Saving Seafood

US regulators boost Atlantic menhaden catch limits by 8%

November 14, 2017 — BALTIMORE — Omega Protein, Daybrook Fisheries, Lund’s Fisheries and several other US big fishing companies that rely heavily on menhaden caught in the Atlantic Ocean got the outcome they hoped for in a hotel meeting room here this week.

By a 15-3 tally, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), meeting as the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board on Tuesday morning, approved a 216,000 metric ton total allowable catch (TAC) on the Atlantic coast of the United States in 2018 and 2019 — an 8% increase. The panel gave itself the flexibility to lower the threshold should its staff come up with new ecological reference points (ERPs) that suggest a reduction is needed.

The day before ASFMC voted down, 13-5, a change favored by environmental advocates that would’ve required the establishment of interim goals aimed at restoring menhaden to 75% of their original biomass and prompted action, possibly even a moratorium, should the biomass ever fell below 40% of that amount. It approved a substitute proposal that requires ASMFC’s staff to develop species-specific ERPS, something that is predicted to get done by the end of 2019.

“We’re in a pretty good place right now where the fishery is concerned. As has been referenced, we’ve got an expanding stock and a stable harvest over the last couple of years and we’re still leaving about 40% of the unfished spawning potential in the water right now,” said Dave Blazer, Maryland’s representative on the panel, in explaining why he was voting for the substitute proposal on Monday.

Read the full story at UndercurrentNews

 

Big change for a little fish? Menhaden board says: Not so fast

November 13, 2017 — A proposal to boldly reshape how one of the East Coast’s largest fisheries is managed barely left the dock Monday before it was sunk by a flotilla of opposition.

The Atlantic Menhaden Management Board, named for a small but important fish caught by the hundreds of millions of pounds each year along the coast, opted to stick with the status quo rather than adopt a new plan that might have ushered in cuts in harvests.

The board is an arm of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and the larger commission is expected to ratify the decision at its meeting in Linthicum, Md., today.

Monday’s decision was cheered by representatives of Omega Protein Corp., whose fleet of vessels based in the Northern Neck town of Reedville catches most of the menhaden netted along the Atlantic. “It’s a good day for Omega,” said Ben Landry, a spokesman for the Houston-based company.

Environmental groups and recreational fishermen said they were disappointed. They’d been pushing for a regulatory framework that they say takes into account the needs of other species, from whales to striped bass to ospreys, that prey on menhaden.

But when the proposal to put that plan into motion, called Option E, was offered, it was quickly trumped by another, Option B, that basically keeps the management approach as is. Virginia’s delegation and all but a handful of the 17 others voted to kick Option E to the side.

Read the full story at the Virginian-Pilot

 

Decision over a tiny baitfish could sway the largest East Coast fishery

November 13, 2017 — KENT ISLAND, Md. — Tony Friedrich sped toward Tilghman Point in the Chesapeake Bay in his 25-foot fishing boat. He was searching for striped bass, a prized catch for recreational anglers. Scanning the horizon, he noted the dark oil patches, swooping gulls and the smell of “death and watermelon” — the telltale signs of menhaden, an oily fish that striped bass “eat like Snickers bars.” Where there is menhaden, Friedrich will find striped bass.

Friedrich turned toward East Bay, seeking protection from the southeast winds. Menhaden swim to the surface in large schools to feed on phytoplankton if there aren’t any whitecaps — foamy surface waves caused by the winds, he said. Friedrich has always been amazed by the scene. The hundreds of menhaden that slap the water’s surface. The birds that dive bomb, snatching the small fish in their beaks. The predators — striped bass, weakfish and bluefish — that lurk in the depths to ambush the school from below.

Sometimes called bunker, pogy, or baitfish, fishermen like Friedrich know menhaden well. Although he doesn’t angle for menhaden, they are critical for the food web and support the largest East Coast commercial fishery. That is why the debate over their survival has reached a fever pitch.

Hundreds are expected to gather in Baltimore Monday as interstate regulators make a landmark decision for menhaden, and possibly, all Atlantic fisheries. Menhaden went largely unmanaged for decades, and the Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission will potentially move to reinforce protections for the species and the ecosystem they support.

The commission accepted public comments from August to October and received 158,106. Commercial bait and reduction fishers, conservation organizations and recreational anglers are all weighing in on the decision.

The deliberation comes as some marine species that rely on menhaden like striped bass, and weakfish are in steep decline. Menhaden populations saw sharp drops in the late 1960s and again in the late 1990s. But their numbers leveled off 15 years ago, and began to rebound after the ASMFC set the first coastwide catch limit in 2013. Now, the commission is taking a new, and possibly historic, perspective on fish management by considering how the health of one species — menhaden — influences the numbers of others, in this case predators like striped bass and weakfish.

“When [menhaden] are not abundant, everything collapses,” Friedrich said. “We have to do what’s right.”

But there are many opinions on what is right. On Monday, the ASMFC will choose between five options, ranging from dramatic reductions in the allocation and catch limit to no change at all.

Read the full story at PBS News Hour

 

Fishing Companies: Environmentalists Are Wrong About Menhaden Fishery

November 13, 2017 — Fishing companies are at odds with Rhode Island environmental advocacy groups over proposed changes for the menhaden fishing industry.

Changes to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden are up for a vote at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission meeting in Maryland this Monday and Tuesday.

The commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board is considering a new amendment that would tie menhaden catch limits to the role they play in the ecosystem. The fish are a primary food source for larger fish, such as striped bass, marine mammals, and birds, such as osprey.

Rhode Island environmental groups support the approval of a temporary ecological-based management plan to make sure there’s enough menhaden in Narragansett Bay for predators to eat. Those temporary rules would be adjusted as more data becomes available.

Read and listen to the full story at Rhode Island Public Radio

Days Before High-Stakes Menhaden Vote, Questions and Uncertainties Abound

Amendment 3’s new Ecological Reference Points in Center of Controversy

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — November 10, 2017 — By Marisa Torrieri:

As the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission prepares to vote on highly-contested benchmarks for managing menhaden next week, uncertainties about the potential ripple effect of new ecological reference points (ERPs) are fueling heated exchanges between environmental groups and fisheries.

On November 13 and 14, the Commission is expected to meet to vote on Amendment 3, which will establish management benchmarks, and consider ecological reference points for menhaden, a bony and oily forage fish that is a primary food source for bigger fish such as striped bass and humpback whales and is harvested commercially for oil and fertilizer. The Commission also plans to review and potentially update state-by-state quota allocations.

Should the commission vote for “Option E” under Amendment 3 — an approach largely favored by environmental groups — the ASMFC would establish interim ecological reference points that would set a target of 75 percent and a threshold of 40 percent of a theoretical unfished stock. The ASMFC’s Biological Ecological Reference Points Workgroup would continue to develop Menhaden Specific ERP.

Fishermen whose livelihoods depend on the fish say the impact of this option would be catastrophic to their business.

Jeff Kaelin, head of government relations for Lund’s Fisheries, Inc., in Cape May, N.J., said New Jersey would lose a lot of jobs and money, in the event that interim ERPs took effect.

“With Option E, if we fish at the target that the environmental community is advocating, we’ll have a 25 percent cut in the fishery we have today, and that’s significant,” says Kaelin. “In 2013, when the quotas were established … we lost access to 50 percent of the fish. This is worth about $2 million to the state of New Jersey if we take a 25 percent cut. That’s what would happen, and there’s no need for it because the science is so robust.”

Yet environmental groups have countered that Option E, if selected, would not trigger draconian changes — it would simply put new goals in place that would benefit everyone, which could be phased in based on an organization’s own time table.

“The ERP is the goal, what you’re trying to achieve,” said Joseph Gordon, a senior manager for Pew Charitable Trusts, who directs campaigns to conserve forage fish. “Option E doesn’t tell you how fast to get there and how much risk to take. If the Commission decides to move forward Option E, they will be opting to have a very high population [of menhaden] in the ocean. When we talk about Option E, the goal of that is to achieve and maintain a high biomass of fish in the ocean. That should support significant amounts of fishing in the case of menhaden, over time as the population grows. The benefits to everyone, including commercial fisheries, is the goal of management.”

Chris Moore of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation also suggested Option E isn’t as bad as fisheries are making it out to be.

“Option E would say ‘OK, we now have a new target … fisheries would need to make changes to ensure they’re hitting that target,” says Moore. “But it’s not ‘we shall do this, we shall do that.’ If you look at the last stock assessment, the last quota showed we’re increasing. There’s a lot of leeway for the managers to get to the target.”

Omega Protein Corporation, the largest participant in the menhaden fishery, is based in Reedville, Va., a state that is currently allocated 85 percent of the catch. It says comments from environmentalists in support of Option E sugarcoat the potential economic impact of the ERPs.

Omega Protein is in favor of the more conservative Option B, which keeps ERPs at the existing status quo levels, until better mathematical models for menhaden are available.

“To say that the current reference points are inadequate, and we want to change them, and then say, ‘we won’t mandate that the harvest be cut when over the target,’ that’s ludicrous,” says Monty Deihl, Vice President of Operations for Omega Protein. “The environmentalist solution is looking for a problem, and there is no problem! We only take 8 percent of the biomass per year. The current model says you could harvest 300,000 metric tons per year without overfishing. With Option E, there’s a 25 percent cut in the harvest.”

Shaun Gehan, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney who represents Omega Protein, said that environmentalists promoting Option E as a “phased approach” — while the language within the Option calls for a clear cut in fishing activities — are hypocritical.

“The real issue is if one believes that menhaden should be at 75 percent un-fished levels and the target [fishing mortality] helps achieve that, then it is hypocritical to advocate for anything but a cut,” he says. “It seems there is a lot of folks that want to have their cake and eat it too. That is, being able to say, ‘ecological reference points’ are being used, while avoiding harvest reductions they entail because no one thinks cuts are warranted in light of menhaden’s abundance.”

THE ROAD TO AMENDMENT 3

One of the biggest arguments for clamping down on menhaden fishing, one which has resonated with the public, is that concerns about menhaden weren’t on anyone’s radar until recently, when reports warned that the supply was in danger.

According to Pew, people started to “wake up” to the menhaden issue after a coast-wide decline in menhaden in the 1990s through the early 2000s that attracted a lot of attention: This decline was noticed on the water up and down the coast by recreational fishermen. The effects of this decline on predator species, especially striped bass, were especially noticed, since striped bass is a prized recreational fish – and the reason the ASMFC was created in the first place.

“Striped bass had been recovering from depletion, and many were interested and invested in this recovery,” Gordon noted. “But anglers were seeing signs of starvation and disease in striped bass, and it didn’t take long to trace many of the problems to the absence of adequate prey (menhaden) for them. That’s what led to the first cap on menhaden fishing in the Chesapeake Bay, in 2005.”

In 2012, with support from the Lenfest Ocean Program, the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University convened the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force, a panel of 13 marine and fisheries scientists from around the world, to offer science-based advice for the management of species known as forage fish, because of their crucial role in marine ecosystems. In their report, “Little Fish, Big Impact,” researchers concluded fisheries managers “need to pay more careful attention to the special vulnerabilities of forage fish and the cascading effects of forage fishing on predators.”

Since then, ASMFC staff, scientists, and advisors have been developing and reviewing a range of ecological models and management strategies. In 2012, the ASMFC voted in favor of Amendment 2, which set a new coast-wide catch limit. In May of 2015, the ASMFC began drafting Amendment 3 to the menhaden management plan, with the goal of establishing ecological management, and to review and possibly update state-by-state quota allocations.

“What’s amazing to watch over time, and I’ve worked on this for about a decade, is we’ve gone from a situation where we didn’t have any coast-wide limit at all to a question of when it’s going to happen,” says Gordon.

CONSIDERING SCIENCE

The outcome of the vote on Amendment 3 is expected to have a powerful impact on the future of menhaden, as well as recreational anglers, tourism, conservationists and larger fisheries. Yet with so much on the line, figuring out the right path isn’t so clear cut.

For one, scientists and researchers who study menhaden are at odds with each other, some saying we are at a critical juncture and must make drastic moves to manage and protect menhaden, and others dismissing such reports as hysteria.

In a Q&A with Pew Charitable Trusts, Ellen Pikitch, a marine biology professor and director of the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University, said the state of menhaden appears to be in decent shape if you examine the population in isolation.

“But when you look at it from an ecosystem perspective—whether there are enough to feed predators—menhaden are much less numerous than they ought to be,” she said. “On the East Coast, menhaden used to range from Nova Scotia to Florida, but we haven’t seen that kind of distribution for probably 50 years.”

Pikitch led a group of more than 100 scientists who commented on the proposed Amendment 3 ERPs, and is pushing for the implementation of Option E.

But at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard on October 24, fisheries scientist Dr. Ray Hilborn, a professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, said there was “no empirical evidence to support the idea that the abundance of forage fish affects their predators.”

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

Hilborn, who was part of a team of fisheries scientists that recently examined the effects fishing for forage fish species had on predator species, has expressed concern that the 2012 report from the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force may have overestimated the strength of the predator-prey relationship.

John Bull, commissioner for Virginia Marine Resources Commission, believes the latter. And while he’s heard environmental groups are trying to make Option E seem more palatable by saying it will result in “phased implementation,” he does not support the establishment of interim ERPs because it “doesn’t make sense, scientifically.”

“The science shows from a benchmark stock assessment a couple years ago that the stock is healthy, robust, and reproduction is good,” said Bull. “And in fact, a 30 percent increase on menhaden could be enacted with a 0 percent chance of overfishing. What Virginia would like to see is an increase in the quota on the East Coast of 5, 6, 7 percent.”

Marisa Torrieri is a freelance writer who lives in Fairfield, Connecticut, with her husband and two young sons. She possesses a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University, and has written and edited for dozens of publications, including the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, and the Village Voice.

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

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

His letter is below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph W. Smith
Beaufort Lab, Retired

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

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

Analysis Challenges Arguments That Interim Ecological Reference Points Are Urgently Needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Supplemental Materials for the November 13-14, 2017 Atlantic Menhaden Board Meeting Now Available

October 31, 2017 — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

Supplemental materials for the November 13-14, 2017 meeting of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Management Board are now available at – http://www.asmfc.org/files/Meetings/AtlMenhadenBoardNov2017/AtlMenhadenBoardSupplemental_Nov2017.pdf. Links to meeting materials may also be found on the ASMFC website, www.asmfc.org, under News/Meeting Archives.  Please note the document is very large (over 3,000 pages) and will take some time to download; use Adobe Reader bookmarks to navigate within the document.

The meeting will be held at The BWI Airport Marriott, 1743 West Nursery Road, Linthicum Heights, Maryland. The room block is closed; please notify Cindy Robertson (crobertson@asmfc.org) if you need assistance. 

In addition, the following timeline has been established for the submission of written comment for issues for which the Commission has NOT established a specific public comment period (i.e., comment will not be accepted on Draft Amendment 3). 
1.    Comments received 3 weeks prior to the start of a meeting week will be included in the briefing materials.
2.    Comments received by 5:00 PM on the Tuesdayimmediately preceding the scheduled ASMFC Meeting (in this case, the Tuesday deadline will be November 7, 2017) will be distributed electronically to Commissioners/Board members prior to the meeting and a limited number of copies will be provided at the meeting.
3.    Following the Tuesday, November 7, 2017 5:00 PM deadline, the commenter will be responsible for distributing the information to the management board prior to the board meeting or providing enough copies for the management board consideration at the meeting (a minimum of 50 copies).
 
The proceedings of the Atlantic Menhaden Management Board will be broadcast daily via webinar beginningMonday, November 13th at 1 p.m. and continuing until the conclusion of the meeting (expected to be 5 p.m.) onTuesday, November 14th. The webinar will allow registrants to listen to board/section deliberations and view presentations and motions as they occur. No comments or questions will be accepted via the webinar. Should technical difficulties arise while streaming the broadcast the boards/sections will continue their deliberations without interruption. We will attempt to resume the broadcast as soon as possible. To register, go to https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5185069623952037379.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the full hearing here

Ray Hilborn tells US Senate overfishing shouldn’t be most important concern

October 25, 2017 — WASHINGTON — A U.S. Senate subcommittee considering the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act heard additional testimony Tuesday, with a University of Washington researcher telling lawmakers the U.S. is leaving money in the ocean.

Ray Hilborn, a professor at the university’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, noted that in many cases fisheries aren’t even bringing in half of the total allowable catch in some seasons. For example, in 2015, mixed bottom commercial fishermen caught USD 65 million (EUR 55.1 million) worth of fish available in the West Coast. The total allowable catch had an estimated value around USD 168 million (EUR 142.5 million).

Read the full story at Seafood Source