Saving Seafood

IPHC agrees on halibut catch limit after 2018 impasse

February 4, 2019 — The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) has set 2019 catch limits slightly higher than last year’s levels, it announced.

The body, which sets halibut catch limits in the US and Canada, set the 2019 limit at 38.61 million pounds (17,513 metric tons) for the 2019 season, which should March 15 and must cease on Nov. 14.

In 2018, the IPHC was not able to agree on a catch limit. In a move called both “inevitable” and “disastrous”, the IPHC could not come to an agreement on the catch limits for the seasons in the US, off the coast of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and California, and British Columbia, Canada. So, the US and Canada set limits independently, which totaled 37.2m lbs, a 9% decrease overall.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

ALASKA: NOAA closes Bering Sea cod fishery as trawl catchers approach TAC

February 4, 2019 — US fishing regulators have closed the directed fishery for trawl-caught Pacific cod in Alaska’s Bering Sea for trawl catcher vessels after harvesters met their A season allocation quicker than they did last year.

The closure order from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, which takes effect at noon today, Feb. 1, brings the season to a close after only 13 days of fishing effort.

During the season, which began Jan. 20, trawl catchers caught 13,507 metric tons of cod in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands as of Feb 1, the latest date for which data is available. Trawl catchers were allocated a total allowable catch (TAC) of 26,388t for the season, including a 5,000t set-aside for delivery to shore-plants in the Aleutian Islands and 388t for halibut protected species catch.

“This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the Pacific cod allocation of the total allowable catch for the Bering Sea Trawl Catcher Vessel A-Season Sector Limitation in the Bering Sea subarea,” NOAA said in a press release.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Halibut Commission to Address a Request for Minimum Area Allocation Next Week

January 24, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The agenda for the week-long annual meeting of the International Pacific Halibut Commission is brimming with new ways to look at catch limits, new tools to assess risk, and new ideas for research, but the issue grabbing the most attention is allocation of this year’s fishery.

Which regional area gets how much of the coastwide catch is a perennial topic, but it’s sharper this year by a stock that remains low compared to a decade ago, little sign of recruitment, and the yet unresolved issue that created an impasse between Canada and the U.S. at last year’s meeting.

Indeed, progress at the 2018 meeting to reach an agreement on catch limits ran aground on the issue of Canada’s catch limit allocation. British Columbia longliners fish waters off the Canadian west coast that make up 12-13% of the total coastwide area fished by both countries. Yet their catch limit has persistently been higher than that based on the argument that much of B.C.’s halibut are resident and the Canadian authorities long ago implemented a robust accounting program for all mortalities, compared to what is being used in Alaska.

The two sides have met throughout the year since and are now considering a handful of options to use this year. Those options, and perhaps more, will be discussed at the meeting that begins Monday, January 28.  The meeting is complicated by the US government shutdown.  Two US commissoner terms expired at midnight on Thursday, and they will not be available to vote on final motions Friday.  As a result, the Commission may skew its agenda so that all votes take place before the US Commissioners go poof.

This year’s meeting has only two stakeholder proposals, both from the Pacific Norwest, or Area 2A. The first, a request for a minimum fixed amount of 1.5 million pounds for commercial and sports fleets. That fishery amount would mean a total mortality of 1.67 mlbs, including subsistence, bycatch, and other incidental mortalities.

The proposal was initially made by the Makah Tribe but now has the support of most stakeholders in Washington, Oregon, and California.

Because it is the first official regional request for a catch limit floor — a minimum that fleets and processors can expect for years to come — it has garnered attention and prompted comments that if they are allowed a guaranteed miminum, what about other areas?

Supporters of Proposal 2A say conditions in that region support establishing a floor and add that 1.67 mlbs. is only a small percentage of any coastwide total. They say — and the IPHC agrees — that the proposal presents no conservation problems because of that.

“The Tribe’s proposal is based on, but less than, the average total removals from Area 2A during the seven-year period before the current coastwide stock assessment and distribution methodology was implemented in Area 2A in 2009. During that period, total removals from Area 2A averaged 1.79Mlb,” Patrick Depoe said in his proposal.

That is precisely the issue for Canada as well. When the IPHC moved from a regional to a coastwide assessment in 2009, there were winners and there were losers. Canada lost 5-7% of their average share of their apportionment. They have compensated for it ever since by setting higher than recommended catch limits for their area, 2B, than IPHC staff suggests.

The second stakeholder proposal was submitted by Michael Pettis, a Newport, OR longliner, and is in response to the IPHC’s request for a change from the current 10 hour derby fishery to a more extended fishery for safety and business planning reasons. The change would not affect that group’s allocation.

The Pacific Council’s Groundfish Advisory Panel discussed the issue and supported an analysis of longer periods. Fishermen on the GAP also proposed assigning the entire commercial halibut quota to incidental catch in the sablefish fishery.

In November 2018, the GAP supported the option again, “if the IPHC does not move forward with a 5-, 10- or 20-day season as discussed in or inferred from its report.”

The five Newport fishermen who submitted the proposal to the IPHC have not supplied public comment to the PFMC or the GAP.

However, since Area 2A is entirely within the U.S. EEZ, management of any system would fall primarily to the federal government. Some industry members have suggested the NMFS cost of establishing a quota system for Area 2A would be far more than the fishery is worth.

On Friday February 1, catch limits for the 2019 season, as well as opening and closing dates, and any proposals that make it through the meeting, will be announced.

This story was originally published on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Alaska’s small crab fisheries kick-off, boosting coastal communities

January 24, 2019 — When most people think of Alaska crab, they envision huge boats pulling up “7 bys” (the 7-foot-by-7-foot-by-3-foot size of the crab pots) for millions of pounds of bounty in the Bering Sea. But it is the smaller, local crab fisheries that each winter give a big economic boost to dozens of coastal communities across the Gulf of Alaska. They occur at a time when many fishing towns are feeling a lull while awaiting the March start of halibut and herring openers. The gearing up means a nice pulse of extra work and money for just about every business tied to fishing.

High winds and overall snotty weather delayed Kodiak’s Tanner crab fishery, but 83 boats dropped pots a day late on January 16th. They will compete for a 615,000 pound catch quota, an increase from 400,000 pounds last season. At an average weight of 2.2 pounds, that will yield about 280,000 crabs.

The fishery will go fast, said Natura Richardson, assistant area manager for shellfish at the Department of Fish and Game office at Kodiak.

“It could be as quick as a couple days but it’s looking more like four to six days, something like that,” she said, adding that the mid-winter crab season picks up the pace at work.

“Oh yeah, there’s a lot of activity with all the registrations and figuring out who’s going where. There’s a lot of excitement in the office. It’s fun,” she said.

Reports of prices starting at $4.65 a pound also were exciting, an increase from $4.50 last year. That could mean a payout of nearly $3 million to Kodiak fishermen.

Read the full story at National Fisherman

Why Does Halibut Cost So Much?

January 4, 2019 — Dishes fly across the galley. Water gushes through the scuppers and onto the deck. Five crew members on the 17.5-meter commercial halibut boat Borealis Iwalk like drunkards, holding onto anything stable. “We’re going to get bounced around a bit,” Dave Boyes, the boat’s captain and owner, deadpans.

My day started at first light, about six hours ago, watching the crew let out 2,200 galvanized circle hooks laced with chunks of pollock, squid, and pink salmon to soak across 13 kilometers of ocean bottom. Then, we ate breakfast and rested in cramped, cluttered bunks while the boat bounced on 1.5-meter waves and—below, in the cold unseen depths—the hooks sunk deep into the lips of the predatory halibut.

Now, the crew readies for battle, cinching rubber rain gear and running crude gutting knives across electric sharpeners—a portent of the bloodshed to come. When Boyes toots the boat’s horn, it’s game on.

My love of halibut got me here—in Hecate Strait, off northern British Columbia—as did my disdain for the price. Salmon are held up as the iconic symbol of the Pacific Northwest, but the way I see it, halibut is king, offering superior flavor and texture. When I can afford it, I serve the white fish baked with a glaze of butter, mayonnaise, and whole grain Dijon mustard.

During a summer visit to my local fish shop—Mad Dog Crabs in the Cowichan Valley of Vancouver Island—fresh halibut fillets sold for CAN $6.38 per 100 grams, compared with $5.28 for sablefish and $3.74 for sockeye salmon. “It’s the prime rib of the sea,” explained fishmonger Scott Mahon, who fished commercially for over 20 years. “Better taste, better quality, and better shelf life.” Unlike the farmed salmon industry, halibut aquaculture remains a relatively nascent enterprise and does not offer a less-expensive alternative to consumers.

Read the full story at Hakai Magazine

Alaska Fishermen Hauling A Bigger Catch With Gear They Get To Use For The First Time

December 17, 2018 —  Longtime Alaska fisherman Bill Harrington has a few choice words about killer whales.

“As far as I’m concerned, they’re only thieves in tuxedos,” Harrington says.

He’s retired now, but a video from a decade ago shows him pulling in his line as he curses out a pod of killer whales swarming his boat. His catch is exposed; he is not happy. A sperm whale bursts out of the water and Harrington tells them what he really thinks. He knows even just a couple of killer whales could pick his line clean.

The video was taken a decade ago and Harrington says the problem of whales stealing fish off longlines has only gotten worse.

Harrington and his crew would travel a hundred miles or more and bait thousands of hooks attached to a commercial fishing line by hand. They would then anchor the line to the ocean floor between two buoys.

Read the full story at NPR

ALASKA: Commission staff reports on decrease in halibut

November 30, 2018 — Managers of halibut in the Pacific Ocean are reporting another year of declining stocks in most areas of the coast. The International Pacific Halibut Commission oversees management of the fish along the coast from Alaska to California. The commission held its interim meeting Tuesday and Wednesday, November 27-28 in Seattle and heard about the latest stock assessment of the valuable flatfish.

IPHC scientists do annual survey fishing to come up with the stock assessment, along with information from commercial catches and other fisheries along the coast.

“We estimate that the stock went down until somewhere around 2010 from historical highs in the late 1990s,” said Ian Stewart a quantitative scientist with the commission. “It increased slightly over the subsequent five year period and around 2015 or 2016, the stock leveled out and has been decreasing in spawning biomass slowly since that time period.”

Spawning biomass is the estimated total weight of fish that are old enough to reproduce. The commission’s annual survey showed the numbers of halibut coast-wide dropped by six percent from year before. The estimated weight of fish legal to catch in the commercial fishery dropped by 19 percent from the year before in Southeast area 2C and three percent in 3A, the central gulf.

The commission has been expanding its survey up and down the coast. New survey points were added in Southeast Alaska and British Columbia in 2018.

Stewart told commissioners that there’s a high probability that halibut stocks will continue to drop at the current level of fishing because of less productive years for the fish between 2006 and 2010.

Read the full story at KFSK

South Bend Products: Seafood processor hopeful tariffs won’t derail success

November 19, 2018 — Over the past decade, many Washington-based seafood processors have been gutted. Increased regulations, labor wages and shipping costs have eroded margins and stifled growth, particularly for smaller, family-owned operations. However, one business along the Willapa Harbor in South Bend has defied industry trends over its 10-year existence, continuously improving and expanding while diversifying its product line.

“We’re celebrating our 10-year anniversary this month,” said Dean Antich, general manager South Bend Products, a subsidiary of Tacoma-based Northern Fish Products. “We just keep getting bigger and busier.”

Booming business

In 2015, Antich hired a sales manager, then added an assistant manager to help delegate the duties for the growing operation.

“I thought that would free my time up but we just got bigger and busier because now we can do more,” Antich said.

What largely started with processing wild salmon in South Bend now includes razor clams, albacore tuna, black cod, halibut and rockfish, depending on the season.

“Salmon is the biggest fishery by pounds,” Antich said. “Dungeness is the biggest fishery by sales.”

In January 2018 South Bend Products acquired a processing facility in Chinook, formerly owned by Bell Buoy Crab. The facility provided more access to the Dungeness crab fishery and curbed shipping costs.

Read the full story at The Daily Astorian

The Irony of Oceana’s Seafood Fraud Campaign

November 16, 2018 — Seafood fraud/mislabeled seafood is a permanent topic in the sustainable fisheries space. Since 2015, news sources such as The Atlantic, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, and the Economist have published stories on the topic of seafood fraud. Nearly every ocean conservation NGO has commented or contributed to the discourse, but Oceana has led the conversation. Oceana has an entire campaign aimed at exposing and reducing seafood fraud globally. Since 2011, they have published sixteen reports on seafood fraud—most recently, a report from Oceana Canada.

There are important differences between seafood fraud and fraud in other food systems. Language barriers, multiple acceptable market names, the sheer quantity of seafood species compared to other animal proteins, and the simple fact that wild capture adds a slew of complications compared to controlled terrestrial farming, should set a different expectation level for seafood labeling standards. There are so many chances for mistakes or miscommunication to happen—far more than any other food supply chain. But the seafood fraud discourse (largely led by Oceana) often excludes these realities and instead points fingers at fishermen, restaurateurs, and retailers for duping their customers.

In this post, I take a look at Oceana Canada’s methodology for determining “fraud” in its most recent report. I consider the results of Oceana’s report through the lens of the seafood and restaurant industries and attempt to illustrate the difference between legitimate fraud and unintentional mislabeling.

Oceana’s methodology & general results

Oceana defines Seafood Fraud as, “the practice of misleading consumers about their seafood in order to increase profits.” This is an important distinction from the term “mislabeled” because it assigns an intent to deceive. Fraud is on purpose, whereas mislabeling could be an accident. Most reports on this subject today infer that the seafood industry is actively deceiving consumers on a broad scale, across the most commonly consumed species, both domestically and internationally.

Oceana’s methodology for conducting its seafood fraud reports is suspect. In this post, I focus on the most recent Canadian study, but my criticisms apply to all seafood fraud reports that use the same methods. Generally, Oceana collects seafood samples, DNA tests them, then matches the DNA results to outdated government guidelines. The samples they collect are purposefully not representative of seafood consumption habits. In Oceana Canada’s 2018 report, 382 seafood samples from 177 restaurants and retailers across the country were tested. The aim was to focus on cod, halibut, snapper, tuna, salmon and sole because these species historically, “have the highest rates of species substitution.” The specific species sampled were chosen because of past studies on seafood mislabeling, i.e. they were not randomly sampled. DNA testing then determined if these samples met the minimum labelling requirements as defined by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), an equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

This nonrandom sampling is consistent with previous seafood fraud studies from Oceana. A key parallel across Oceana’s seafood fraud investigations is that “targeted fish of interest” are the focus. Oceana Canada encouraged participants to aim for species that are often marked in other fraud studies, meaning the sample in these studies is not indicative of national seafood consumption rates on average, but instead represents very specific species that have proven to present high rates of mislabeling in previous research.

Of the 382 seafood samples tested in Canada, 168 (44%) were found to be fraudulent, meaning the names of the species did not align with the acceptable market names determined by CFIA standards.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

Alaska salmon permit values remain mostly stagnant

November 7, 2018 — Values for Alaska salmon permits have remained stagnant all year, except for two regions, and costs for halibut quota shares have plummeted.

For salmon permits, an off-kilter fishery that came in 30 percent below an already grim harvest forecast kept a downward press on permit values. The preseason projection called for a salmon catch of 147 million this year; the total take was closer to 114 million.

“All of these salmon fisheries in the Gulf, both gillnet and seine permits, had a lousy year. And we see that in the lackluster permit market,” said Doug Bowen of marine brokerage Alaska Boats and Permits in Homer.

Farther west, Bristol Bay — with its back-to-back record breakers — is an exception and permit prices there reflect increased buying interest. A scan of multiple broker listings show Bristol Bay drift gillnet permits at $165,000 compared to the $145,000 range before the fishing season.

Salmon fishermen at Bristol Bay pocketed a record $280 million at the docks, not including postseason bonuses, on a catch of 35 million sockeyes.

Read the full story at Anchorage Daily News