Saving Seafood

JOHN SACKTON: We Need a New Magnuson Act to Deal with Climate Change Impacts on Fisheries

June 14, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — 50 years ago fisheries were in crisis.  The prevailing international law allowed no national control of ocean activities beyond 12 miles.  In New England, this meant giant Soviet factory trawlers practicing pulse fishing came in to devastate the abundant haddock stock, leaving US fishermen crumbs after they left.

Similar fishing situations were occurring around other coastal nations.  Chile and Peru were the first countries to declare a 200-mile exclusive economic zone.  Other countries such as the US and Iceland followed and by 1982, the UN recognized the right of countries to establish a 200-mile exclusive economic zone.

The implementing legislation in the US was the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Passed in 1976, the act not only restricted foreign fishing but much to the surprise of East Coast fishermen, it also implemented a system of fisheries management to set quotas and control overfishing.

The key features of Magnuson were to establish regional councils so as to promote local control over fisheries, to require management decisions be based on the best available science, and to involve all stakeholders in the council and decision-making process.

The results have been a fisheries management system that has preserved healthy stocks, as in Alaska, rebuilt overfished stocks (on the West Coast), and became the model for global sustainable fisheries management.  It is fair to say that the prosperity we see in the US seafood industry today would not exist without Magnuson.

But we are facing a new crisis every bit as profound as the lack of EEZ’s in the 1970s.  That is the crisis of global warming and ocean acidification, caused by the use of fossil fuels that have built up CO2in the atmosphere to dangerous levels.

CO2 induced warming is leading to movement of fish to different areas, increased acidification that is interfering with the use of calcium for shells, including for zooplankton, changes in ocean currents, loss of sea ice, and sea level rise that is reducing the area of coastal marshes.  Taken together, these changes challenge the very basis of our fisheries management system, which depends on predicting the changes in stocks in a stable environment.

Several recent reports have provided eye-opening data.  One is an excellent report produced by the Canadian DFO on the state of the North Atlantic Ocean.  Finally, the DFO is spending money on transparent science and providing a real public service by documenting in one place all aspects of the North Atlantic ecosystem.

The most significant factors in the report are the change in the quality of zooplankton due to mistiming of plankton blooms.   This impacts the entire marine food chain.  A second is the movement of fish to new habitats, exemplified by the lobster fishery which is currently booming off of Nova Scotia, but which is likely to crash as waters exceed a certain summer temperature.  We published a summary of this report this week.

Another recent report, issued in May,  was the UN report on the loss of biodiversity.  This report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), was approved and adopted by the UN, and says that around 1 million animal and plant species are now threatened with extinction, many within decades, more than ever before in human history.

Sir Robert Watson, chair of the panel, said   “The overwhelming evidence of the IPBES Global Assessment, from a wide range of different fields of knowledge, presents an ominous picture.  The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide.”

The seafood industry is complex because it is so varied, and regional differences abound.  This is partly why those of us in the industry love it so much. There is just nothing comparable to the interplay of natural productivity, human knowledge and skill, and highly diverse conditions and ecosystems.  Seafood distributors routinely carry over 100 items, even though most sales are from a smaller cluster of major species.

The commercial experience of the oyster farmer, a lobster fisherman in Nova Scotia, a salmon grower, a pollock captain in the Bering Sea, or a Dungeness fisherman out of Newport, Oregon are totally different, with each adapted to their particular resource and environment.

This complexity and localization make it very hard for people in particular fisheries to see the big picture.  Local communities can get dependent on a fishery that appears to be stable, and then have that stability pulled out from under them in an instant.

The common denominator for a new “Magnuson Act” should be the economic vitality and resilience of coastal communities.  This may not always come from fishing.

Wind power, tourism, marine protected areas, as well as fishing all can serve as an economic foundation as communities adapt to climate change and sea level rise.  Today proponents of most of these are in their own silos, in a war of all against all.

So fishermen oppose wind power developments, even though reducing fossil fuel emissions is the only possible path to prevent catastrophic increases in ocean temperatures. The temperature rise upends the productivity of most of the species on which they fish.

Fishermen also, by and large, oppose a massive increase in marine protected areas.  Yet a rethinking of habitat protection may be the only approach that would avoid a catastrophic loss of biodiversity.    We thrive on complex ocean ecosystems that offer changing opportunities.  If the price of maintaining that complexity means changing the way some ocean areas used for fishing, that is a price well worth paying.

Tourism is a bit more compatible with traditional fisheries.  In Astoria, Oregon, the Bornstein’s built their seafood processing plant in a way they could accommodate cruise ship visitors.  In our story about Nova Scotia lobstering, Lucien LeBlanc says he outfitted his new 50-foot lobster boat, the John Harold, to double as a tourist vessel and rely less on the fishery.  “Financially, I treat [every year]  like it’s my last year,” he says.

New Bedford, which on the one hand is the center of scallopers opposition to offshore wind power in New England, is, on the other hand, experiencing a dock and marine construction boom as the hub of offshore wind power.

The point is that these activities: fishing, power generation, tourism, and protecting biodiversity do not need to be in conflict with each other but could all contribute to the economic vitality needed to keep coastal communities intact.

This is where a new “Magnuson” type vision is needed.  We need a way to put forward an overarching vision of how to protect coastal communities in an era of climate crisis, not by watching individual ocean industries get destroyed but by developing a framework where they can all thrive together.

This not a Pollyanna puff piece about everyone working together.  The fact is that all these industries need support.  The fishing industry has benefitted massively from having the Magnuson Act as the foundation on which to build.  A new framework that focused on making coastal communities economically resilient around all ocean uses is not a zero-sum game.

By broadening our idea of what is necessary to keep fishing healthy for another 50 years, and by focusing on what will keep fishing communities healthy, we may find we get more support and better results if we look at the total picture of what we are facing, rather than just fighting over which 10 sq. mile grid to assign to wind, fishing, or protected areas.

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

Importance of Russian king crab grows as Alaska supplies tighten

January 25, 2019 — Quotas of Russian-landed red king crab from the Far East and Barents Sea fisheries are growing even as Alaskan landings shrink due to concerns about the health of the stock.

However, members of the Global Seafood Market Conference’s Shellfish Panel said last week that US supplies of red king crab are dropping due to the lower Alaska quotas and reduced Russian imports as more crab is sent live to China and South Korea.

The US supply situation could get worse before it gets better, John Sackton of Seafood Datasearch told the audience.

The Alaska Department of Fish and Game set the Bristol Bay King Crab quota at 4.3 million pounds for the 2018/19 season, which compares to 6.6m lbs in 2017/18. This year’s effective spawning biomass was 33.3m lbs, greater than the 14.5m lbs needed to open the fishery. But there is concern that the biomass could shrink further in future years, Sackton said.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

John Sackton: Trump Order on Offshore Drilling is a Political Stunt More Than a Real Theat to Fisheries

January 5, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — We have been deluged with press releases and new stories this morning reacting to the executive order by President Trump opening up virtually all US coastal waters to oil drilling.

This is something that has been opposed for more than 50 years by both the fisheries and tourism industries, and is opposed by all coastal states except for Alaska, and those in the Gulf of Mexcio where drilling is already taking place.

We doubt this decision will stand.

First of all, the oil markets are not signaling any strong interest in offshore drilling, although they do want the political payoff from the administration of opening up public lands in protected areas within the continental US.

Oil analysts say that current and projected prices simply don’t support expansion of offshore drilling into new expensive areas.  The Shell project to do a test site in the Beaufort Sea off the North Slope of Alaska ended in humiliating failure, as they could not even get the rig into place.  After spending $7 billiion, Shell has withdrawn its interest.

Secondly, drilling has is a long term time horizon.  It will take about 18 months for rules to be in place; then if there were leases, it would take ten years or so for exploration and development.  During this time, the political equation in Washington is very likely to shift back to the consensus that has existed for 40 or 50 years, which is that fisheries and tourism are more important to the US economy than the oil companies.

Third, the US is now on track to produce a record amount of oil, surpassing the previous highest output in 1970.  This is all due to improved technology for land based recovery.  Why oil companies would turn from their successful fracking model that is bringing old wells to life to a far more risky offshore strategy makes no economic sense.

Finally, with the exception of Alaska, Texas, and Louisiana, virtually all other coastal states are vehemently opposed to offshore drilling.  Florida lost billions of dollars in the Deep Water Horizon disaster, and no Florida politician can survive who does not protect that state from offshore drilling.

Likewise, California experienced the Santa Barbara channel spill that turned the entire state against offshore drilling there, and it is highly unlikely that the state would allow the regulatory process to proceed to bring oil ashore.

In Massachusetts, there is a long running international moratorium in drilling on Georges Bank, and again, the local opposition to any oil company attempting to use a lease would be ferocious.

Given the lack of economic return, no oil company is going to take up this fight for any reason other than to gain political points with Trump.  That is not a good position on which to base a long term strategy.

The one state where this might make a difference in Alaska, where the state budget is dependent on oil, and has been hit more than anywhere else by the global oil glut and the turn to natural gas and solar.  Alaska is desperate to gain more drilling, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski succeeded in getting a provision opening ANWR  to oil drilling.  But no matter how much the current state government may want more drilling, the economics dictate where such drilling might take place, and it certainly does not appear to be offshore.

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

 

Shell, lacked? Lobster catch might be much less this year

November 20, 2017 — PORTLAND, Maine — Maine’s lobster haul might be less this year, and prices have drifted downward for both lobstermen and consumers, members of the industry say.

American lobster fishing is in the midst of a multiyear boom, with Maine fishermen setting a record of nearly 131 million pounds last year. Fishermen in the state have caught more than 100 million pounds for six years in a row after never previously reaching that total.

But fishermen saw smaller catches this summer, and some in the industry believe the catch could be as much as 30 percent off this year, said market analyst John Sackton, founder of SeafoodNews.com.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Boston Globe

 

How a national craze caused lobster prices to boil over

October 26th, 2016 — Your next fresh lobster dinner, drizzled in butter and lemon, might crack your budget.

Restaurants are having to fork over more money this year to get their hands on prized Maine lobsters, and that means your dinner bill could soar to $60 a plate. Blame robust demand.

The coast-to-coast craze of lobster roll food trucks has made lobster more affordable, and abroad the appetite for the crustaceans is growing as well, experts say.

“The demand for this product now is really unprecedented,” said Annie Tselikis, marketing director for Maine Coast Co., a live lobster wholesaler based in York, Maine. She spoke Monday just before boarding a flight for a seafood trade show in South Korea, a major customer of North American lobsters along with China and others.

Live lobster prices on a wholesale basis reached $8.50 for a 1.25-pound hard-shell lobster in August, the highest level in a decade, according to Urner Barry, a leading seafood price tracker and a partner in Seafood News.

You’d have to go back to 2008 for the last time lobsters were even above $5 for this time of year, said John Sackton, editor and publisher of Seafood News. Since that time they’ve fluctuated between $3.90 and $4.85 until this year when they’re up again over $7.

“Lobster demand usually follows the stock market and general economy,” said Bob Bayer, director of the Lobster Institute at the University of Maine. “When the economy is good, lobster demand is good.”

Read the full story at CNBC

JOHN SACKTON: If it is Unethical in Thailand, It is Unethical in Hawaii Also

September 8, 2016 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Charlie Nagle said it best:  We “do not and will never knowingly source from vessels that mistreat their crew.” The Nagle family has been in the fish business on the Boston Fish Pier for 130 years.

The AP report on the imprisonment of foreign fishermen on Hawaiian vessels is a wake-up call.  No seafood buyer will tolerate abusive conditions for fishermen, whether the result of a legal loophole or not.

The US has been highly critical of Thailand, where abusive labor practices and human trafficking in the seafood industry earned worldwide condemnation and resulted in changes in laws and in close audits of the supply chain.

In New Zealand, documentation of abusive labor practices on offshore vessels led to changes in the law and requirements that crews on these boats be free from unfair labor contracts, be paid according to New Zealand laws, and through New Zealand bank accounts out of reach of the labor brokers who hired them.

Can we expect anything less in Hawaii?

The fishermen in question are hired overseas, brought to Hawaii by boat never having set foot in the US, and then kept onboard for months without any possibility of coming ashore while their vessels dock in Hawaii and California.  They are paid as little as $0.70 per hour.

The AP report says that “under the law, U.S. citizens must make up 75 percent of the crew on most American commercial fishing boats. But influential lawmakers, including the late Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye, pushed for a loophole to support one of the state’s biggest industries. It exempted Hawaiian commercial fishing boat owners from federal rules enforced almost everywhere else.

Thus the workers in Hawaii, who catch $110 million worth of seafood annually, are paid as little as 70 cents an hour. They are detained on boats by captains who are required by law to hold their passports. That potentially goes against federal human trafficking laws saying bosses who hold workers’ identification documents can face up to five years in prison.”

The Hawaiian tuna and mahi fleet has no excuse.  They can either find fishermen and pay them a US wage, or stop selling to most US markets.

It is simply not acceptable for buyers to express huge concern about fishery labor abuses in Thailand, and ignore those that legally take place in Hawaii.

The fact that these workers can’t come ashore due to lack of visas doesn’t excuse the practice of holding these men on vessels who have no opportunity to leave, nor any opportunity to change their work situation or demand higher pay.  All the condemnation of labor agents and traffickers that supply labor to Thai fishing boats applies to these vessels in Hawaii also.

Undoubtedly the AP story will lead to a change in laws.  But the seafood industry, including the Hawaii longline fleet, cannot wait until then.  They must reform this practice immediately, or shut down.  There is no middle ground.

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

JOHN SACKTON: Oceana Uses ‘Study’ on Seafood Fraud to Push for More Traceability Regulation

September 8, 2016 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Oceana has released a new ‘study’ claiming that 20% of global seafood trade is mislabeled.

The study was not a scientific sampling, but instead an analysis of Oceana’s sampling of high-risk species in various countries such as escolar, pangasius, and hake.  They also had a high proportion of snapper and grouper samples, species where literally dozens of genetically distinct species are legally sold under one name.

However, the implication to consumers is that they should suspect that their McDonald’s pollock fillet could potentially be mislabeled.  It is not.

The seafood industry and the supply chain have focused increasingly on traceability in the past few years.

NFI says “mislabeling is fraud and fraud is illegal, period. We emphasize that NFI members are required to be members of the Better Seafood Board, the only seafood industry-led economic integrity effort. And NFI Member Companies are at the forefront of eliminating fish fraud.”

NFI suggests that Oceana would be far more effective lobbying for stronger enforcement of existing laws.

The report was released prior to an upcoming Our Oceans conference in Washington, and also to pressure the  Presidential Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud to issue stronger recommendations.

The task force has proposed to require traceability for 13 species deemed to be at risk of IUU fishing and fraudulent labeling.  However, the requirements would only be for imports, and not apply to commerce within the US.

Oceana wants species scientific name traceability to extend to all seafood, period.  They hold up the EU traceability requirements for imports as a model, and say that this has helped reduce seafood fraud in Europe.  Yet at the same time they document numerous examples of mislabeling in the UK, Italy, Belgium and Germany and other EU countries (see map).

The fact is that importers still have little control over how restaurants menu their items.  Oceana admits this in a backhand fashion, saying in the report that the fraud numbers for Massachusetts are low due to the fact that most samples were from retail, and that retail stores generally label their products correctly.

Oceana is the NGO that ‘owns’ seafood mislabeling, relying on their mislabeling reports to get media attention. Other NGO’s have other brands.  The competition among NGOs for media attention, donations,  members, and activists can warp their approach to simple problems.  So for Oceana, DNA testing and labeling is the path to improved seafood sustainability.

Oceana recognizes that stronger fishery management and enforcement globally would eliminate overfishing and IUU fishing, but can’t make that case because it is indistinguishable from what is also being recommended by the global seafood industry, governments, the FAO, and all others with a stake in long-term seafood sustainability.

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

Daniel Pauly Feeds Media the Wrong Story About Global Fisheries Decline; Other Scientists Object

SEAFOODNEWS.COM by John Sackton – January 25, 2016 — Last week the media was full of a new round of global fishery disaster stories, prompted by an article in Nature Communications by Daniel Pauly & Dirk Zeller affiliated with the Sea Around Us project.

Pauly and Zeller state that FAO global fisheries data has underestimated prior catch, and that therefore if this is taken into account, the decline in fish catch from the peak in the late 1990’s is not 400,000 tons per year, but 1.2 million tons per year.

“Our results indicate that the decline is very strong and is not due to countries fishing less. It is due to countries having fished too much and having exhausted one fishery after another,” said Pauly to the Guardian newspaper.  As a result, a new round of handwringing ensued about global overfishing.

But, the facts don’t support Pauly’s interpretation.  Catch rates are simply not a suitable measure of fisheries abundance.  In fact, declines in catch rates often are due to improvement in fisheries management, not declines in abundance.

Over at cfood, a number of scientists specifically rebutted the premise of Pauly’s article.

Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington says:

This paper tells us nothing fundamentally new about world catch, and absolutely nothing new about the status of fish stocks.

It has long been recognized that by-catch, illegal catch and artisanal catch were underrepresented in the FAO catch database, and that by-catch has declined dramatically.

What the authors claim, and the numerous media have taken up, is the cry that their results show that world fish stocks are in worse shape than we thought. This is absolutely wrong. We know that fish stocks are stable in some places, increasing in others and declining in yet others.

Most of the major fish stocks of the world, constituting 40% of the total catch are scientifically assessed using a mixture of data sources including data on the trends in abundance of the fish stocks, size and age data of the fish caught and other information as available. This paper really adds nothing to our understanding of these major fish stocks.

Another group of stocks, constituting about 20% of global catch, are assessed using expert knowledge by the FAO. These experts use their personal knowledge of these fish stocks to provide an assessment of their status. Estimating the historical unreported catch for these stocks adds nothing to our understanding of these stocks.

For many of the most important stocks that are not assessed by scientific organizations or by expert opinion, we often know a lot about their status. For example; abundance of fish throughout almost all of South and Southeast Asia has declined significantly. This is based on the catch per unit of fishing effort and the size of the individuals being caught. Estimating the amount of other unreported catches does not change our perspective on the status of these stocks.

In the remaining fisheries where we know little about their status, does the fact that catches have declined at a faster rate than reported in the FAO catch data tell us that global fisheries are in worse shape than we thought? The answer is not really. We would have to believe that the catch is a good index of the abundance.

Figure 1 of the Pauly and Zeller paper shows that a number of major fishing regions have not seen declines in catch in the last 10 years. These areas include the Mediterranean and Black Sea, the Eastern Central Atlantic, the Eastern Indian Ocean, the Northwest Pacific and the Western Indian Ocean. Does this mean that the stocks in these areas are in good shape, while areas that have seen significant declines in catch like the Northeast Atlantic, and the Northeast Pacific are in worse shape?

We know from scientific assessments that stocks in the Mediterranean and Eastern Central Atlantic are often heavily overfished – yet catches have not declined.

We know that stocks in the Northeast Pacific are abundant, stable and not overfished, and in the Northeast Atlantic are increasing in abundance. Yet their catch has declined.

Total catch, and declines in catch, are not a good index of the trends in fish stock abundance.

Michael Kaiser of Bangor University commented:

Catch and stock status are two distinct measurement tools for evaluating a fishery, and suggesting inconsistent catch data is a definitive gauge of fishery health is an unreasonable indictment of the stock assessment process. Pauly and Zeller surmise that declining catches since 1996 could be a sign of fishery collapse. While they do acknowledge management changes as another possible factor, the context is misleading and important management efforts are not represented. The moratorium on cod landings is a good example – zero cod landings in the Northwest Atlantic does not mean there are zero cod in the water. Such distinctions are not apparent in the analysis.

Also David Agnew, director of standards for the Marine Stewardship Council, said:

It is noteworthy that the peak of the industrial catches – in the late 1990s/early 2000s – coincidentally aligns with the start of the recovery of many well managed stocks. This point of recovery has been documented previously and particularly relates to the recovery of large numbers of stocks in the north Pacific, the north Atlantic and around Australia and New Zealand, and mostly to stocks that are assessed by analytical models. For stocks that need to begin recovery plans to achieve sustainability, this most often entails an overall reduction in fishing effort, which would be reflected in the reductions in catches seen here. So, one could attribute some of the decline in industrial catch in these regions to a correct management response to rebuild stocks to a sustainable status, although I have not directly analyzed the evidence for this. This is therefore a positive outcome worth reporting.

This opinion piece originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

 

Slight Increase in Days at Sea Voted for 2016 East Coast Scallop Fishery

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [The Editor’s View] by John Sackton — December 14, 2015 — The New England Fishery Management Council voted to recommend a slight increase in Days at Sea for the 2016 scallop fishery, from 31 days to 34.5 days.

At the same time, they left the allocation in the limited access areas to 51,000 lbs per vessel, the same as in 2015.

On paper this would lead to landings of about 47 million pounds, which is close to what was forecast initially for 2015 as well. However, 2015 landings are falling far short of that number.

The primary reason is the smaller size of scallops.  In the past five years, the average count sold on the New Bedford auction has mostly been in the 15 to 16 count per lb. range.  This year, industry sources say it is closer to 22 per lb.

The smaller scallops drastically cut into the fleet’s productivity because they are limited by number of fishing days, and by limits on crew size.  As a result, landings are down as much as 1/3 from preseason expectations.

Most observers do not expect a quick turnaround, and think 2016 landings will be similar or just slightly above those of 2015.

Graphic from New England Council Meeting showing Mean estimate of Scallop landings in Coming years.  (tons of meats)

However, the council’s biologists expect a bumper year crop the recruit to the fishery on both Georges Bank and the Mid-Atlantic, which will lead to sharply higher landings in a few years. 

Models suggest that landings will surpass 60,000 tons (132 million lbs of meats)  by 2019, if these young scallops survive.  That is 3 to 4 times current landings.

The council is also considering a change in the scallop fishing year to begin April 1st rather than March 1st.  There is a seasonal factor in scallops size, with the largest scallops caught more frequently in the April-July period. 

The days at sea and allocations have to be formally approved by NMFS to go into effect for 2016. 

This opinion piece originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.

JOHN SACKTON: Media’s Rampant ‘Fisheries Are Going Extinct’ Claim Finally has Serious Rebuttal from Scientists

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [The Editor’s View] by John Sackton — Nov 3, 2015 — The following headline came across our newsfeed this morning “Some South China Sea fish ‘close to extinction'”, courtesy of Agence France Presse.

The report was based on a quote from Rashid Sumaila, director of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit of the University of British Columbia.

“The South China Sea is… under threat from various sources. We need to do something,” said Sumaila.

“The most scary thing is the level of decline we have seen over the years. Some species (are facing) technically extinction or depletion,” Sumaila, who headed the study, told a press conference in Hong Kong. 

Having not seen the paper, it is not possible to evaluate his statements. But they are readily taken up because they feed into a media narrative that has proved very hard to change: fisheries around the world are dying because of human greed and overfishing.  This narrative has been central to NGO campaigns focused on fisheries. 

For many years, there was no organized response, and especially no way for journalists to get accurate scientific information. If they were fed a quote, such as “90% of the worlds stocks were unsustainably harvested” as appeared in Newsweek this summer, or that fish is ‘aquatic bushmeat’ comparable to eating monkeys and rhinoceros, as was said by Sylvia Earle, they have no way to evaluate its truthfulness. No wonder that seafood seems so controversial.

A group of scientists has come together through Ray Hilborn and his colleagues at the University of Washington, that is finally providing real-time commentary and rebuttal – i.e. pointing out the basic science – which in many cases does not support these media stories. 

Our companion story today by Peggy Parker has more detail on Hilborn’s rebuttal to Newsweek, where he said one article ‘may set a record for factual errors’.

The idea is not to simply point out poor science and unsupported conclusions, but to encourage media to use their website cfooduw.org, as a resource whenever they see a scientific claim about fisheries.

For example, just in the past few days, scientists from around the world have posted comments on a range of global topics.

Hilborn pointed out, and the Newsweek editors accepted, a correction that not 90%, but 28.8% of fish stocks were estimated as overfished. Would they have run the story if they had not been pitched intitally that 90% of fish stocks have collapsed?

Steve Cadrin of the University of Massachusetts comments on recent articles about cod in both New England and Newfoundland.  He says “The lesson from both of these papers is that rebuilding the stocks to historical levels depends both on fisheries management … and on the return of favorable environmental conditions.” 

“Stock assessment models are simplifications of a much more complex reality. Stock assessments typically assume that components of productivity (survival from natural mortality, reproductive rates, growth) are relatively constant. These assumptions may be reasonable for relatively stable ecosystems. However, considering the extreme climate change experienced in the Gulf of Maine, such assumptions need to be re-considered.  Alternative approaches to science and management are needed to help preserve the fishing communities that rely on Gulf of Maine cod.” 

Two tuna scientists collaborate on a story in response to the charge by Greenpeace that John West is breaking its sustainable tuna pledge by buying fish caught with FADs.

FADs are a type of fishing gear (radio monitored fish aggregating devices) that have become very widely used for pelagic tuna. The two scientists, Laurent Dagorn and Gala Moreno, point out in a comment and a recent paper the important issues with FADs are 1) quantifying, with scientific data, how big that impact actually is, 2) determining if the impact is acceptable for the amount and diversity of fish caught, 3) comparing it with the impact of other fishing gears, and 4) implementing measures to reduce an impact if it is too high for the ecosystem, taking into account all fishing impacts. 

This provides a real road map for a discussion of FADs and how they should or should not be used, in contrast to the campaign claims that they are simply destructive types of fishing gear.  Dagorn and Moreno point out that all food production (including organic farming) involves making choices about modifying ecosystems, and tuna fishing should not be considered in isolation, but in how it meets the goal of providing food for global populations.

Aggregating and making this kind of fisheries science easily accessible is one of the most concrete actions that has been taken in years to counteract the misinformation that so many of us in the industry experience every day. 

It is an effort that deserves wholehearted support, including publicizing the resource to local writers and editors. Please visit their website at cfooduw.org.

This opinion piece originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It has been reprinted with permission.