Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

The next food revolution: fish farming?

October 25, 2015 — Sanggou Bay looks like a place where the pointillism movement has been unleashed on an ocean canvas. All across the harbor on China’s northeastern coast, thousands of tiny buoys – appearing as black dots – stretch across the briny landscape in unending rows and swirling patterns. They are broken only by small boats hauling an armada of rafts through the murky waters.

For centuries, Chinese fishermen have harvested this section of the Yellow Sea for its flounder, herring, and other species. Today the area is again producing a seafood bounty, though not from the end of a fisherman’s rod or the bottom of a trawler’s net. Instead, the maze of buoys marks thousands of underwater pens or polyurethane ropes that hold oysters, scallops, abalone, Japanese flounder, mussels, sea cucumbers, kelp, and garish orange sea squirts. They are all part of one of the world’s biggest and most productive aquaculture fields. Sanggou Bay is a seafood buffet on a colossal scale.

The buoys here extend for miles out to the horizon, offering, on an aluminum-gray day, the only clue to where the ocean stops and the sky begins. Hundreds of migrant workers – many from as far away as Myanmar (Burma) – pilot the fishing boats zigzagging around the floats, shuttling fish to shore, checking the lines for mussels and oysters, and voyaging farther out to sea to harvest seaweed.

Read the full story at The Christian Science Monitor

 

 

NILS STOLPE: So how’s that “catch shares” revolution working out for groundfish?

FishNet USA/October 22, 2015 — NILS E. STOLPE — Most of you probably remember when newly appointed NOAA head Jane Lubchenco went to New England and announced that she was going to save our nation’s oldest fishery. But if it didn’t make a lasting impact on you, quoting from the Environmental Defense blog, EDFish by Tesia Love on April 8, 2009, “Sally McGee, Emilie Litsinger and I got to witness something pretty wonderful today.  Jane Lubchenco came to the New England Fishery Management Council meeting to announce the immediate release of $16 million to the groundfish fishery to help move the fishery to ‘sector” catch share management by providing funding for cooperative research to help fishermen get through a tough fishing year with very strict limits on fishing effort.”  She went on to quote Dr. Lubchenco “we need a rapid transition to sectors and catch shares. Catch shares are a powerful tool to getting to sustainable fisheries and profitability.  I challenge you to deliver on this in Amendment 16, to include measures to end overfishing.  I will commit the resources to my staff to do their part to ensure Amendment 16 is passed in June. We are shining a light on your efforts and we will track your progress.  There is too much at stake to allow delay and self-interest to prevent sectors and ultimately catch shares from being implemented.”

I’m sure that you were there with the rest of us, heaving a huge sigh of relief with visions of Dr. Lubchenco on her shiny white steed,  first riding to the rescue of the New England fishery, and then on to all of the rest of our struggling fisheries. “Hyo Silver! Away!”

So how did she do? A couple of years back NOAA/NMFS released the 2012 Final Report on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery (May 2012 – April 2013). It’s available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1401/. The report included a table – available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1401/tables.pdf – included a table titled Summary of major trends (May through April, includes all vessels with a valid limited access multispecies permit) for the fishing years 2009 to 2012. The table only takes up a single page, is pretty easily understood and is well worth your consideration in its entirety but I’ll take the liberty of synopsizing what I think are the major points it illustrates. In each of the four years the groundfish revenues, landed weight, number of active vessels that took a groundfish trip, the total number of groundfish trips, and the total crew days on groundfish trips decreased. The non-groundfish revenues and landed weight increased. The days absent on a non-groundfish trip increased slightly then decreased. 

And then we come to 2013 (it seems that according to NOAA/NMFS, 2014 hasn’t gotten here yet). Had the myriad benefits of Dr. Lubchenco’s and her ENGO/foundation cronies’ Catch Share Revolution finally arrived? Apparently, not quite yet. According to the 2013 Final Report on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery (May 2013 – April 2014), just about everything that was falling in FY 2009 to 2012 continued to fall in FY 2014. I won’t go over any of the details, but the corresponding Table 1 for that year is available at http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/read/socialsci/pdf/groundfish_report_fy2013.pdf.

Oh well, I guess she deserves a few points for trying – and we shouldn’t forget that before she could really focus on fixing groundfish she was distracted by having to dump a couple of millions of gallons of Corexit into the Gulf of Mexico.

Thirteen species are included in the New England Fishery Management Council’s multi-species fishery management plan, the “groundfish” FMP. Four of those species support no or minimal directed fisheries. The landings of those that support a significant commercial fishery are in the table below (from the NOAA/NMFS commercial landings database). Looking at these data, it’s impossible to suggest that after years of intensive management this management regime is anything that could be considered a success – unless your idea of success is putting a whole bunch of people out of work. In fact only the most charitable among us could term it anything other than disaster – and it’s a disaster that has been in the making since long before Dr. Lubchenco so fatuously announced that she was going to fix it.

(I’ll add here that catch share management is not a cure-all for all that’s wrong with fishery management nor is it the reason for management failures – though at the time Dr. Lubchenco and her “team” apparently believed it was. It is nothing more than an option for dividing the catch among users. As such it can have profound socioeconomic impacts on participants in the fishery and on fishing communities that depend on it, but not on the fishery resources themselves.)  

 

Species

Year

Metric Tons

Value

Species

Year

Metric Tons

Value

Atlantic

2009

8946

$25,223,364

Haddock

2009

5,818

$13,655,842

Cod

2010

8039

$28,142,681

 

2010

9,811

$21,715,488

 

2011

7981

$32,596,942

 

2011

5,709

$16,316,219

 

2012

4766

$22,200,043

 

2012

1,959

$7,833,001

 

2013

2261

$10,455,352

 

2013

1,869

$6,002,480

Plaice

2009

1395

$3,886,809

White

2009

1,696

$3,556,719

 

2010

1413

$4,498,591

Hake

2010

1,807

$4,116,221

 

2011

1387

$4,274,757

 

2011

2,907

$5,849,790

 

2012

1480

$5,048,688

 

2012

2,772

$6,933,743

 

2013

1318

$4,688,995

 

2013

2,238

$6,484,444

Winter

2009

2209

$8,094,381

Pollock

2009

7,492

$10,010,039

Flounder

2010

1587

$6,959,547

 

2010

5,158

$9,529,022

 

2011

2124

$8,002,376

 

2011

7,193

$12,292,573

 

2012

2395

$10,331,500

 

2012

6,743

$13,185,509

 

2013

2746

$9,899,924

 

2013

5,058

$11,395,943

Yellowtail

2009

1605

$4,759,536

Acadian

2009

1,440

$1,572,292

Flounder

2010

1318

$4,193,981

Redfish

2010

1,646

$1,959,681

 

2011

1827

$4,762,969

 

2011

2,014

$2,754,692

 

2012

1808

$5,396,502

 

2012

4,035

$5,891,429

 

2013

1278

$4,199,927

 

2013

3,577

$4,337,163

Witch

2009

949

$4,036,115

Flounder

2010

759

$3,773,526

 

2011

870

$3,955,053

 

2012

1037

$4,247,528

 

2013

686

$3,735,330

How might it be fixed? In the original FishNet article I quoted a couple of paragraphs from a National Academy of Sciences study Evaluating the Effectiveness of Fish Stock Rebuilding Plans in the United States (available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18488/evaluating-the-effectiveness-of-fish-stock-rebuilding-plans-in-the-united-states). I can’t think of anything more valuable than repeating those words here. On page 178 of the report the authors concluded “the tradeoff between flexibility and prescriptiveness within the current legal framework and MFSCMA (Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) guidelines for rebuilding underlies many of the issues discussed in this chapter. The present approach may not be flexible or adaptive enough in the face of complex ecosystem and fishery dynamics when data and knowledge are limiting. The high degree of prescriptiveness (and concomitant low flexibility) may create incompatibilities between single species rebuilding plans and EBFM (Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management). Fixed rules for rebuilding times can result in inefficiencies and discontinuities of harvest-control rules, put unrealistic demands on models and data for stock assessment and forecasting, cause reduction in yield, especially in mixed-stock situations, and de-emphasize socio-economic factors in the formulation of rebuilding plans. The current approach specifies success of individual rebuilding plans in biological terms. It does not address evaluation of the success in socio-economic terms and at broader regional and national scales, and also does not ensure effective flow of information (communication) across regions.”

In other words, the fishery managers need more informed flexibility to adequately manage our fisheries. It has been the goal of the fishing industry’s friends in Congress to provide this necessary flexibility (with adequate safeguards, of course). Conversely it has been the goal of a handful of foundations and the ENGOs they support and a smaller handful of so-called fishermen’s organizations to prevent this, and it seems that they have been willing to resort to just about any tactics to do it. As they have been successful in their efforts the fishing industry has continued to lose infrastructure that will never be replaced and markets that will be next to impossible to recover – and the percentage of imported seafood that we consume will continue to increase in spite of the fact that our fisheries are among the richest in the world.

View a PDF of the opinion piece

Bill targeting pirate fishing worldwide heads for presidential signature

October 22, 2015 — WASHINGTON — A bill aimed at taking down “pirate” fishing by keeping illegally caught fish out of U.S. ports is headed for President Barack Obama’s signature.

The Senate late Wednesday passed a bill aimed at giving the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Coast Guard greater enforcement capabilities to combat illegal and unregulated fishing, a multibillion-dollar problem for Alaska and the U.S. fishing industry.

The bill, which brings together such unlikely bedfellows as Republican lawmakers and Greenpeace, passed the Senate by a unanimous vote. The House passed the same legislation in July.

The bill has the backing of the White House, which determined in 2014 that new legislation was needed to implement a port agreement requiring member countries to reject ships that have illegal product onboard. The European Union, Australia, Chile and New Zealand have signed on, among other countries. Ten more are needed to reach the 25 required before the agreement takes effect, according to environmental group Oceana.

“This important legislation, which imposes added sanctions on countries whose vessels engage in IUU fishing, would provide our authorities the tools they need to fight back against these global criminals and ensure millions of pounds of illegally caught product never reach market,” said Alaska Rep. Don Young, a Republican who co-sponsored the House version of the bill.

Read the full story at Alaska Dispatch News

 

 

Frustrations Voiced Over Impacts of US Fishing Quotas in the Western and Central Pacific

October 22, 2015 — UTULEI, American Samoa — The following was released by the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council:

Members of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, meeting yesterday in Utulei, American Samoa, questioned the high road the United States has taken in international Pacific tuna management and the unfair consequences to fisheries in Hawaii and American Samoa.

“When international regulations cause a fishery to close, I don’t see how we can convince other nations to abide by our standards,” Council Member Michael Goto said. “Fishermen are talking about quitting.”

The Council noted that, when US fisheries are restricted, domestic demand is satisfied by foreign fleets that fall far short of the rigorous standards applied to the US fleets.

Council members addressed the recent two-month closure of the US longline fishery targeting bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) convention area and the ongoing closure of the US purse seine fishery on the high seas and US exclusive economic zone (EEZ) waters in the WCPFC convention area. Both closures were the result of the fisheries reaching US quotas developed by the WCPFC and implemented through federal regulation by NOAA. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) convention area in the Eastern Pacific Ocean remains closed to US longline vessels 24 meters and larger harvesting bigeye tuna. The United States has arguably the lowest quotas in both convention areas and is the only nation to have reached its quotas and restricted its fisheries.

The Council questioned the allocations developed by the WCPFC and recommended that the United States at the 12th regular meeting of the WCPFC invoke Article 10 paragraph 3 of the WCPFC Convention, which was established in 2000 in Honolulu, and work to restore the bigeye catch limit applicable to the Hawaii longline fishery and high seas effort limit for the US purse seine fishery. Current quotas for both US fisheries are below their historic catch levels, and the quota for the US longline fishery for bigeye tuna is scheduled to be further reduced in 2017.

Article 10 paragraph 3 stipulates that, in developing criteria for allocation of the total allowable catch or the total level of fishing effort, the WCPFC shall take into account not only the status of the stocks, the existing level of fishing effort in the fishery, the historic catch in the area and the respective interests, past and present fishing patterns and fishing practices of participants in the fishery but also other criteria. Among these are the extent of the catch being utilized for domestic consumption; the respective contributions of participants to conservation and management of the stocks, including the provision by them of accurate data and their contribution to the conduct of scientific research in the convention area; the special circumstances of a State which is surrounded by the EEZ of other States and has a limited exclusive economic zone of its own; the needs of small island developing States (SIDS), territories and possessions in the Convention Area whose economies, food supplies and livelihoods are overwhelmingly dependent on the exploitation of marine living resources; the needs of coastal communities which are dependent mainly on fishing for the stocks; the fishing interests and aspirations of coastal States, particularly small island developing States, and territories and possessions, in whose areas of national jurisdiction the stocks also occur; and the record of compliance by the participants with conservation and management measures.

Hawaii and the US Territory of American Samoa, a WCPFC Participating Territory, have felt the brunt of the recent closures due to the US quotas developed by the WCPFC. Ninety-seven percent of the Hawaii longline bigeye tuna catch is consumed domestically, according to the United Fishing Agency, Honolulu’s iconic fish auction. The Hawaii longline fishery operates in a region of the Pacific with the lowest impact to the bigeye stock.

The Territory of American Samoa is surrounded on all sides by the EEZ of other nations. In addition, 25 percent of the US EEZ surrounding American Samoa is currently closed to US purse seine and longline vessels due to the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument, created by Presidental executive order, and the Large Vessel Prohibited Area for pelagic fishing vessels over 50 feet in length established by the Council.

A detailed analysis of the dependence of American Samoa on US purse seine vessels delivering to Pago Pago canneries is forthcoming from NMFS. The US government recently denied a petition by Tri Marine Management Company requesting that it open the high seas and US EEZ to US purse seiners delivering at least half of their catch to tuna processing facilities in American Samoa. NMFS said it needed the economic analysis of the impact of the closure and issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking with the petition denial.

Congresswoman Aumua Amata of American Samoa expressed her disappointment in the decision by NMFS. Addressing the Council yesterday, she said that American Samoa is in dire straits. “It goes back to US government making decisions that are detrimental to American Samoa. We’ve had enough of it. It has got to stop. We don’t have IBM, Coca Cola or Silicon Valley for job creation. We just have the fisheries.”

US Congresswoman Aumua Amata of American Samoa expressed her disappointment in the “US government making decisions that are detrimental to American Samoa …. We don’t have IBM, Coca Cola or Silicon Valley for job creation. We just have the fisheries.”

Va’amua Henry Sesepasara, coordinator of the American Samoa Fishery Task Force, said that the petition Tri Marine filed with NMFS was made as a member of the Task Force. The Task Force was set up earlier this year by Gov. Lolo Matalasi Moliga to protect and sustain the competitive advantage of the Territory’s two canneries. The Task Force includes representation of both StarKist Samoa and Samoa Tuna Processors, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tri Marine.

Lt. Gov. Lemanu P. Mauga in his remarks to the Council yesterday said “StarKist and Tri Marine are our government’s life support in terms of our economy and jobs and our people’s social growth. A good number of American Samoa’s population works at StarKist and Tri Marine.” He asked the Council to imagine what would happen if these two canneries ceased operating because of the federal mandate to raise the minimum wage, the decision to restrict US-based purse-seine vessels on the high seas and exclusive economic zone or American Samoa not being afforded the same opportunity as other SIDS.

Lt. Gov. Lemanu P. Mauga in his remarks to the Council yesterday said “StarKist and Tri Marine are our government’s life support in terms of our economy and jobs and our people’s social growth.”

The Council recommended that the US government ensure that the US Participating Territories to WCPFC are linked with SIDS in terms of WCPFC conservation and management measures and are afforded the same recognition and opportunities as other SIDS in the region. 

Christinna Lutu-Sanchez of the Tautai Longline Association voiced support for all of American Samoa fisheries. “It is about access to fishing grounds. Yes, we are great citizens of the world. But we don’t want to sacrifice our US fleet for the whole entire world.” She noted that tuna is a global commodity and American Samoa fisheries impact a small portion of it.

As attested to by the recent area closures of the Hawaii longline fishery for bigeye tuna and the US purse seine fishery on the high seas and in the US EEZ, US monitoring and compliance with WCPFC conservation and management measures is unsparing if not exemplary. The US longline vessels in Hawaii targeting tuna are required to have 20 percent observer coverage and those targeting swordfish are required to have 100 percent observer coverage. On the other hand, the WCPFC requires a minimum of 5 percent observer coverage, and there is no mechanism in the WCPFC to sanction non-compliance. Council members voiced their frustration with the lack of compliance and monitoring in the fisheries of other nations.

After much deliberation, the Council took action on 20 items related to pelagic and international fisheries, the majority related to the WCPFC.

Other highlights yesterday included Council recommendations regarding redevelopment of the small-scale alia fishery in American Samoa, which was destroyed by a tsunami in 2009; the presentation of a $50,000 check from the Council to the American Samoa Port Administration as the first installment to develop a longline dock at Malaloa; the swearing in of Michael Duenas and Michael Goto as reappointed Council members fulfilling the obligatory seats of Guam and Hawaii, respectively; and recognition of Lauvao Stephen Haleck as this year’s Richard Shiroma Award recipient for his outstanding contributions to the Council. High Talking Chief Lauvao (from Aunu’u) was a former Council member and an active member of the Council’s Advisory Panel when he passed away last month. His wife, Melesete Grohse-Haleck, accepted the award on his behalf.

The Council meeting continues today at the Lee Auditorium in Utulei and is being streamed live at https://wprfmc.webex.com/join/info.wpcouncilnoaa.gov. For more on the meeting, go to www.wpcouncil.org, email info@wpcouncil.org or phone (808) 522-8220. The Council was established by Congress under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 1976 to manage domestic fisheries operating seaward of State waters around Hawai`i, American Samoa, Guam, the CNMI and the US Pacific Island Remote Island Areas. Recommendations by the Council are transmitted to the Secretary of Commerce for final approval. 

American Samoa is surrounded by the EEZ of other countries and has a limited commercial fishing area within the EEZ surrounding it. The WCPFC Convention provides special consideration for these circumstances when developing criteria for allocation of the total allowable catch or the total level of fishing effort.

At Sea, Merely Observing Can Be Risky Business

October 20, 2015 — It was a month into the voyage from Spain to the Ross Sea in Antartica that the captain of the fishing boat threatened to throw Liz Mitchell overboard.

In the frigid waters of the Southern Ocean, off the Falkland Islands, that would have meant certain death.

But all that Mitchell, a U.S. fisheries observer, could think of was how embarrassed she was. The captain had just screamed at her in front of his officers, because she witnessed his crew transferring fishing bait to another vessel in mid-sea.

“When that guy said that to me I was shaking, but only because I was humiliated,” Mitchell said. “At the time I didn’t take him seriously, that he could actually do that. I don’t know whether it was naiveté or just plain being stupid, but I just never believed anybody would do that to me.”

Fisheries observers face the same treacherous conditions as commercial fishermen: the risk of getting a hand caught in a winch, being knocked overboard by a rogue wave, of dying in a capsized vessel. But observers face special risks of their own — from those they watch.

It was part of Mitchell’s job to record and report conduct such as the bait transfer — a possible flag for an unregistered boat fishing illegally. She had been hired on to monitor the vessel’s movements as well as track commercial fish and protected species it caught or killed along the way.

Not long before, Mitchell had been told by a crew member that the ship she was on — a U.S.-flagged longliner — had ties to a notorious Spanish fish poacher. That made the threat of being thrown into the sea all the more salient.

Threats and intimidation are an unfortunate part of the job, said Mitchell, who is president of the Association for Professional Observers, a nonprofit that advocates for better living conditions and improved safety measures. She got her start as a fisheries observer in Alaska in 1983, and did stints all over the world, including in Hawaii. She now lives in Oregon.

Read the full story at Civil Beat

 

Cuba launches shark protection plan produced with US group

October 21, 2015 — HAVANA (AP) — Cuba announced Wednesday that it is launching a long-term plan to preserve its sharks in cooperation with a U.S. environmental group, part of a rapidly accelerating partnership between the two countries aimed at preserving their shared waters in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida Straits.

Nearly a year after Presidents Barack Obama and Raul Castro announced that they would end a half-century of official hostility and start moving toward normalization, the most visible progress has been in the realm of environmental protection.

The shark plan announced by Cuba after two years of work with the U.S -based Environmental Defense Fund commits Cuba to recording shark catches by fishing vessels and eventually implementing stricter rules that would limit shark fishing and protect shark nurseries.

Secretary of State John Kerry announced in Valparaiso, Chile this month that the U.S. and Cuba were signing an accord to work together on protecting marine preservation areas in far western Cuba located a relatively short distance from Texas and Florida across the Gulf of Mexico and Florida Straits.

In April, a research vessel operated by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration carried marine scientists from Cuba and other countries on a research cruise aimed at gathering information about the spawning of blue-fin tuna, a commercially valuable and highly threatened species.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the New Bedford Standard – Times

 

 

Former NOAA Administrator Hogarth Calls For Responsible Fisheries Management

October 19, 2015 — If the fishing industry had a CEO, Dr. Bill Hogarth, Director of the Florida Institute of Oceanography (FIO), is convinced he would not last a month. He firmly believes the operating pattern for the whole industry needs to be re-examined and the industry needs to start stepping up to the role of a multi-billion dollar economic powerhouse.

“Fishing is a huge, huge business and we don’t really operate it as the big multinational business that it is, in my opinion,” Hogarth told Gulf Seafood News while sitting in his St. Petersburg office. “This state is known for its citrus industry, but fishing revenues dwarf citrus. The fishing industry in Florida alone it is a $30 billion industry. That is more than citrus, cattle, space, and ranching industries put together; double that. Is one of the top 10 industries in the state, it drives both the tourism and restaurants.”

Dr. Hogarth, a member of the Gulf Seafood Institute (GSI), knows that of what he preaches.

In 2001 Dr. Hogarth was appointed by President George W. Bush as the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). There he oversaw the management and conservation of marine fisheries and the protection of marine mammals, sea turtles and coastal fisheries habitat. He also served as the Commissioner and Chairman for the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna and the Commissioner and Chairman for the International Whaling Commission.

Read the full story from the Gulf Seafood Institute

JES HATHAWAY: Conspiracy Queries

October 5, 2015 — Once upon a time, fishermen and environmentalists butted heads, pretty much all the time. Then for the most part, both sides slowly realized they had some things in common. We all want clean water (and plenty of it), preserved fish habitats, better fishing gear, more efficient engines, and the list goes on.

We are now in an era in which the environmental movement and the fishing industry often work well together to achieve common goals. But there are some groups who have little interest in collaboration, or indeed even hearing what the other side has to say.

Last week, the fishing industry watchdog Saving Seafood made public what they say are the results of a Freedom of Information Act request to Maine’s governor’s office that showed the New England-based Conservation Law Foundation was working behind the scenes (including attempts to reach out to some Maine state officials) in the hopes of securing an East Coast marine monument designation through the Antiquities Act, which does not require democratic review. The emails indicated that the group hoped President Obama could announce the monument plan at the Our Ocean Conference in Valparaiso, Chile, (taking place this week) and that they hoped to be well under way in the process toward that designation before any potential opposition was aware of it enough “to fight it, to organize against it,” said CLF’s Interim President Peter Shelley, according to Environmental and Energy Publishing.

Read the full opinion piece at National Fisherman

Proceeds from NMI’s fishing quota will go to conservation

October 16, 2015 — The $525,000 that the CNMI earns from selling half of its big eye tuna quota will go to marine conservation programs and development of fishery management, Variety learned.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service or NMFS gave the CNMI a 2,000 metric ton catch limit for big eye tuna for the year 2015, and allowed the commonwealth to sell half of it to a group of long-line fishermen in Hawaii.

NMFS allowed the CNMI to allocate a 1,000-metric ton catch limit to Hawaii long-liners in a specified fishing agreement.

In his email to CNMI Department of Lands and Natural Resources Secretary Richard B. Seman, NMFS Regional Administrator Michael D. Tosatto said: “As an accountability measure, NMFS will monitor, attribute, and restrict (if necessary) catches of longline-caught bigeye tuna, including catches made under a specified fishing agreement. These catch limits and accountability measures support the long-term sustainability of fishery resources of the U.S. Pacific Islands.”

In his Oct. 9 letter to Gov. Eloy S. Inos. Tosatto said he has reviewed the agreement between the CNMI government and Quota Management Inc. and determined that it is consistent with the requirements of the Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pelagic Fisheries and the Western Pacific, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable laws.

Read the full story from Marianas Variety

El Niño is Going to Starve a Lot of Fish

October 14, 2015 — When Joe Orsi goes trawling, he doesn’t go trawling for 900-pound ocean sunfish. Orsi’s title is biologist, his employer the NOAA Alaska Fisheries Research Center, his cause researching said state’s fisheries. His typical prey, therefore, are juvenile Alaskan salmon. Sunfish are tropical—occasionally temperate—creatures, and do not belong about 40 miles offshore of a place called Icy Point. But that’s what Orsi’s nets brought up in June.

“What’s crazy is, like a day before, a guy asked me what was the strangest thing I’d brought up in a trawl,” says Orsi. Whatever he answered then—sea otter, Dall’s porpoise, maybe a blue shark—is certainly obsolete now.

Strange things are aswim along the Pacific coast. Starving sea lion pups, jellyfish swarms, toxic algae blooms. All because of an enormous mass of warm water stretching from California to Alaska that scientists have dubbed “the Blob.” And the Blob is about to get joined by more warm water from the gargantuan El Niño—with its own scientific nickname, “Godzilla“—forming in the equatorial east Pacific. When these monster warm water systems eventually meet, they aren’t just going to bring charming equatorial fish on subarctic vacations. They’re probably going to deliver a generation (or several generations) of scrawny fish to the oceans.

Read the full story from Wired

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • …
  • 503
  • 504
  • 505
  • 506
  • 507
  • …
  • 519
  • Next Page »

Recent Headlines

  • Council Proposes Catch Limits for Scallops and Some Groundfish Stocks
  • Pacific halibut catch declines as spawning biomass reaches lowest point in 40 years
  • Awaiting Supreme Court decision, more US seafood suppliers file tariff lawsuits
  • ALASKA: Alaska Natives’ fight for fishing rights finds an ally in Trump team
  • ALASKA: Without completed 2025 reports, federal fishery managers use last year’s data to set Alaska harvests
  • MASSACHUSETTS: Nantucket, Vineyard Wind agree to new transparency and emergency response measures
  • Federal shutdown disrupts quota-setting for pollock
  • OREGON: Crabbing season faces new delays

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Illegal fishing IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon South Atlantic Virginia Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms

Daily Updates & Alerts

Enter your email address to receive daily updates and alerts:
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright © 2025 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions