Forage fish Archives - Page 2 of 6

California Wetfish Producers Association Statement: West Coast Sardine Fishery Management Action

April 9, 2018 — The following was released by the California Wetfish Producers Association:

On Sunday, the Pacific Fishery Management Council approved the management measures for the West Coast sardine fishery that were recommended by the CPS management team. The decision provides for 7,000 Mt for all uses, allowing fishermen a reasonable set aside for incidental take.

“We are very thankful to the Council for applying the best available common sense in making its decision, especially in light of the concerns expressed during the recent ATM methods review and the earlier problems voiced about last year’s sardine STAR panel review.

“And we are especially grateful to NOAA Assistant Administrator Chris Oliver, who took the time to address the Council in support of sustainable fishing communities, as well as resources, saying in part, ‘We have to combine that scientific underpinning with practicality and common sense.’

“This is especially topical given the ongoing forage fish discussion and its relationship to California’s historic wetfish industry, which has been the foundation of our fishing economy for more than a century. All too often, that importance is largely ignored or dismissed with pleas to ‘leave most of the fish in the water for other predators.’ Our precautionary catch rules already do that.

“In sum, a big thank you to the Council for doing the right thing for sardine fishery management and for fishing families and communities up and down the West Coast.”

Diane Pleschner-Steele, Executive Director

California Wetfish Producers Association

About the California Wetfish Producers Association

The California Wetfish Producers Association is a nonprofit dedicated to research and to promote sustainable Wetfish resources. More info at www.californiawetfish.org.

New England Fishery Management Council Sends Atlantic Herring Amendment 8 to Public Hearing

December 6, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — On Tuesday the New England Fishery Management Council voted to send “Draft Amendment 8” to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan public hearing. The Council has no preferred alternatives and will be receiving feedback on the controversy about localized depletion and use of herring as forage fish.

The amendment features two major components: Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) control rule and potential localized depletion and user conflicts. The ABC Control Rule is supposed to be used to set specifications and annual catch limits. The Council has 10 options and did not select a preferred one at their September meeting in Gloucester, Massachusetts.

Similarly, the Council also has a list of alternatives to address potential localized depletion and user conflict. Alternative options range from “no action” to a year-round prohibition on using midwater trawl gear in specific Atlantic Herring management areas.

The Council will make a final decision in 2018 after receiving feedback at the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management plan public hearing. Attendees will be presented with a fill list of likely costs and benefits associated with each option.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Atlantic Menhaden Board Votes Against Ecological Management Plan For Fishery

November 17, 2017 — The Atlantic Menhaden Board voted earlier this week to stick to the status quo when managing the menhaden fishery and made slight changes to the annual catch limit. However, Saving Seafood, a group that represents the commercial fishing industry, has mixed feelings about those changes.

Menhaden are a forage fish found across the Atlantic Coast. The Board was considering implementing a new ecological-based management plan that was designed for forage fish.

The plan would have required fishermen to leave enough fish in the water for it to replenish itself and enough for predators to eat. However, the board voted no for the plan because it’s not specifically designed for menhaden.

Bob Vanasse, executive director at Saving Seafood, said the group agrees with the board’s decision.

“I think this was a strong statement that moving forward science needs to prevail, data needs to prevail and we need to look at this complex system in its complexity and not try apply a rule of thumb in every circumstance,” Vanasse said.

The menhaden board also voted to increase the annual catch quota by eight percent.

Read the full story at WNPR

Menhaden Fisheries Coalition Thanks ASMFC For Adopting Best Science on Menhaden Ecological Reference Points

WASHINGTON — November 14, 2017 — The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

The Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC) thanks the Commissioners of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) Atlantic Menhaden Management Board for following the best available science in setting reference points for Atlantic menhaden.

As part of Amendment 3 to the Atlantic Menhaden Intestate Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the Commission voted 16-2 to continue current management measures for Atlantic menhaden until its Biological Ecological Reference Points (BERP) Workgroup finishes developing menhaden-specific ecological reference points (ERPs). These ERPs are supported by the MFC, and would manage menhaden based on its role in the ecosystem as forage for predator species.

The best science shows that managing forage fish according to general biological principals, as advocated by various environmental and sportfishing groups, is not the correct approach. Earlier this year, Dr. Ray Hilborn and a team of top fishery scientists released a study that recommended forage fish be managed on a case-by-case basis, based on the unique biological and ecological factors affecting individual forage species. The BERP Workgroup is following this advice in its work developing a menhaden-specific management model.

While these reference points are being developed, current menhaden management has led to a healthy stock. The ASMFC’s 2015 and 2017 stock assessments of Atlantic menhaden found that menhaden is not overfished and not experiencing overfishing.

Lots of Reasons to Decline Lenfest’s Menhaden Reference Points, Says Beaufort Lab Scientist

November 10, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Joseph Smith is a retired marine scientist formerly with the NOAA Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Beaufort Laboratory, National Marine Fisheries Service. He was the principal investigator for the Menhaden Program with the Sustainable Fisheries Branch, where he supervised the collection of fishery-dependent data for the Atlantic and gulf menhaden purse-seine fisheries. He has written an op-ed on the debate before the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission on reference points for the Menhaden stock. Lenfest, whose 2012 book on Forage Fish sparked a huge debate, is pushing for a reference limit that would shut down fishing if the menhaden stock nears 40% of its unfished level. Smith argues that this approach does not work for Menhaden, as there is no stock size recruitment relationship, and for that reason, no evidence that fishing based around current reference points is not fully sustainable for ecosystem functions.

His letter is below:

Since the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force issued their publication, “Little Fish, Big Impact” in 2012, there has been an enormous focus on “forage fish” – small schooling stocks important food for larger marine predators. Atlantic menhaden, a stock on which I worked for over thirty years as a scientist for the National Marine Fisheries Service, is now a subject of this focus.

Despite being abundant and widely distributed, the debate over menhaden centers on a looming decision by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission over how to adopt reference points that incorporate menhaden’s role in the ecosystem. At the broadest level, this goal is impossible to argue against.

The pending question is to how best to get there. Reference points must make biological sense to ensure a sustainable menhaden population, along with sustaining the coastal communities that the fishery supports. Indeed, the Commission’s scientific advisors are currently working on ecological reference points, or ERPs, specific to menhaden and their ecosystem. There should be no debate that Atlantic menhaden-specific ERPs are the most desirable.

The real issue is how to manage the stock in the interim. Currently, menhaden are managed to sustain a high level of annual egg production. While not typical, this works for menhaden because there is a very weak relationship between the number of spawners and population size.

Annually, the stock produces trillions of eggs, but their development into larvae and then young menhaden depends on factors such as winds, currents, water temperature, salinity, and predation. Historically, there are instances where relatively large spawning stocks of female menhaden produced few young recruits to the population, while relatively small spawning stocks produced large numbers of young recruits.

This lack of what is known as a classic “stock-recruit relationship” is important to understanding the current debate because the “rule of thumb” which the Lenfest group developed for forage stocks is premised on it. Lenfest devotees urge the Commission to adopt ERPs premised on maintaining 75% of an unfished population, and allowing no fishing when the stock falls to about 40% of this level.

Of course, to manage a stock for a predetermined level of abundance, there has to be some relationship between fishing effort and stock size; this also does not exist for the menhaden fishery.

More disconcerting is that the Lenfest 75%/40% approach may involve harvest cuts of up to 50,000 metric tons from current levels. If the stock is determined to be only about 46% of unfished levels, the fishery would be very close to a shutdown. Looking forward, if Lenfest advice is adopted and harvest levels curtailed in the near-term, what is the relevance of harvest advice which may evolve in a few years from the current menhaden-specific ERP work? If the latter studies endorse appreciable increases in harvest, this could create a climate of regulatory “whiplash”, a situation which fisheries managers I believe should avoid.

The crux of the debate, then, is whether one believes there needs to be a reduction in menhaden catch to maintain a healthy ecosystem or whether the current, conservative management regime is working. In my view, the system has worked well for the stock, the fishery, and ecosystem, particularly over the past decade.

The wisest alternative to “rule of thumb” management advice is maintaining the current reference points which are specific to Atlantic menhaden. I support the current single‐species reference points until the ERPs are developed by the Commission’s scientists. Next year in 2018, the ERP working group will hold data workshops to select and standardize data that will be used as model inputs; this includes data that pertains not only to menhaden abundance, but also the abundance of bluefish, striped bass, and other predator species.

The ERP group is comprised of state and federal scientists who have spent a significant portion of their careers working on ERPs for menhaden. The Commission sent them down this path several years ago. Stay the course, let them finish their work, and present their results as planned in 2019. The menhaden population currently has a broad age structure with six or more age classes represented, the population is expanding into the northern half of its range, and recruitment in recent years is above average – the sky will not fall on the menhaden population in the interim. Given menhaden’s current stock status, allowable catches could increase 10% with no discernable impact to the population.

In the end, the Commission should follow the advice of its scientific advisors who have indicated that the Lenfest approach is not a good fit for menhaden. The current approach of protecting spawning potential has worked well. There is no obvious biological or scientific reason to abandon it now.

Joseph W. Smith
Beaufort Lab, Retired

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Menhaden Fisheries Coalition Analysis Finds 92 Percent of Atlantic Menhaden Already Left In Water to Serve Ecological Role

Analysis Challenges Arguments That Interim Ecological Reference Points Are Urgently Needed

An analysis finds that 92 percent of Atlantic menhaden are left in the water to serve their ecological role. A high quality version of this infographic is available by clicking on the image.

WASHINGTON – November 9, 2017 – The following was released by the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition:

A new analysis from the Menhaden Fisheries Coalition (MFC) finds that current management leaves 92 percent of Atlantic menhaden to serve their ecological role as forage for predators. The analysis is based on data from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s (ASMFC) 2017 update stock assessment of Atlantic menhaden. The MFC has produced an infographic illustrating this analysis, which is available here.

In recent weeks, numerous ENGOs and recreational fishing groups up and down the Atlantic Coast have published articles and op-eds arguing that menhaden are in dire need of greater protection. These groups include the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the American Sportfishing Association, and local activists from coastal states like Rhode Island and New Jersey. However, the MFC’s analysis challenges the assertion that fisheries take too many menhaden, and makes clear that the vast majority of fish are already left in the water to fulfill their ecological role.

The analysis tracks an average menhaden year class through its full life cycle. It finds that two-thirds of juvenile menhaden (younger than age 1) are either consumed by predators or die of natural causes. These juvenile menhaden are the preferred forage for predator species and are not targeted by the fishery, which takes less than 1 percent of these fish.

Over half of the menhaden that survive to age-1 are allocated to the ecosystem to be eaten by predators such as striped bass and marine birds or die of natural causes. Only 8 percent of age-1 menhaden are harvested by the fishery.

The menhaden fishery largely harvests menhaden over the age of 2, but even for this age group, it only harvests about 40 percent of fish. Overall, just 8 percent of a menhaden year class is harvested by the fishery. The overwhelming majority of fish – 92 percent – are not impacted by the fishery.

This MFC analysis is an update of a previous analysis that was based on the ASMFC’s 2015 benchmark stock assessment of Atlantic menhaden. That analysis was reviewed by the ASMFC last fall. Both the 2015 benchmark assessment and the 2017 update assessment found that Atlantic menhaden is neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing.

D.B. Pleschner: Nearshore anchovy abundance not proof fishery is collapsing

November 2, 2017 — Recently, Dr. William Sydeman of the Farallon Institute, published a study claiming that the abundance of anchovy near shore — especially in places like Monterey — is evidence that the population is collapsing.

Sydeman’s logic is based on an old argument that collapsed populations always shrink inshore. But there’s one big problem with that theory — it’s unsupported by scientific evidence. In fact, that logic was based on an old sardine theory that has since been debunked. There’s certainly no evidence that low anchovy biomass results in an increase in anchovy in the nearshore area of Central California.

In fact, the opposite is likely true. According to the Monterey Herald, the anchovies that flooded into Monterey Harbor in September were 3 inches long. Pete Guglielmo, an anchovy processor in Monterey, exclaimed, “Inside Monterey harbor and the outer break wall, you can walk on 3-inch anchovy. What a sight to see! They are running the air pumps in the harbor to keep them alive.”

In other words, the abundance of 3-inch (young-of-the-year) anchovy in the nearshore region implies that there is a strong 2017 year-class. A record abundance of young-of-the-year also was documented in scientific cruises going back to 2015, as well as observed by fishermen in both northern and southern California.

Read the full story at the Monterey Herald

‘Rule of Thumb’ Management Approach Is Wrong For Forage Fish, Dr. Ray Hilborn Tells U.S. Senate Subcommittee

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – October 31, 2017 – At a hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard last week, respected fisheries scientist Dr. Ray Hilborn testified that fisheries managers “can do better than a one-size-fits-all” approach to managing forage fish. He also said there was “no empirical evidence to support the idea that the abundance of forage fish affects their predators.”

Dr. Hilborn’s comments came in response to questioning from Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) about whether fisheries managers should manage forage fish according to a “rule of thumb” approach, where fisheries are managed according to a set of broad ecological and management principals, or a “case-by-case” approach, where management is guided by more species-specific information.

Dr. Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, was part of a team of top fisheries scientists that recently examined these issues, as well as what effects fishing for forage fish species had on predator species. Their research indicated that previous studies, like a 2012 report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, may have overestimated the strength of the predator-prey relationship.

Before the hearing, Dr. Hilborn spoke with Saving Seafood about his research and his message for lawmakers.

“It’s very clear that there really are no applicable rules of thumb, that every system is independent [and] behaves differently, and we need to have the rules for each individual forage fish fishery determined by looking at the specifics of that case,” Dr. Hilborn told Saving Seafood.

He also discussed his team’s finding that forage fish abundance has little impact on their predators. They looked at nearly all U.S. forage fish fisheries, including the California Current system and Atlantic menhaden, and concluded that predator species generally pursue other food sources when the abundance of any one forage species is low.

“The predators seem to go up or down largely independent of the abundance of forage fish,” Dr. Hilborn said, adding, “For Atlantic menhaden, for their major predators, the fishery has reasonably little impact on the food that’s available to them.”

Another key message Dr. Hilborn had for the Subcommittee was that fisheries managers must determine what they want to accomplish so that scientists can advise them accordingly.

“The time has come to refocus our fisheries policy on what we actually want to achieve because rebuilding is only a means to an end,” Dr. Hilborn told Saving Seafood. “Do we want to maximize the economic value of our fisheries? Do we want to maximize jobs? Do we want to maximize food production?”

In his testimony, Dr. Hilborn praised U.S. fisheries policy that has “led to rebuilding of fish stocks and some of the most successful fisheries in the world.” He attributed this success to a variety of factors, including funding of NOAA, regionalizing fisheries management decisions, and requiring managers to follow science advice. As a result, overfishing should no longer be the top priority for fisheries managers, he testified.

“The major threats to U.S. fish stock and marine ecosystem biodiversity are now ocean acidification, warming temperatures, degraded coastal habitats, exotic species, land based run off, and pollution,” Dr. Hilborn testified. “Overfishing remains a concern for a limited number of stocks but should not continue to be the most important concern for U.S. federal fisheries policy.”

The hearing was the latest in a series examining reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the nation’s supreme fisheries law. It was organized by subcommittee chairman Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK), and focused on fisheries science.

Watch the full hearing here

Boom and Busted: Lessons from Alaska’s Mysterious Herring Collapse

In trying to untangle a herring crash from the aftermath of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill, scientists in Prince William Sound are revealing just how resilient – and unpredictable – marine ecosystems can be.

October 13, 2017 — ON A COLD day in June, Scott Pegau leans toward the passenger window of a Cessna floatplane and peers out at the teal waters of Prince William Sound. The glacier-rimmed pocket of seawater on the southern coast of Alaska is protected from the open ocean by a string of rugged islands. It is both moody and alluring. Clouds dally on the snowy peaks and fray against the forested hillsides. The sea is flat and frigid, except for a single row of waves lapping at the rocky shore.

Pegau aims his gaze at the shallow waters behind the breakers. After a few minutes of searching, above a deep bay on one of the outer islands, he finally spots what he’s looking for: a school of juvenile herring. Pegau can distinguish them from other schooling species by the unique way they sparkle – an effect produced by sunlight playing off their silver flanks as the fish bank and roll. Try as I might, I can’t make out any twinkling, just the inky splotch of a few tons of small fish swarming below the surface.

“Small H1,” Pegau says into the headset microphone, tucked snugly under his thick, gray mustache. That’s code for a small school of one-year-old herring. He enters the location on his computer; huddled in the back seat, I make a tick mark on the backup tally. It’s the first of dozens of schools we’ll see on our flight.

Pegau conducts these surveys every year in hopes of understanding what’s in store for the herring population in Prince William Sound. The fish mature and begin to join the spawning stock at the age of three, so the counts give scientists and managers a clue about how many adults may be coming up the pipeline. Researchers and fishers alike always hope the answer will be many. But every year for the past quarter century, they have been disappointed.

The herring population in Prince William Sound crashed in 1993, just four years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill released 11 million gallons of crude into these waters. The collapse put an end to an $8-million-dollar-a-year fishery, and left a hole in the middle of the marine food web. Scientists have spent years trying to understand if and how the spill played a role in the herring’s demise here, and the results have been hotly contested. All of the legal proceedings finally closed in 2015, with herring listed as an impacted species but with most herring fishers feeling poorly compensated.

Even more concerning is the fact that, unlike most species hit by the spill, the herring haven’t bounced back over the decades since. Populations of forage fish are known to boom and bust, so most scientists thought it was only a matter of time before they rebounded. But 25 years later, there’s still no sign of recovery on the horizon.

“There’s definitely a possibility that the ecosystem went through a tipping point,” says Pegau, who coordinates the herring program at the Prince William Sound Science Center, an independent research institute whose work is funded in part by money from the spill settlement. A host of factors, which scientists are still trying to untangle, could be to blame, from hungry whales to virulent disease. “There’s no one thing that’s keeping them down,” Pegau says. “I think pretty much everyone is convinced of that.”

Read the full story at News Deeply

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