Saving Seafood

US bill would increase use of eDNA in fisheries management

August 10, 2026 — U.S. lawmakers have introduced a bill to increase the use of environmental DNA (eDNA) in fisheries surveys and management, claiming the technology is a low-cost tool that can better help the government assess fish populations.

“Without accurate stock assessments, we cannot make the informed, science-based management decisions needed to ensure our fisheries remain sustainable for generations to come,” U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) said in a release. “Environmental DNA is an innovative, cost-effective tool that will give our scientists a clearer picture of our fisheries while expanding survey coverage and reducing costs. This legislation is the product of extensive collaboration with NOAA, Alaska fishermen, Tribal partners, academia, and industry to modernize how we assess fish stocks using the best available science.”

Read the full article at SeafoodSource

Can Habitat Restoration Help Salmon Recover? Prairie Creek Offers Clues

August 7, 2026 — When any habitat restoration project finishes, a critical question remains: Will the project help threatened fish and other species recover? Answering that question requires rigorous long-term monitoring.

At the Prairie Creek salmon habitat restoration project in Northern California, researchers from NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Habitat Conservation, Cal Poly Humboldt, and other partners have conducted monitoring before, during, and after construction to determine whether the project would improve the survival prospects of threatened Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast coho salmon.

The project transformed a former lumber mill site into wetlands, side channels, and off-channel ponds where juvenile salmon can rest, feed, and grow before migrating to the Pacific Ocean. Juvenile salmon that grow big and strong in freshwater have a better chance of surviving their time in the ocean and returning as adults to spawn.

Early findings suggest that juvenile coho salmon using the restored habitat are growing faster and experiencing higher ocean survival than prior generations from the same watershed. Preexisting monitoring data going back to 2011 gave the team an unusually long baseline against which to measure change. Their findings are also changing what scientists understand about how juvenile salmon use coastal watersheds.

Read the full article at NOAA Fisheries

Murkowski and Colleagues Work to Modernize Fisheries Science

August 7, 2026 — The following was released by the Office of U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski:

Today, U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) introduced legislation that would help the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) better assess and protect our fisheries. The Fisheries Science Modernization Act would incorporate environmental DNA (eDNA) and other biomolecular tools into NOAA’s fisheries science programs, allowing for more cost-effective and expanded survey coverage. This would bolster, not replace, traditional stock assessment surveys by providing NOAA with additional scientifically validated tools to improve data collection, expand survey coverage, and strengthen fisheries management.

This bill would establish national standards for this innovative technology while expanding workforce capacity, strengthening interagency coordination, and supporting private-sector innovation without imposing new regulatory burdens. Senators Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Patty Murray (D-WA), Angus King (I-ME), and Adam Schiff (D-CA) are co-sponsors.

“Without accurate stock assessments, we cannot make the informed, science-based management decisions needed to ensure our fisheries remain sustainable for generations to come,” said Senator Murkowski. “Environmental DNA is an innovative, cost-effective tool that will give our scientists a clearer picture of our fisheries while expanding survey coverage and reducing costs. This legislation is the product of extensive collaboration with NOAA, Alaska fishermen, Tribal partners, academia, and industry to modernize how we assess fish stocks using the best available science.”

“With climate change wreaking havoc on fisheries, researchers need to stay ahead of the curve,” said Senator Whitehouse. “This bill will allow NOAA to harness new technologies to keep fish stocks healthy and robust.”

“Reliable fisheries surveys and stock assessments are the foundation of sustainable fisheries management,” said Sen. Sullivan. “I’ve consistently fought to ensure NOAA maintains robust fisheries survey coverage in Alaska, where changing ocean conditions are impacting our subsistence, recreational, and commercially important species and the communities that depend on them. As fish stocks shift and ocean conditions become more variable, we need to invest in both the traditional surveys that have served us for decades and innovative technologies that can make those surveys even stronger. By thoughtfully investing in and integrating new tools, we can improve the quality of stock assessments, better support our fishermen and communities, and ensure America’s fisheries remain among the best managed in the world.”

“To implement the best possible fisheries management strategies, we need the best available data,” said Senator Merkley. “Our bipartisan bill modernizes federal fisheries science and invests in innovative data collection and analysis. Bolstering our tools to monitor fisheries is critical to supporting both Oregon fishermen and responsible, sustainable fishing for generations to come.”

“Environmental DNA is a promising new tool for fisheries and ecosystem assessment that could improve fisheries management while also lowering costs,” said Linda Behnken, Executive Director of the Alaska Longline Fishermen’s Association. “Senator Murkowski’s Fisheries Science Modernization Act will advance this technology while also improving oversight and collaboration.?ALFA supports this bill and applauds Senator Murkowski for her commitment to science-based management of Alaska’s fisheries.”

“The Fisheries Science Modernization Act comes at a pivotal moment for U.S. fisheries management,” said Austen Thomas, Senior Application Scientist. “As an eDNA service provider, Wilderlab USA sees firsthand how environmental DNA can expand monitoring coverage, reduce survey costs, and deliver data on species that traditional methods often miss. This bill’s focus on national standards and predictable procurement pathways is exactly what the private sector needs to invest with confidence in U.S. eDNA capacity. By bringing the private sector into closer partnership with NOAA and other resource agencies, this legislation will help ensure fisheries decisions are grounded in the best available science. We commend Senator Murkowski for this forward-looking legislation and look forward to supporting NOAA’s efforts to modernize how we understand and manage our nation’s fisheries.”

“United Catcher Boats supports the Fisheries Science Modernization Act of 2026 and appreciates Senator Murkowski’s continued leadership in advancing science-based fisheries management,” said Andrea Keikkala, Executive Director of United Catcher Boats. “Senator Murkowski has long demonstrated a deep understanding of the importance of sound fisheries science and the need to ensure NOAA Fisheries has the tools necessary to sustainably manage our nation’s fisheries. We appreciate her leadership in championing innovative technologies that have the potential to strengthen stock assessments, expand scientific capacity, and improve fisheries management. We recommend that Congress ensure NOAA Fisheries has adequate resources to successfully implement these important new responsibilities without reducing investment in existing stock assessments, fishery-independent surveys, cooperative research, observer programs, or other core science activities that are fundamental to science-based fisheries management. Investments in eDNA should complement, rather than displace, the core science programs that have made the United States the global leader in sustainable fisheries management.”

“The United States is a global leader in sustainable fisheries because of our commitment to science-based management,” said Joanna Slaney, Environmental Defense Fund’s Vice President for Political and Government Affairs. “As technology and science continue to advance, it is crucial for NOAA to examine innovative methods to collect fisheries data and further the best available science. EDF appreciates Senator Murkowski and Senator Whitehouse’s leadership to further science that supports thriving ecosystems, fishery resources, and the communities that depend on them.”

“Environmental DNA collection is an exciting new scientific frontier for augmenting our understanding of fisheries and their ecosystems,” said Meredith Moore, Ocean Conservancy’s Senior Director of Fish Conservation. “The Fisheries Science Modernization Act lays a solid foundation for unlocking this new source of data to improve fisheries management.”

“America’s 11.8 million saltwater anglers depend on healthy fisheries, and sound fisheries management starts with sound science,” said Mike Leonard, the American Sportfishing Association’s (ASA) Vice President of Government Affairs. “Environmental DNA has shown tremendous potential as a tool to supplement traditional fisheries surveys, improve our understanding of marine fish populations, and help managers make more informed decisions. By testing and validating these technologies before incorporating them into stock assessments, the Fisheries Science Modernization Act takes a thoughtful, science-based approach to strengthening marine fisheries research. Better science leads to better management, which ultimately benefits both fish populations and the millions of anglers who contribute more than $145 billion in economic activity to our nation’s coastal communities. ASA appreciates Senator Murkowski’s leadership on this important legislation.”

The legislation is further endorsed by the Cape Cod Fishermen’s Alliance, the Alaska Ocean Observing System, the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System, the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program, eDNAtec, the National Estuarine Research Reserve Associationand, the Pacific Seafood Processors Association.

Background

Currently, NOAA’s stock assessment methods are constrained by high operational costs and limited vessel availability, resulting in gaps in survey coverage. The integration of eDNA, already widely used in the private sector, would help close these gaps by enabling sampling in remote or hazardous environments while reducing costs.

The Fisheries Science Modernization Act would provide the federal government with key tools to better protect and grow our fisheries by modernizing how fish stocks are assessed while expanding agencies’ capacity to use eDNA. Specifically, the legislation:

Modernizing Stock Assessments

  • Establishes a NOAA eDNA Fishery Stock Assessment Pilot Program to validate methods across diverse regions and species.
  • Requires NOAA to develop an agency-wide eDNA Implementation Plan detailing how eDNA will be integrated into federally managed fisheries.
  • Directs NOAA to routinely collect eDNA samples during existing surveys to improve accuracy, expand coverage, and build long-term datasets.
  • Integrates eDNA into fisheries research and ecosystem monitoring by amending the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
  • Promotes collaboration among NOAA, fishermen, Tribal Nations, academia, and industry.
  • Requires annual coordination meetings and reports to the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and Congress to ensure accountability.

Building National eDNA Capacity

  • Creates the National Aquatic Biomolecular Coordination Network (NABCN) to develop national standards for sampling, laboratory workflows, quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC), metadata, and bioinformatics.
  • Establishes a coordinated multi-agency framework enabling consistent biomolecular monitoring across freshwater, estuarine, coastal, and marine environments.
  • Expands NOAA’s workforce and laboratory capacity while supporting complementary private-sector services.
  • Trains National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) technicians in eDNA collection, handling, and modeling.
  • Supports research, innovation, and technology transfer across agencies, academia, Tribal partners, and industry.
  • Provides transparent performance standards and predictable procurement pathways to encourage U.S. innovation and commercialization of emerging eDNA tools, including autonomous and AI-enabled sampling systems.

###

eDNAtec and the National Estuarine Research Reserve Association.

Thank you!

Where have all the old, female black rockfish gone?

August 6, 2026 — The Marine Fisheries Research Project team from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife headed out to sea on Aug. 1.

Their destination: Cobb Seamount, about 300 miles west of the Washington coast.

Their goal: to find older female black, canary, or yellowtail rockfish.

Since the early 1990s, fisheries scientists on the West Coast have noticed a peculiar trend in black, yellowtail, and canary rockfish populations: the older females get, the fewer of them there are.

Marine Fisheries Research Project leader Leif Rasmuson and other members of his team boarded Oregon State University’s research vessel Pacific Storm for a 47-hour steam to the research site. The trip is part of OSU’s Oceangoing Research Vessel Program.

It took the crew two days to reach Cobb Seamount, where they’ll spend about 11 days searching for older female rockfish. Additionally, they’ll also collect genetic samples, attach satellite tags to fish, and document other marine life, including sunflower sea stars.

Read the full article at KLCC

Virginia Institute of Marine Science Calls on Seafood Businesses to Participate in Regional Offshore Wind Impact Survey

August 5, 2026 — The following was released by the Science Center for Marine Fisheries:

The Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) is surveying Northeast and Mid-Atlantic shoreside businesses to quantify the economic value of the coastal economy in advance of potential offshore wind development. Seafood processors, dealers, wholesalers, distributors and other first-sale seafood businesses from Massachusetts to Virginia are encouraged to participate.

The survey, the Seafood First Sale Value Added Survey, was funded by a grant from the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS), a member of the National Science Foundation’s Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers program, which brings together marine scientists and members of the commercial fishing and wind energy industries to collaborate on fisheries research.

The survey is designed to address the existing information gaps in how offshore wind development may affect shoreside businesses and local fishing economies. While previous surveys have focused on how offshore wind development may affect commercial fishing vessels, there is less information available about the impacts on processors, dealers, wholesalers and other businesses.

Strong industry participation is essential for the success of the survey, which will be used to provide baseline data for economic impact assessments, and inform offshore wind policy decisions and potential compensation programs.

“Compensation programs cannot fairly account for shoreside losses unless decision makers understand how seafood moves from the vessel through the other businesses that support the commercial fishing economy,” said Peter Hughes, Director of Sustainability for Atlantic Capes Fisheries and one of the fishing industry stakeholder representatives advising the multistate Fisheries Compensation Program. “This survey gives those businesses an opportunity to document their economic contribution and explain what reductions in regional landings could mean for their operations, employees and communities.”

The VIMS research team plans to use the survey results to develop a customized economic model assessing how different levels of commercial fishing impacts could affect businesses at the individual, sectoral, and regional levels. The work will help coastal communities plan for and mitigate the effects of competing ocean uses.

“The businesses operating on shore are an indispensable part of the commercial fishing industry, and it is important to be able to quantify their potential losses,” said Jeff Kaelin, Director of Sustainability and Government Relations for Lund’s Fisheries and another stakeholder representative to the Fisheries Compensation Program. “Seafood businesses should take the time to participate so future compensation policies are based on credible information from the people who buy, handle, process and distribute the catch.”

The 25-question online survey takes an estimated 15 to 20 minutes to complete. It asks about business operations, cost structures, seafood species purchased, products produced, purchasing and distribution channels, and businesses’ ability to adapt to reductions in regional commercial landings.

Responses are voluntary, and participants are not required to provide identifying information. Survey records will be maintained securely, and any email addresses submitted for the optional gift-card drawing will be separated from survey responses after the survey closes. Participants may enter a drawing for one of five $100 gift cards.

Seafood businesses may complete the survey here.

Businesses receiving an email or postcard invitation are especially encouraged to respond. Questions about the survey may be directed to Dr. Andrew M. Scheld of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at scheld@vims.edu or 804-684-7160.

About SCEMFIS
The Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS) brings together academic and industry expertise to address urgent scientific challenges facing sustainable fisheries. Through advanced methods, analytical tools, and collaborative research, SCEMFIS works to reduce uncertainty in stock assessments and improve the long-term sustainability of key marine resources.

SCEMFIS is an Industry-University Cooperative Research Center supported by the National Science Foundation. Industry organizations join SCEMFIS through an Industry Membership Agreement with one of the center’s site universities and contribute both financial support and valuable expertise to help shape research priorities.

Its university partners include the University of Southern Mississippi (lead institution) and the Batten School of Coastal and Marine Sciences & VIMS at William & Mary. The center also collaborates with scientists from a broad network of institutions, including Old Dominion University, Rutgers University, the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, the University of Maryland, and the University of Rhode Island. These researchers bring deep expertise in finfish, shellfish, and marine mammal science.

Demand for SCEMFIS’s services continues to grow, driven by the fishing industry’s need for responsive, science-based support. The center provides timely access to expert input on stock assessment issues, participates in working groups, and conducts targeted studies that lead to better data collection, improved survey design, and more accurate modeling-all in service of sustainable, science-driven fishery management.

Survey seeks impact of offshore wind power on seafood businesses

August 5, 2026 — Looking ahead to potential offshore wind energy development along the East Coast, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) says researchers are surveying Northeast and Mid-Atlantic shoreside businesses to “quantify the economic value of the coastal economy in advance of potential offshore wind development.

VIMS is asking seafood processors, dealers, wholesalers, distributors and other first-sale seafood businesses from Massachusetts to Virginia are to participate in the “Seafood First Sale Value Added Survey.”

The project is funded by a grant from the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS), a member of the National Science Foundation’s Industry/University Cooperative Research Centers program. The science center brings together marine scientists and members of the commercial fishing and wind energy industries to collaborate on fisheries research.

The survey is designed to “address the existing information gaps in how offshore wind development may affect shoreside businesses and local fishing economies,” according to a statement from the center.

Despite the offshore wind industry’s economic turmoil – and determined political and policy opposition from the Trump administration – plans for turbine arrays off southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic have survived.

Revolution Wind developer Eversource Energy  said it incurred a $164 million after-tax charge from construction cost increases as it battled the Trump administration’s stop-work orders on the project.

Notably Dominion Energy recently said its 2.6-gigawatt Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project is 81% built out, and completion is expected by the end of 2027.

Read the full article at the National Fisherman

Search for old female rockfish sends Oregon scientists to inactive underwater volcano

August 3, 2026 — Oregon scientists have headed to an inactive underwater volcano in search of rare fish.

The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife’s Marine Fisheries Research Team left Newport on Saturday to begin their journey 322 miles left of the state’s north coast, the agency recently announced. Officials said Cobb Seamount is their destination, where they hope to locate old female rockfish.

ODFW reported the team is specifically looking for black, canary and yellowtail fish.

Those particular species are mostly comprised of male fish as they age, according to the department. Researchers also noted older fish have only been found in commercial or recreational fisheries on few occasions.

Read the full article at KOIN

Sentient Media Article Omits Major Scientific Debate Over Forage Fish

July 15, 2026 — An article published today by Gaea Cabico in Sentient Media criticizes the use of fishmeal in livestock feeds, including feeds used in raising pigs and chickens, and argues that converting wild-caught fish into animal feed can come at the expense of marine ecosystems.

That is a legitimate subject for examination. But the article’s treatment of forage fish science is incomplete.

To support its argument, the article relies heavily on the 2012 report Little Fish, Big Impact, produced by the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force and chaired by Ellen Pikitch. It cites the task force’s findings concerning the importance of forage fish to marine predators and repeats its recommendation that forage fish catch rates generally be limited to half the rate associated with maximum sustainable yield.

What the article does not tell readers is that the Lenfest report’s analysis and broad management recommendations later became the subject of a significant peer-reviewed scientific debate.

Prominent Scientists Challenged the Lenfest Conclusions

In 2017, fisheries scientists Ray Hilborn, Ricardo O. Amoroso, Eugenia Bogazzi, Olaf P. Jensen, Ana M. Parma, Cody Szuwalski, and Carl J. Walters published When Does Fishing Forage Species Affect Their Predators? in the journal Fisheries Research.

Their analysis directly questioned whether the Lenfest task force’s generalized conclusions could reliably be applied across different forage species, predator populations, and marine ecosystems.

Among other concerns, Hilborn and his coauthors argued that the Lenfest analysis did not adequately account for:

  • The extreme natural variability of forage fish populations, even in the absence of fishing;
  • The geographic distribution of forage fish and the spatial overlap among predators, prey, and fishing activity;
  • Differences between the sizes of forage fish consumed by predators and those harvested by fisheries;
  • Predators’ ability to switch among prey species; and
  • The distinction between a predator consuming a forage species and the predator population actually being controlled by the abundance of that species.

The authors reported that there was limited evidence of a consistently strong relationship between aggregate forage fish abundance and changes in predator abundance. They concluded that the effects of forage fishing should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and that broad reductions in harvest rates are not necessarily appropriate for every fishery or ecosystem.

The Lenfest Authors Responded — and the Debate Continued

The Lenfest task force authors responded in the same journal, defending the strength of the connection between forage fish and their predators. Hilborn and his coauthors then published a further rebuttal.

That exchange is important because it shows that the Lenfest report was not the final word on the issue and that its conclusions were not universally accepted.

The scientists on both sides generally agreed that ecosystem effects should be considered in fisheries management. But they disagreed substantially over:

  • The strength and consistency of predator-prey relationships;
  • The adequacy of the models and assumptions used in the Lenfest analysis;
  • The extent to which fishing affects predator populations; and
  • Whether broad precautionary harvest rules should be applied across very different fisheries.

A responsible account of the science should acknowledge that disagreement.

The Article Presents One Side as Settled Science

The Sentient Media article quotes Pikitch, summarizes the Lenfest task force’s findings, and presents its recommended catch-rate reduction without identifying the scientists or research that challenged those conclusions.

That omission creates the impression that the Lenfest recommendations reflect an uncontested scientific consensus. They do not.

This matters because the article makes broad claims about reduction fisheries and the use of fishmeal in livestock production around the world. Forage species, ecosystems, predator dependencies, fishing methods, end uses, and management systems vary considerably.

A small pelagic fishery in one region cannot automatically be assumed to have the same ecological effects as a fishery targeting a different species in another ecosystem. Nor can all species commonly grouped under the label “forage fish” be treated as ecologically interchangeable.

The later peer-reviewed research cautions against exactly that kind of broad generalization.

Fishmeal Policy Should Be Based on Fishery-Specific Evidence

There are valid questions to ask about the sourcing and use of fishmeal, including whether particular fisheries are sustainably managed, whether stocks are healthy, whether ecosystem needs are incorporated into management, and whether fish are being used efficiently.

But those questions should be answered using fishery-specific evidence, not by treating a disputed 2012 report as though it settled the science for every forage fishery in the world.

A meaningful evaluation should examine, at minimum:

  • The status of the individual stock;
  • The fishery’s harvest controls;
  • The natural variability of the population;
  • The species’ role in the local food web;
  • The availability of alternative prey;
  • The spatial relationship between fishing activity and predators; and
  • The actual end uses of the harvested fish.

Some fisheries may warrant greater precaution. Others may already be conservatively managed and operating within ecosystem-based frameworks. Those distinctions are essential.

Readers Deserve the Full Scientific Record

Acknowledging the criticism of the Lenfest report would not require Sentient Media to adopt Hilborn and his coauthors’ conclusions.

It would simply require the publication to tell readers that a major scientific disagreement exists.

A balanced treatment would note that, in 2017, a group of prominent fisheries scientists challenged the generality of the Lenfest task force’s findings. It would also explain that the Lenfest authors disputed that criticism and that the two groups continued the debate in the peer-reviewed literature.

That context is particularly important when an article uses the Lenfest report to support broad policy claims about fishmeal, livestock production, and marine ecosystems.

Readers should be given the complete scientific picture, not one side of a contested debate presented as settled fact.

Relevant Research

Hilborn, Ray, Ricardo O. Amoroso, Eugenia Bogazzi, Olaf P. Jensen, Ana M. Parma, Cody Szuwalski, and Carl J. Walters. “When Does Fishing Forage Species Affect Their Predators?” Fisheries Research 191 (2017): 211–221.

Pikitch, Ellen K., and other members of the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force. “The Strong Connection Between Forage Fish and Their Predators: A Response to Hilborn et al. (2017).” Fisheries Research.

Ray Hilborn and coauthors. “Response to Pikitch et al.” Fisheries Research 198 (2018): 224.

Pikitch, Ellen K., P. Dee Boersma, Ian L. Boyd, David O. Conover, Philippe Cury, Timothy E. Essington, Selina S. Heppell, Edward D. Houde, Marc Mangel, Daniel Pauly, Éva Plagányi, Keith Sainsbury, and Robert S. Steneck. Little Fish, Big Impact: Managing a Crucial Link in Ocean Food Webs. Washington, D.C.: Lenfest Ocean Program, 2012.

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