Saving Seafood

Federal officials take first steps to protect chub mackerel, other forage species in the Mid-Atlantic

September 6, 2017 — For the first time, the National Marine Fisheries Service has taken action to protect forage species in the Atlantic Ocean.

The new regulation, initially approved last year by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, covers such species as anchovies, herrings, mackerel, and sardines up to 200 miles off the coastline from New England to central North Carolina. The Fisheries Service, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, chose to protect the fish because of the important role they play in the ecosystem.

The fish, along with some crustaceans and mollusks, are considered prey for larger fish sought by commercial and recreational fishermen as well as marine mammals and birds.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Mid-Atlantic Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment Final Rule Published

August 25, 2017 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

NOAA Fisheries announces a new rule to protect unmanaged forage fish. Forage fish are small schooling species that serve as prey for larger commercially and recreationally important fish, as well as for marine mammals and sea birds. Anchovies, herring, chub mackerel, and sardines are some common forage fish.

Commercial fisheries often catch forage fish, but we know little about the amount of forage species caught in Mid-Atlantic waters. Because of their importance to the food web, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council wants to protect the ecological role these species play in the Mid-Atlantic and to collect more information on catch. This new information will help inform future scientific assessments and management decisions.

This is the first rule in the Atlantic to list forage species as ecosystem component species. This action would set landing and possession limits for 17 species and species groups to prevent the expansion of directed commercial fisheries on these species in Mid-Atlantic federal waters (see map below).

Read the rule as filed in the Federal Register and the permit holder bulletins for commercial fishermen and for dealers.  Mid-Atlantic fishermen will receive a copy of a forage fish identification guide, which is also available electronically on the Mid-Atlantic Council’s website.

MASSACHUSETTS: Pogies have been abundant in North Shore waters

August 7, 2017 — I can’t remember the last time there have been so many pogies (Brevoortia tyrannus for you Latin fans) in the water. Huge schools of them can be found right now from Salem to Salisbury. The big stripers and tuna have just been feasting on them.

These fish, also known as menhaden on the South Shore, bunker further south and about thirty other names along the Atlantic coast from Nova Scotia to Florida, grow to roughly 15 inches in length and weigh in at about 1 pound. Native Americans in precolonial America called the fish ‘munnawhatteaug,’ which means ‘fertilizer.’

They are a rather oily forage fish with a scale-less head that composes about one-third of it’s body length, are fairly flat-sided with a deeply forked tail. They can range in color from dark blue, green, blue gray, or blue brown above, with silvery sides, belly, and fins, and with a strong yellow or brassy luster. There is a conspicuous dusky spot on each side close behind the gill opening, with a varying number of smaller dark spots farther back, arranged in irregular rows.

They feed in a rather unique manner. An adult pogy swims along with it’s tooth-less mouth wide open and its gills spread. As tiny plankton, annelid worms, and crustacea flow into the mouth they are caught in a whole series of very fine comb-like gill rakers. As they move through the ocean these small fish filter as much as 7 gallons of water per minute! Imagine how much water is filtered when a whole school is feeding.

They have no defense mechanism other than being hidden in a huge school. They are oil-rich so every prey fish in the ocean targets them. Pollock, cod, tuna, stripers, sharks, bluefish and swordfish all savage these schools. Menhaden are a major source of omega-3 fatty acids, which have been shown to cut risks of heart disease and possibly other diseases, such as Alzheimer’s.

Read the full story at the Newburyport Daily News

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

What factors play a role in analyzing forage fish fishing regulation?

July 7, 2017 — The interaction of predators, fishing and forage fish is more complicated than previously thought and that several factors must be considered, says researcher.

The group of researchers was evaluating the interaction after results from an earlier report found that fishing of forage species had a large effect on predator population, said the Marine Ingredients Organization (IFFO). Those harvested fish are used in several areas including as feed ingredients.

The new study was initiated because there were some questions regarding the methods used in the initial project, said Ray Hilborn, with the school of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington and corresponding author.

“When the original Lenfest [Forage Fish Task Force] report came out, a few of us said it seemed that the methods they were using were not up to the questions they were asking,” he told FeedNavigator. The report also offered several policy recommendations, he added.

“It was on our radar screen,” he said. “And one of the things I’ve been interested in looking at is the intensity of natural fluctuation in populations, and forage fish are notable for how much they vary naturally.”

The interaction between forage fish populations and predators is more complicated than may have been suggested by earlier studies tracking that relationship, and several factors need to be considered when analyzing the role that fishing plays on that relationship, he said. “The key point isn’t that there isn’t an impact, but that you have to argue case-by-case,” he added.

Several factors need to be considered when assessing the interaction among predators, forage species, and fishing of those forage species, the researchers said in their study. “We show that taking account of these factors generally tends to make the impact of fishing forage fish on their predators less than estimated from trophic models,” they added.

Read the full story at Feed Navigator

LYNTON S. LAND: Bay fishery to keep deteriorating unless nutrients from land are addressed

June 28, 2017 — The March Bay Journal 2017 commentary, Don’t let menhaden become a case of could have, should have, would have, laments the decline in Bay menhaden populations and blames the reduced number of predatory “sport” fish on Omega Protein’s harvest.

The Atlantic States Marine fisheries Commission is quite clear this year that “Atlantic menhaden are neither overfished nor experiencing overfishing” (asmfc.org/species/atlantic-menhaden).

In Maryland, juvenile menhaden are sampled annually through the Estuarine Juvenile Finfish Survey. The index of juvenile menhaden has been low since 1992, and “environmental conditions seem to be a major factor driving recruitment.” (dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/Section_4_Atlantic_Menhaden.pdf).

Something other than overfishing must contribute to, or even be responsible for, reduced Bay menhaden populations. I contend that the primary cause of depleted finfish stocks, including bottom-feeding fish like croaker that do not eat menhaden, and the menhaden themselves, is poor water quality, not overfishing.

As a child in the late 1940s, I recall visiting my uncle’s cottage on the water near Solomons Island, MD, where we caught large bluefish and rockfish. He would give me a quarter to pull up eelgrass from under his boat so the propeller wouldn’t chop it up and foul the engine’s water pump. Dense meadows of grass were obvious beneath the clear water. I doubt there is much eelgrass anywhere near Solomons Island today and Bernie Fowler’s “Wade-In” documents turbidity and the fact that there has been no recent improvement.

I moved to Virginia’s Northern Neck on the Little Wicomico River, near Smith Point, in 1998. At that time, I could exit the jetties and turn to the southeast into about 30 feet of water and easily catch large croaker, as well as spot, trout and flounder. I haven’t caught fish there, nor seen them on the depth sounder, in many years.

The pound nets nearby still catch menhaden for crab bait, although they are smaller than fish in the past. They no longer catch many “food fish.”

In about 2000, big Omega trawlers fishing for menhaden were common up to the Maryland-Virginia line. Now, I never see the trawlers and most of the plentiful menhaden are being caught outside the Bay, where the population is robust. In late summer, schools of Spanish mackerel and bluefish once chased bait on the bar west of Smith Point Light. Casting into the schools, as they were being worked by birds, or trolling beside them, was great fun and very productive. No more.

Spanish mackerel, my favorite fish, are no longer abundant and I rarely see birds actively working the water. Trolling for big rockfish was almost always successful a decade ago. Lately it is more often unsuccessful, although a few are still being caught.

Read the full opinion piece at the Bay Journal

Ray Hilborn: World fish stocks stable

June 12, 2017 — Speaking at the SeaWeb Seafood Summit on Wednesday, 7 June in Seattle, Washington, U.S.A., University of Washington fisheries researcher Ray Hilborn said the perception that the world’s fish stocks are declining is incorrect, and that fishing could sustainably be stepped up in areas with good management.

Hilborn pointed to figures from the RAM Legacy Stock Assessment Database that indicate that fish stocks dipped through the last part of the 20th century, but have since recovered in many fisheries.

“There is a very broad perception that fish stocks around the world are declining. Many news coverages in the media will always begin with ‘fish stocks in the world are declining.’ And this simply isn’t true. They are increasing in many places and in fact, globally, the best assessments are that fish stocks are actually stable and probably increasing on average now,” Hilborn said.

The RAM Legacy Database collects information on all the stocks in the world that have been scientifically assessed, which is a little more than half of the world’s catch.

“What we don’t really know about is the big fisheries in Asia, in the sense that we don’t have scientific assessments of the trends in abundance,” Hilborn said.

He added that the general consensus is that the status of those stocks is poor, a result of, among other things, poor fisheries management, reinforcing surveys that have shown a direct correlation between high stock abundance and high intensity of management.

“For most of the developed world fisheries’ management is quite intense, and South and Southeast Asia stand out as really not having much in the way of fisheries’ management systems, particularly any form a enforcement of regulations, if regulations exists,” he said.

But in much of the developed world, Hilborn said fish stocks are robust, even when they sometimes get labeled as overfished.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Authors of New Research on Forage Fish Respond to Critiques from Lenfest Task Force

June 5, 2017 — The following was written by authors of a new paper on forage fish that found that previous research likely overestimated the impact of forage fishing. The piece addresses criticisms made by the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force. The authors are Dr. Ray Hilborn, Dr. Ricardo O. Amoroso, Dr. Eugenia Bogazzi, Dr. Ana M. Parma, Dr. Cody Szuwalski, and Dr. Carl J. Walters:

First we note that the press releases and video related to our paper (Hilborn et al. 2017) were not products of the authors or their Universities or agencies. Some of the authors were interviewed for the video, and each of us must be prepared to defend what was said on the video. The LENFEST Task Force authors criticize our statement in the video that:

“What we found is there was essentially no relationship between how many forage fish there are in the ocean and how well predators do in terms of whether the populations increase or decrease.”

Our paper was specifically about U.S. forage fish, where we found very few relationships that were stronger than one might expect by chance. It is certainly likely that there are places where there is a significant relationship, but we noted that the LENFEST report did not include any analysis of the empirical data and relied only on models. Our point is that the models used by the LENFEST Task Force assume there will always be such a relationship, whereas in many, and perhaps most cases there may be little if any impact of fishing forage fish on the abundance of their predators. The scientific literature suggests that central place foragers, such as seabirds and pinnipeds at their breeding colonies, may be exceptions, and we acknowledge as much in our paper (p. 2 of corrected proofs, paragraph starting at the bottom of first column).

Specific response to the “shortcomings” of our study listed in the LENFEST Task Force response

  1. We included species not considered by the LENFEST Task Force to be “forage fish.” We simply looked for harvested fish and invertebrate populations that were an important part (> 20%) of the diet of the predators, and thus we would argue that our analysis is appropriate and relevant to the key question: “Does fishing the major prey species of marine predators affect their abundance?”
  2. The LENFEST Task Force authors criticize our use of estimates of abundance of forage fish provided by stock assessment models, and then suggest that because these models were not designed to identify correlations between predators and prey we were committing the same error that the LENFEST Task Force did, using models for a purpose they were not designed for. This is wrong: the stock assessment models are designed to estimate the abundance of fish stocks and the estimates of forage species we used to examine correlations with predators were considered the best available estimates at the time of the analysis. Similarly, the stock assessment models used for the predatory fish species represent the best available estimate of the abundance, and rate of change in abundance, of these predators. We did not claim the stock assessment models told us anything directly about the relationship between forage abundance and predator rates of change. We simply asked “Is there any empirical relationship between forage species abundance and either the abundance or rate of change in abundance of their predators?” The answer, with very few exceptions, was “no.”
  3. The LENFEST Task Force authors criticize our use of U.S. fisheries because they are better managed than the global average. Most of the key criticisms we made of the LENFEST study were unrelated to how fisheries are managed, but to the basic biological issues: recruitment variation, weak relationship between spawning biomass and recruitment, relative size of fish taken by predators and the fishery and the importance of local density of forage fish to predators rather than total abundance of the stock. U.S. fisheries are not only better managed, but also often better researched, so U.S. fisheries are a good place to start examining the biological assumptions of the models used by the LENFEST Task Force.
  4. We did not argue that fisheries management does not need to change – instead we argued that general rules such as the LENFEST Task Force’s recommendation to cut fishing mortality rates to half of the levels associated with maximum sustainable yield for “most forage fisheries now considered well managed” (LENFEST Summary of New Scientific Analysis) are not supported by sound science. Our analysis suggests that there’s little empirical evidence that such a policy will increase predatory fish abundance. Instead, every case needs to be examined individually and management decisions should weigh the costs (economic, social, and ecological) of restricting forage fisheries to levels below MSY against the predicted benefits, while accounting for uncertainty in both. Our abstract concludes “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.”
  5. Essington and Plagányi feel we incorrectly characterized their paper. We simply rely on the words from the abstract of their paper. “We find that the depth and breadth with which predator species are represented are commonly insufficient for evaluating sensitivities of predator populations to forage fish depletion. We demonstrate that aggregating predator species into functional groups creates bias in foodweb metrics such as connectance.” Carl Walters, one of our co-authors and the person who conceived and built the EcoSim model certainly agrees that the models the LENFEST Task Force used were insufficient for the task they attempted.

Moving forward

We agree that the next steps are to move beyond U.S. fisheries and we are doing so. We have current projects doing a global analysis of relationships between forage fish abundance and the population dynamics of their predators. We have an almost complete review of recruitment patterns in forage fish stocks. We are doing specific case studies of other regions with models explicitly designed to evaluate the impact on predators of fishing forage fish. Finally, we are exploring alternative management strategies for forage fish, considering alternative recruitment patterns, across a range of case studies. We hope that many of the authors of the LENFEST report will collaborate with us in these efforts.

NOAA Publishes Proposal for Forage Species Limits

April 26, 2017 — The following was released by NOAA:

NOAA Fisheries has published a proposed rule for the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s Unmanaged Forage Fish Omnibus Amendment. This amendment would implement an annual landing limit, possession limits, and permitting and reporting requirements for certain previously unmanaged forage species and species groups within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters. The purpose of this action is to prevent the development of new, and the expansion of existing, commercial fisheries on certain forage species until the Council has adequate opportunity and information to evaluate the potential impacts of forage fish harvest on existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem.

Comments will be accepted through May 30, 2017. Please see the Proposed Rule for details and instructions for submitting comments.

Additional background information about the amendment may be found on the Council’s website at http://www.mafmc.org/actions/unmanaged-forage.

For further information, contact Douglas Christel, NMFS Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9141, douglas.christel@noaa.gov, fax 978-281-9135.

NOAA Fisheries Publishes Proposed Rule for Unmanaged Forage Omnibus Amendment

April 24, 2017 — The following was released by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council:

NOAA Fisheries has published a proposed rule for the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s Unmanaged Forage Fish Omnibus Amendment. This amendment would implement an annual landing limit, possession limits, and permitting and reporting requirements for certain previously unmanaged forage species and species groups within Mid-Atlantic Federal waters. The purpose of this action is to prevent the development of new, and the expansion of existing, commercial fisheries on certain forage species until the Council has adequate opportunity and information to evaluate the potential impacts of forage fish harvest on existing fisheries, fishing communities, and the marine ecosystem.

Comments will be accepted through May 30, 2017. Please see the Proposed Rule for details and instructions for submitting comments.

Additional background information about the amendment may be found on the Council’s website at http://www.mafmc.org/actions/unmanaged-forage.

For further information, contact Douglas Christel, NMFS Fishery Policy Analyst, 978-281-9141, douglas.christel@noaa.gov, fax 978-281-9135.