September 12, 2016 — The following was released by the Northern Pacific Fishery Management Council:
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council will be celebrating 40 years of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act on Thursday, December 8, 2016 at the Captain Cook Hotel from 6 to 10 pm. Seating is limited. Registration opens October 10. More information will follow at the October Council meeting.
August 30, 2016 — FISH NET USA — Last week Dana Ellis Hunnes, a Huffington Post blogger, managed to package in just 700 words more false, misleading, distorted and just plain wrong information about fish and seafood production than I’ve ever seen in works with far more words by professional anti-fishing activists. Addressing her inaccuracies on a point by point basis:
____________________
· Sustainable Fish Do Not Exist
Starting out with her title, the Merriam-Webster definition of sustainable is “able to be used without being completely used up or destroyed, involving methods that do not completely use up or destroy natural resources, able to last or continue for a long time.” The concept of renewable resources revolves around the sustainable utilization of those resources.
In 2014, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, the United States was ranked number three in the production of its capture fisheries in the world (behind China and Indonesia). The federal fisheries management system, as set forth in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, has sustainability as its primary focus. Overfished fish stocks are those that are harvested at an unsustainable level and the Act demands that fishing effort on overfished stocks be reduced to the level of sustainability (also known as the maximum sustainable yield or MSY). In 2015 only nine percent of U.S. fish stocks were being fished at an unsustainable level –http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/.
Note that as defined in the Magnuson Act “overfished” does not necessarily mean too much fishing, it means that there are not as many fish in a stock as fishery scientist think should be there regardless of the cause
By any definition of sustainability that is used (except for Ms. Hunnes’), nine out of ten of our fisheries, and more than 90% of the fish that we harvest, are inarguably sustainable.
____________________
· In fact, the United Nations Environmental Programme and Food and Agriculture Organization, report that we are running out of fish. We have overfished or overexploited more than 80% of our fish stocks.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in its 2016 The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture reported “fully fished stocks accounted for 58.1 percent (of the world’s capture fisheries) and underfished stocks 10.5 percent.” (http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf on Pg. 5). Fully fished stocks are those that are being harvested at their MSY. So, in spite of what Ms. Hunnes wrote in the Huffington Post, almost 70% of the fish stocks in the world are being harvested sustainably. That is a far cry from “running out of fish.” As the graph below (from Pg. 13 of the same FAO report cited above) demonstrates, the production of the world’s capture fisheries has been level since the late 1980s. I could find nothing on the FAO website that even hinted that there was any indication that we were “running out of fish.”
In spite of IUCN declarations, in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Environmental Conservation Online System, listing animal species that are Endangered or Threatened in the U.S. and abroad (http://preview.tinyurl.com/zl3qgk3), the only fish listed that support commercial fisheries are geographically distinct groups of salmon (threatened or endangered because of anthropogenic impacts on their spawning grounds, not fishing – see note above). None of those salmon species are considered endangered or threatened throughout their range. Some species of sturgeon are listed throughout their range as are some distinct population segments of others, but no commercial sturgeon fisheries are permitted in the U.S. The same for sawfish. The rest of the listed threatened or endangered species are species of no commercial interest.
____________________
· And, while we may believe that consuming farmed fish is a more sustainable and ecological choice….
Any definition of “sustainable” that I’m aware of indicates that it’s an all or nothing term. Something is either utilized sustainably or it isn’t. Ms. Hunnes’ use of “more sustainable” is linguistically puzzling. “Ecological” relates to or is concerned with the study of organisms in relation to each other and to their living and non-living environment. The idea of applying the term to a dietary choice is even more linguistically puzzling than “more sustainable.”
But, the niceties of effective communications aside, there are numerous ways to grow fish and to catch fish. Some are – or should be – unacceptable because of the damage they do to the environment. It’s the role of government to insure that these are not permitted, and in the U.S. they aren’t. Other methods of fish production in the U.S. and in much of the rest of the world are environmentally acceptable and are permitted, though highly regulated.
____________________
· It takes approximately five pounds of wild small fish such as herring, menhaden, or anchovies to create one pound of salmon, a predatory fish. The proportion of the healthy omega-3 fatty acids found in salmon is lower pound-for-pound than it would be simply in the smaller fish.
This is a generalization that, like many generalizations, doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. The DHA and EPA (respectively docosahexaenoic acid and eicosapentaenoic acid, fish-derived omega 3 fatty acids) content of the flesh of particular fish as determined by the US Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services are below.
_______________
In 2006 Canadian fisheries researcher Boris Worm and a group of scientists published a paper in the journal Science predicting that the continuation of present trends would mean that all of the big fish in the oceans would be gone by 2048. Needless to say, this prediction generated a media storm and much scientific controversy, which the media ignored. Unfortunately, a casual web search will provide links to the dire prediction that Ms. Hunnes focused on.
But she was off by at least a decade with what she refers to as “current statistical analyses.” In fact, in 2009 Worm and University of Washington Fisheries Professor Ray Hilborn and a group of other researchers published a follow-up paper that soundly rejected the 2006 prediction of the imminent destruction of the world’s fisheries. (http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090730/full/news.2009.751.html)
_______________
It’s hard to imagine in exactly what way that would be, and unfortunately Ms. Hunnes didn’t share her insights on this with her readers. She could have just as easily written in a way, nearly every cow (or pig or goat or string bean or ear of corn) humans eat is threatened with extinction. The whole point of sustainable food production is to not eat more than is being produced. That covers a very large proportion of our seafood and that proportion increases every year.
____________________
According to the USFWS bluefin tuna are not classified as endangered or threatened – in spite of an ongoing campaign by anti-fishing zealots to have them listed as such. Accordingly, if it’s legally caught and legally sold, ordering bluefin tuna is akin to ordering a beef steak, though the tuna is much healthier. But in keeping with the old adage “even a blind squirrel finds the occasional acorn,” Ms Hunnes was right about rhinoceroses. They definitely shouldn’t be eaten.
____________________
The bottom of the ocean food chain is composed of plants, almost exclusively algae and almost exclusively planktonic. The “small ones” Ms. Hunnes is referring to are a couple of steps up the food chain from there.
____________________
The pros and cons of dietary fish oil, or more precisely of omega 3 fatty acids, and of the relative health benefits of omega 3s produced by oceanic algae and found in oceanic fish vs the health benefits of omega 3s produced by terrestrial plants, has been going on for more than a decade. There’s nothing approaching a scientific consensus as yet, except perhaps in Ms. Hunnes’ mind. For the other side of the argument take a look at The Best Omega-3 Supplement: Flaxseed Oil vs. Fish Oil on the University Health News website at http://universityhealthnews.com/daily/nutrition/the-best-omega-3-supplement-flaxseed-oil-vs-fish-oil/.
And from the Tufts University Health and Nutrition Newsletter (January 2012 Issue)
Question: As a vegetarian, can I get enough omega-3 from walnuts, flax seed, canola oil and trace amounts in other foods?
Answer: The omega-3 fatty acids found in plant foods (ALA) have their own health benefits, but they are not the same as the omega-3s found in fish (DHA and EPA) that have been associated with heart-health benefits. According to Alice H. Lichtenstein, DSc, director of Tufts’ HNRCA Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory, while your body does convert ALA into DHA/EPA, studies have found that this conversion is very inefficient. Only between 3% and 5% of the ALA gets converted into EPA and as little as 0.5% to 9% into DHA. If you’re concerned about getting enough of the omega-3s found in fish, it is possible to buy vegetarian supplements that derive DHA from algae. (http://www.nutritionletter.tufts.edu/issues/8_1/ask-experts/ask-tufts-experts_1173-1.html)
____________________
The federal Food and Drug Administration has a list of common and scientific names of fish and shellfish called the Seafood List, which is regularly updated. More properly the Guide to Acceptable Market Names for Seafood, it’s available at http://preview.tinyurl.com/jaffa33, it’s quite extensive, and reputable seafood dealers and restaurateurs adhere to its content. But above and beyond the Seafood List, the probability of an endangered – or a threatened – species making its way to any retail markets or restaurants which don’t follow federal and state laws is remote. The probability of buying an endangered species of fish or shellfish from a fish market would be approaching the probability of buying a rhinoceros roast from a butcher.
There has been a problem with misidentified species, but this involves either mislabeling a less expensive product as a more expensive one or concealing where the seafood originated to circumvent import restrictions. Curtailing this misidentification was recently made a federal priority (see http://www.iuufishing.noaa.gov/) .
____________________
In sum it appears as if Ms. Hunnes is not a fan of seafood in the human diet. And she appears to have fully embraced every doom and gloom report she stumbled upon in researching this blog, selecting the worst of the worst. But by looking just the slightest bit behind the headlines she would have found that much of the worst that she has embraced is not justified. I would think that her readers deserve better.
With a world population of over seven billion no one who wasn’t suffering from some level of misanthropy could have a problem with 60 percent of our fisheries being fully and sustainably exploited (though they might not look with favor at the 10 percent that aren’t), but somehow Ms. Hunnes insists that there’s no such thing as a sustainable fishery. Perhaps in another blog she’ll explain how she arrived at that conclusion and set the world of fishing and fishery management straight, because an awful lot of people believe in, an awful lot more people depend on and even more people than that both enjoy and benefit from sustainably grown and sustainably harvested fish and shellfish.
_______________
“This significant growth in fish consumption has enhanced people’s diets around the world through diversified and nutritious food. In 2013, fish accounted for about 17 percent of the global population’s intake of animal protein and 6.7 percent of all protein consumed” (Pg. 4 of the FAO report cited above). This might be inconsequential to Ms Hunnes and the Huffington Post, but rest assured that to the people who depend on catching, processing, transporting, marketing and consuming these fish, it surely isn’t, and no alternative animal protein sources are very likely. Maybe their plan, like Marie Antoinette’s, is to let them eat cake instead.
This story originally appeared on FishNetUSA.com. It is reprinted with permission.
May 10, 2016 — At the sustainable fisheries conference held at Rhode Island College last month, audience members were asked questions about the ocean, fisheries, and management that were tabulated and presented on the spot. Unscientific, yes, but very interesting.
A question of whether the groundfish fishery is sustainable was asked of the audience before and after the conference, and the results suggest that some opinions changed — for the positive — by the two hours of discussion.
When asked who would best regulate the fishery, the answer showed the thoughts of those in the audience based on biases and attitudes, but there is only one answer to that question. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, passed by Congress and administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is the fishery’s manager, and that won’t change.
One very important part of that manager’s charge is ensuring both conservation and economic goals are considered in its management.
One policy tool for those goals is at-sea monitoring, which aims to provide accurate data on what is caught and what is thrown back. Accurate assessments support effective management and more successful fishing. It has been a point of contention for several years, as the cost of monitoring is to be borne by the industry, not the regulator. Cost aside, monitoring can help fishermen.
April 22, 2016 — Three stocks of Chinook salmon, one of Coho salmon and two flounder stocks have been added to the overfishing list produced by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the organization that regulates U.S. fishing reported in its 2015 Report to Congress on the Status of U.S. Fisheries.
Still, the number of fish stocks in U.S. waters subject to overfishing is near an all-time low, according to Alan Risenhoover, director of NOAA Fisheries’ Office of Sustainable Fisheries.
“The partnerships forged over past 40 years under the Magnuson-Stevens Act have resulted in the number of overfished stocks remaining near all-time lows and additional stocks are rebuilding,” Risenhoover said. “Through its stakeholder-driven process, the U.S. will continue to be a global leader in managing its stocks sustainably.”
April 14 2016 — How did the United States get to where it is today with sustainable fisheries? Through 40 years of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
On April 13, 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act was signed into law, and since then it has remained the primary law governing our fisheries.
April 12, 2016 — April 13, 2016, marks the 40th anniversary of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, a law that took U.S. fisheries management in federal waters from being virtually non-existent to becoming a global model of sustainability.
Nowhere is this truer than in Alaska, where our fisheries have an international reputation as being among the most sustainable and valuable fisheries on the planet, largely thanks to the collaborative and inclusive management process set up under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. One of the MSA’s authors, our very own Sen. Ted Stevens, had an extraordinary vision for our nation’s fisheries, especially for those in his home state of Alaska. Many elements of the State of Alaska’s fishery management are woven into the fabric of the MSA.
The results? Our state produces 60 percent of all seafood harvested from U.S. waters. The Alaska seafood industry is the number one private employer in the State of Alaska, contributing an estimated $5.9 billion to the Alaska economy, and producing more than $4.2 billion first wholesale value of wild, sustainable seafood annually. For nearly 20 consecutive years, Dutch Harbor has been the top U.S. fishing port in volume of seafood landed. In 2014, Alaska ports took the top three spots in the nation in volume of seafood landed (Dutch Harbor, Kodiak, and Aleutian Islands). Other Alaska fishing ports — Alaska Peninsula, Naknek, Sitka, Ketchikan, Cordova, and Petersburg — ranked in our nation’s top 20 ports by volume.
April 4, 2016 — Forty years have passed since Congress first passed sweeping legislation that changed the landscape of the American seafood industry from Bristol Bay to Beaumont to Boston. In 1976, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act (FCMA), later to become the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, was the first legislation establishing a comprehensive framework for governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters.
To this day, the Magnuson Stevens Act continues to govern all U.S. federal fisheries. The law is often credited with balancing the need to preserve our nation’s marine resources with the need to preserve the livelihoods of those who depend on them. The original legislation was the brainchild of former U.S. Senator Warren G. Magnuson of Washington state (a Democrat) and former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (a Republican), with former Massachusetts liberal Democratic Representative Gerry Studds and Alaska conservative Republican Don Young spearheading the House version.
“To hear him tell it, Alaska fishermen were living in the office of Rep. Young for three weeks while the legislation successfully moved through the House,” said Dave Whaley, who worked on Capitol Hill for over 30 years, and spent much of that time managing fisheries and oceans issues for Rep. Don Young and the House Natural Resources Committee before retiring last year. “Young always told everyone that Magnuson and Stevens received way too much credit, and the legislation should have been called the ‘Young Studds Act’ because it was the House version that eventually became law.”
200 Miles
The original legislation was designed to Americanize fisheries by controlling or eliminating foreign fishing and then restoring and conserving the fish. It officially gave the federal government the authority to manage fisheries and claimed more than 4.4 million square miles between three and 200 miles from shore as a Fishery Conservation Zone. The area, largest in the world, was later renamed the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
“I first heard of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act in an Alaskan fishing village listening to KNOM radio,” said Rod Moore, Senior Policy Advisor for the West Coast Seafood Processors Association located in Portland, OR. “I had just graduated college and was working for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. The program was discussing the proposed 200 mile Fishery Conservation Zone legislation. I can’t remember the details, but at the time it definitely had my attention.”