban in Papahanaumokuakea
  • The ocean is changing colors, researchers say. Here’s what it means.
  • NORTH CAROLINA: New bill to protect waterways would ‘destroy’ shrimp industry in North Carolina, critics warn
  • NORTH CAROLINA: Restaurateur rips NC bill HB 442: ‘Slitting the throats of the commercial fishing industry

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