Saving Seafood

Harvest of popular sushi fish shut down until March

November 6, 2018 — The federal government is shutting down a chunk of the Atlantic Ocean fishery for a species of mackerel for several months.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says commercial harvest of the Atlantic’s migratory Spanish mackerel in federal waters is shut down until March 1. The closure went into effect on Nov. 4.

The closure applies from North Carolina to New York. Over the years, Spanish mackerel have been harvested from Florida to Maine, though the northern edge of the fishery is typically closer to Rhode Island. The biggest producer is Florida.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the New Jersey Herald

MASSACHUSETTS: Losing lobster lines

November 6, 2018 — Scientists from the New England Aquarium will spend much of next year testing ropeless lobster gear as part of the escalating effort to mitigate entanglements with right whales and other marine species.

The research project, funded with a $226,616 grant recently received from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, will involve co-operative research with active lobstermen, possibly including some from the state’s most lucrative lobster port in Gloucester, according to one of the aquarium’s chief scientists.

“We want to get good technology in the hands of fishermen so they can evaluate its potential,” said Tim Werner, the aquarium’s senior scientist and director of its Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction. “They need to be able to use it and find out what it needs to be functional.”

Werner said researchers already have begun to develop various types of ropeless traps, using different technologies to achieve the same goal of drastically reducing or eliminating entanglements of leatherback sea turtles and whales in the forest of vertical lines stretching from fishing gear on the ocean floor to the ocean’s surface.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Daily Times

NOAA releases data on illegal striped bass poaching ring

November 5, 2018 — Over the last couple years, news came out of North Carolina of arrests of fishermen involved in an illegal striped bass poaching ring.

Thirty co-conspirators were part of the illicit activity, but only 12 subjects were charged and sentenced in connection to this case, which saw 52 charges in 13 indictments.

This week the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration released data on the results of the investigation and court proceedings.

Read the full story at the Asbury Park Press

Alaska’s Seafood Industry Faces the Blob

November 5, 2018 — Challenging statewide salmon harvests have dominated head­lines, with record-high sockeye production in Bristol Bay being the state’s primary saving grace. However, salmon are not the only fish in the sea keeping the state’s fisheries afloat, with many fishermen relying on groundfish, herring, and miscellaneous shellfish to make ends meet. Some fishermen use alternative fisheries as a way to balance their portfolios, while others focus entirely on a single target species ranging from Dungeness crab to sablefish. “In a typical year, Alaska’s most valuable fisheries [measured by value of harvest] include salmon, pollock, Pacific cod, crab, halibut, and black cod,” says Garrett Evridge, an economist with McDowell Group, an Alaska-based research firm.

In 2017, salmon was the most valuable fish group. Harvest of all five salmon species totaled more than $781 million in ex-vessel value, the amount paid to fishermen for their catch. However, Evridge notes that 2018 has been a disappointing year for many salmon fisheries, a statewide concern.

“Salmon across the state have come in weaker than forecast, particularly in the North Gulf of Alaska,” says Bert Lewis, the Central Region supervisor of the Division of Commercial Fisheries for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). “In the region I work, we saw some of the lowest returns of sockeye salmon in recent history with the exception of Bristol Bay, where we had the biggest run on record.”

The sockeye salmon harvest is estimated to be 37 percent of the recent ten-year average, making it the smallest since 1975—all other smaller harvests date back to the 1800s.

The “blob”—a warm water anomaly that washed into the Gulf of Alaska in 2015—is thought to be the culprit. With most sockeye salmon spending three years in the ocean, those returning this year initially swam out into warmer waters, which researchers speculate disrupted the food webs that support the salmon, decreasing their survivorship and resulting in poor returns this year.

“That concept is supported by the record return we saw in Bristol Bay, with close to 65 million sockeye returning that, in 2015, came out into the Bering Sea, which did not have this warm-water anomaly,” Lewis says.

However, poor harvests weren’t limited to sockeye: Chinook, chum, and pink numbers all came in low.

“In the Southeast, total salmon harvest will be about 30 percent of the recent ten-year average, due primarily to poor pink salmon run, since pink salmon usually make up most of the harvest,” says Steve Heinl, a regional research biologist for ADFG in Southeast.

“Pink salmon harvest is 19 percent of the recent ten-year average and the smallest since 1976,” Heinl says. “Pink harvest will be less than half of the harvest in 2016 [18.4 million fish], which spurred a formal declaration of disaster.”

Levels are well below ADFG’s forecast of 23 million pink salmon, though only slightly below the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration forecast of 10 million to 23 million.

As of late August, chum salmon harvest to date was 69 percent of the recent ten-year average; Chinook harvest was at 30 percent of recent ten-year average; and coho harvest was on track to be lowest in thirty years, says Heinl.

Though state numbers are low, harvest success varied dramatically among systems. In Southeast, there were excellent Sockeye runs at Chilkoot Lake and Redoubt Lake, which stood in stark contrast to poor runs in places such as Situk River, where the fishery was closed for most of the season.

Read the full story at Alaska Business

 

Researchers identify causes of decline in shellfish harvests

November 5, 2018 — NOAA researchers studying the 85 percent decline between 1980 and 2010 of the four most commercially-important bivalve mollusks — eastern oysters, northern quahogs, softshell clams, and northern bay scallops — have identified the causes.

Along with the sharp decline in commercially important bivalves, there has been a corresponding decline in the numbers of fishermen (89 percent) who harvested the bivalves, said researchers with NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service.

The bivalve declines are in contrast to the previous three decades (1950–80) when the combined landings of the same bivalves were much higher and the trend in each of their annual landings was nearly level, decade by decade.

The only exceptions to the declines were seen in the harvest of northern quahogs in Connecticut and American lobsters in Maine. However, the numbers of American lobster landings have fallen precipitously – as much as 98 percent – from southern Massachusetts to New Jersey.

The researchers also found during the course of the study that a number of groups of marine and land animals have also experienced large shifts in abundance since the early 1980’s.

Read the full story at Digital Journal

JOHN FIORILLO: A Retraction is Not Enough

November 1, 2018 — The following editorial was originally published by IntraFish. It was written by IntraFish Executive Editor John Fiorillo:

Patience may be a virtue but how long must we wait for a scientific journal to decide if it is going to retract a controversial paper that the US government, eminent fisheries scientists and industry executives say is a bunch of crap?

It has been more than a year – yes, I said a year – since US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Chris Oliver requested a retraction of the controversial scientific paper published in the journal Marine Policy that alleges a significant portion of Alaska salmon, crab and pollock is entering the Japanese market from illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fisheries.

Last October, Oliver challenged the veracity of the scientific paper and asked that it be retracted to avoid damaging the reputation of the US fishing industry and its fisheries management. In December, a team of top US fisheries scientists, led by preeminent fisheries researcher Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington, joined the US government in demanding a retraction of the paper. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), under which the fisheries are certified sustainable, also came out in support of the industry.

In June, Hance Smith, editor of the journal Marine Policy, told IntraFish: “The status is simply that we have been waiting for additional reviews of the paper. I expect we shall be able to progress shortly.”

Shortly?

On Monday, I asked Smith again for an update on the status of the paper and its possible retraction. I was told: “We are still waiting for a response from the corresponding author.”

Umm. OK. What?

Anyway, this is about more than getting a retraction. This is a scientific paper, that critics — bonafide critics, not crackpots — say is fundamentally flawed. And if that is not bad enough, it is eerily similar to a 2014 paper by the same researchers — Tony Pitcher, Katrina Nakamura, and Ganapathiraju Pramod — that provided estimates for IUU fish entering the US market. This report has been cited at least 59 times in academic reports and countless times in government and NGO reports. In other words, repeat the story enough times and it becomes unquestioned gospel.

The 2014 study was cited regularly by those supporting the creation of the US Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), which was indeed launched in January and requires a new level of record keeping by US importers aimed at eliminating IUU fish from the US seafood supply chain.

Made up

Hilborn, in December, said the paper at the heart of the current controversy cites several dozen published papers as sources yet none have any mention of IUU fishing. “The paper also lists a number of ‘sources’ of IUU such as ‘unreported catch in artisanal fisheries’ which do not exist,” said Hilborn. “As near as we can tell, the paper made up all of its results without any data on IUU fishing.”

NOAA’s Oliver, in his October 2017 letter to the report’s authors, said the “allegations made in the paper, are absent of transparency regarding the data, and assumptions supporting them are irresponsible and call into question the authors’ conclusions.”

The Japan study claims that an estimated 15 percent of the US pollock entering Japan is from IUU fisheries. Further, the study says between 10 and 20 percent of the salmon and crab coming from Alaska fisheries is IUU. In the paper, Pitcher and the other authors argue for the creation of a seafood traceability program in Japan to thwart what they claim is the importation of seafood produced by IUU fishing activity.

The paper was funded by the Walton Foundation, which has largely skirted the fray. “Independently, we are reaching out to talk with all of the parties to ensure we fully understand the issues,” Barry Gold, director of Walton’s Environment Program, said a year ago.

But Pitcher told me Tuesday in an email that “neither the Walton Foundation nor the Marine Stewardship Council has been in touch with us to ascertain the truth of the matter.”

He also said he has a revised table showing “only 2 percent IUU from that US pollock fishery,” and he says that the revised table “has been waiting to be inserted [into the paper] for almost a year now.” In other words, the original 15 percent IUU estimate is wrong.

“The editor wants us to retract and then resubmit to include the new table, and despite our arguing that is not necessary as they can easily insert a correction, Ray Hilborn in Seattle has queered the pitch by a ridiculous letter accusing us of data fraud and absurd unprofessional threats that the journal will be ‘exposed on his blog,'” Pitcher said in his email to me.

“My co-author has been travelling extensively (earning his living!), and so have I, so neither of us have had the time required to deal with this. We are aiming to get it done before Xmas.”

What a mess.

Look, we need to be able to trust science, especially in this Trumpian era where science is dismantled, devalued and dismissed.

It’s time for the editors of the Marine Policy journal to settle this issue so we don’t allow flimsy science to contribute to the potentially unnecessary creation of another new traceability program in Japan, as it did for the new SIMP program in the US market.

Marine Policy editors need to retract the report, and while they are at it they need to look at the authors’ 2014 report. And stop being careless with fisheries science.

Read the editorial at IntraFish

MASSACHUSETTS: Day-long dialogue between fishing, wind industries nets some progress

November 1, 2018 — Eight hours of ideas, conversation, debate and dialogue from two industries relying on use of the ocean filled the the large grand ballroom at the Crowne Plaza Hotel on Wednesday.

In a meeting described as the first of its kind, the fishing industry from Maine to New York as well as the offshore wind industry in Massachusetts and Rhode Island met for a workshop hosted by Responsible Offshore Development Alliance (RODA) to discuss two key aspects: fishing transit lanes and input on potential mitigation. NOAA and the Coast Guard were also in the room to get all the key players in a single spot at one time.

“We didn’t reach full consensus at the end of the day but we made progress …It’s step one,” said Mary Beth Tooley of the the O’Hara Corporation in Portland, Maine. “I think that’s the biggest takeaway that we have for the day.”

Most of the discussion revolved around transit routes with some success. Both industries agreed for the most part on two routes, specifically a north/south route and an east/west route.

Two obstacles remain, though, including the width of the lanes as well as a diagonal northwest/southeast lane through the current and future leased land. The issues really pop up in the northwest corner of that diagonal lane.

“The next big step is to try to resolve whatever the issues are that exist and then move forward with a transit lane consensus so not only the industry knows what’s coming but future leaseholders (know),” Eric Reid of Seafreeze Shoreside said.

The fishing industry agreed on a 4-mile width for transit lanes. The offshore wind industry offered lanes at one nautical mile and 2 nautical miles.

At one point toward the end of the meeting, the discussion focused on a north/south transit lane passing through unleased space. The fishing industry posed a question if the land is currently not held by any company, could a 4-mile lane be established?

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

NOAA Says Environmental Factors Dropped East Coast Bay Shellfish Landings by 85% Since 1980

November 1, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Want a scary headline for halloween? How about this: NOAA claims East Coast shellfish (oysters, quahogs, softshell clams, and bay scallops) landings have declined 85% since 1980, due to environmental factors.

Researchers from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center studying the sharp decline between 1980 and 2010 in documented landings of the four most commercially-important bivalve mollusks have identified the causes.

They say warming ocean temperatures associated with a positive shift in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which led to habitat degradation including increased predation, are the key reasons for the decline of these four species in estuaries and bays from Maine to North Carolina.

The NAO is an irregular fluctuation of atmospheric pressure over the North Atlantic Ocean that impacts both weather and climate, especially in the winter and early spring in eastern North America and Europe. Shifts in the NAO affect the timing of species’ reproduction, growth and availability of phytoplankton for food, and predator-prey relationships, all of which contribute to species abundance.

“In the past, declines in bivalve mollusks have often been attributed to overfishing,” said Clyde Mackenzie, a shellfish researcher at NOAA Fisheries’ James J. Howard Marine Sciences Laboratory in Sandy Hook, NJ and lead author of the study. “We tried to understand the true causes of the decline, and after a lot of research and interviews with shellfishermen, shellfish constables, and others, we suggest that habitat degradation from a variety of environmental factors, not overfishing, is the primary reason.”

Mackenzie and co-author Mitchell Tarnowski, a shellfish biologist with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, provide details on the declines of these four species. They also note the related decline by an average of 89 percent in the numbers of shellfishermen who harvested the mollusks. The landings declines between 1980 and 2010 are in contrast to much higher and consistent shellfish landings between 1950 and 1980.

Exceptions to these declines have been a sharp increase in the landings of northern quahogs in Connecticut and American lobsters in Maine. Landings of American lobsters from southern Massachusetts to New Jersey, however, have fallen sharply as water temperatures in those areas have risen. Sea scallops also have remained in a stable stock cycle.

“A major change to the bivalve habitats occurred when the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index switched from negative during about 1950 to 1980, when winter temperatures were relatively cool, to positive, resulting in warmer winter temperatures from about 1982 until about 2003,” Mackenzie said. “We suggest that this climate shift affected the bivalves and their associated biota enough to cause the declines.”

Research from extensive habitat studies in Narragansett Bay, RI and in the Netherlands, where environments including salinities are very similar to the northeastern U.S, show that body weights of the bivalves, their nutrition, timing of spawning, and mortalities from predation were sufficient to force the decline. Other factors likely affecting the decline were poor water quality, loss of eelgrass in some locations for larvae to attach to and grow, and not enough food available for adult shellfish and their larvae.

“In the northeast U.S., annual recruitments of juvenile bivalves can vary by two or three orders of magnitude,” said Mackenzie, who has been studying bay scallop beds on Martha’s Vineyard with local shellfish constables and fishermen monthly during warm seasons for several years. In late spring-early summer of 2018, a cool spell combined with extremely cloudy weather may have interrupted scallop spawning, leading to what looks like poor recruitment this year. Last year, Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard had very good harvests due to large recruitments in 2016.

“The rates of survival and growth to eventual market size for shellfish vary as much as the weather and climate,” Mackenzie said.

Weak consumer demand for shellfish, particularly oysters, in the 1980s and early 1990s has shifted to fairly strong demand as strict guidelines were put in place by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference in the late 1990s regarding safe shellfish handling, processing and testing for bacteria and other pathogens. Enforcement by state health officials has been strict. The development of oyster aquaculture and increased marketing of branded oysters in raw bars and restaurants has led to a large rise in oyster consumption in recent years.

Since the late 2000s, the NAO index has generally been fairly neutral, neither very positive nor negative. As a consequence, landings of all four shellfish species have been increasing in some locations. Poor weather for bay scallop recruitment in both 2017 and 2018, however, will likely mean a downturn in landings during the next two seasons.

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

NOAA drafts habitat maps for wind lease zones

November 1, 2018 — After years of mapping, NOAA, WHOI, UMass Dartmouth, and Howard Marine Research Laboratory researchers have created bottom, or benthic, habitat maps for the eight Wind Energy Areas (WEAs) in the Northeast. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management funded the mapping project, which included areas in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. A report from the habitat-mapping project titled “Habitat Mapping and Assessment of Northeast Wind Energy Areas” describes concerns with disturbing benthic environment in the process of assembling wind turbines. “Topics range from bottom water temperatures, bottom topography and features, types of sediments and ocean currents,” a NOAA release states, “to animals that live in and on top of the sediments and in the water column in that area either seasonally or year-round.”

Some of the details given in the release covered aspects of Massachusetts wind farm sites.

Read the full story at the Martha’s Vineyard Times

ISSF Adds Two Prominent NGO Scientists to Its Advisory Board

November 1, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The ISSF (International Sustainable Seafood Foundation) representing the global tuna industry does not fool around when making appointment of NGO and Sustainability scientists to its boards and committees.

The two most recent appointments are among the recognized leaders in their fields.

ISSF has appointed Dr. Tom Pickerell as chair of its Environmental Stakeholder Committee. Pickerell is the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP) Global Tuna Director responsible for SFP’s tuna work program, including the global fresh and frozen tuna supply chain roundtable and canned tuna program. Before joining SFP, he worked for Seafish, where he was the Technical Director. Previous to that role, Dr. Pickerell was the Senior Science Manager for the Seafood Watch program at Monterey Bay Aquarium. Earlier, Dr. Pickerell worked at WWF UK as the Fisheries Policy Officer and at Defra, where he held a variety of different policy and strategy roles in fisheries and aquaculture.

“Dr. Pickerell’s leadership experience at some of the foremost environmental NGOs has made him an excellent resource for the ESC,” said ISSF President Susan Jackson. “We are honored and thankful that he and SFP are keen to increase their engagement with ISSF by assuming this leadership role.”

The second appointment was of Dr. Andrew Rosenberg to ISSF’s scientific advisory committee. Rosenberg is currently director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and outspoken advocacy organization. Rosenberg has also worked for more than 25 years with NOAA and NMFS, starting in New England. He also has had a leadership role at Conservation International. Dr. Rosenberg was a member of the National Academy of Sciences’ Ocean Studies Board and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. He is a professor of natural resources and the environment at the University of New Hampshire, where he previously served as dean of the College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, and is the author of many peer-reviewed studies and reports on fisheries and ocean management.

“Dr. Rosenberg is a force to be reckoned with, and we’re honored to have him join the Scientific Advisory Committee,” said ISSF President Susan Jackson. “His experience in government and nonprofit leadership, research and academia make him a true triple-threat, with a combination of experience, credibility and expertise.”

The ISSF Board receives input and information from formal and informal partners — environmental stakeholders, marine scientists, fishers, and vessel owners — who share insights from the field.

The ISSF Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) comprises some of the world’s leading marine and tuna fisheries scientists. The SAC guides ISSF’s research priorities and supports its technical reports, notably the annual Status of the Stocks report and online interactive tool. ISSF’s Environmental Stakeholder Committee (ESC) includes representatives from conservation organizations. Members of the SAC and ESC volunteer to share their expertise with ISSF.

The caliber of these appointments basically shows that ISSF is serious about its mission to bring the entire global tuna supply under sustainable fishery management. Tuna, being such an international migratory species, simply cannot be managed through individual country EEZ’s, and therefore it takes a global organization to pressure the various regional ocean commissions whose jurisdiction is established by international treaty.

Prior to the ISSF, these bodies frequently made decisions based on the lowest common denominator, as any country could veto a management decision for any reason. The growth of the ISSF has begun to put science behind the managment policies, and has resulted in slow progress towards establishing harvest control rules, capacity limits, and other mechanisms to preserve the long term viability of the global tuna catch.

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