Saving Seafood

Controversial drift-gill net fishery wins long-fought battle

June 13, 2017 — Federal fishery managers denied a proposal this week to immediately shut down Southern California’s most controversial fishery in the event that wide-mesh gill nets accidentally kill a handful of certain marine mammals or sea turtle species.

The swordfish and thresher shark fishery will remain open, even if it kills several whales or sea turtles, the NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries decided.

The decision not to institute so-called hard caps on the fishery comes after a public review period initiated last year was extended to discuss the law proposed by the state’s Pacific Fishery Management Council in 2014.

For the few dozen fishers who still catch swordfish and thresher sharks off Southern California in deep-water drift gill nets, the decision brought a big sigh of relief.

“It’s a great feeling to know that NOAA is using science and not political pressure to decide this issue,” said longtime local fisherman David Haworth. “We have just a few people fighting against millions of environmentalists who think taking one of anything is too many: That would be great, but we have to feed the whole world.”

The decision was a blow to Oceana, The Pew Charitable Trusts and other conservation groups that have lobbied for years to close the fishery.

“We’re disappointed that NOAA Fisheries decided to abandon these plans. It’s a long time coming,” said Paul Shively, project director for The Pew Charitable Trusts. “We did a poll (in 2015) that showed overwhelming support with Californians to shut down the fishery.

“This still remains the most harmful fishery on the West Coast when it comes to marine mammals and sea turtles.”

Read the full story at the Daily Breeze

Indonesia makes its fishing fleet visible to the world through Global Fishing Watch

June 8, 2017 — This week, at the United Nation’s Ocean Conference, the Republic of Indonesia becomes the first nation ever to publish Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data revealing the location and activity of its commercial fishing fleet. The new data being made public on the Global Fishing Watch public mapping platform reveals commercial fishing in Indonesian waters and areas of the Indian Ocean where it had previously been invisible to the public and other nations.

Susi Pudjiastuti, the Minister of Fisheries and Marine Affairs for the Republic of Indonesia, is taking a bold step toward increasing in her country’s . Today she urges other nations to do the same.

“Illegal fishing is an international problem, and countering it requires cross border cooperation between countries,” says Minister Susi. “I urge all nations to join me in sharing their vessel monitoring data with Global Fishing Watch. Together, we can begin a new era in transparency to end illegal and unreported fishing.”

Also at the UN Ocean’s Conference, Global Fishing Watch has committed to host any country’s VMS data, calling on other governments to follow Indonesia’s lead. “We believe publicly shared VMS will become a powerful new standard for transparent operation in commercial fishing,” says Paul Woods, Global Fishing Watch CEO and Chief Technology Officer for SkyTruth, a founding partner of Global Fishing Watch along with Oceana and Google. “SkyTruth has been collaborating with the Indonesian government for the past two years to really understand their VMS data and find new ways for VMS to enhance their fisheries management.”

Working closely with Oceana toward a united goal of transparency at sea, Peru becomes the first nation to follow Indonesia’s lead. Vice Minister for Fisheries and Aquaculture, Hector Soldi, announced Peru’s intent to publicly share their VMS data in Global Fishing Watch.

“We applaud the commitments made by Peru and Indonesia to publish their previously private vessel tracking data and encourage other countries to follow their lead,” said Jacqueline Savitz, Senior Vice President for the United States and Global Fishing Watch at Oceana. “Together, with forward-thinking governments like these, we can bring even greater transparency to the oceans. By publishing fishing data and using Global Fishing Watch, governments and citizens can unite to help combat illegal fishing worldwide. With more eyes on the ocean, there are fewer places for illegal fishers to hide.”

Read the full story at Phys.org

New protections for threatened dusky sharks taking effect

June 7, 2017 — New protections for a species of threatened East Coast shark go into effect this week.

Dusky sharks range from Maine to Florida and are down to about 20 percent of their 1970s population off the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico.

The sharks are in decline in part because of years of harvesting them for their meat, oil and fins. It’s already illegal to fish for them off the U.S., but they sometimes get caught as bycatch.

The federal government is rolling out new protections for the shark this week, starting on June 5. One measure requires longline fishing vessels that target fish such as tuna and swordfish to take new precautions when they accidentally catch a dusky shark and release it.

 The environmental group Oceana is suing the federal government for better protection of the sharks. The group contends the new rules to protect dusky sharks don’t go far enough.

Read the Associated Press story at The Gloucester Times 

Senate Commerce Committee Advances Fishing, Maritime Commerce Bills

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — May 19, 2017 — Yesterday, the Senate Commerce Committee approved several bills affecting fisheries and maritime commerce, including a bill that would streamline vessel discharge rules and a bill that would ban the commercial trade of shark fins in the U.S.

The Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA), approved as part of the U.S. Coast Guard Reauthorization Act of 2017, would replace a patchwork of federal and state rules regulating incidental vessel discharges, such as ballast water, with oversight by the Coast Guard. It would require commercial vessels to apply the best available technology to meet discharge standards set by the Coast Guard, and would carve out an exemption for commercial fishing vessels from the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) vessel discharge permits.

The approval of VIDA was a major step forward for the maritime commerce industry, which has pushed for changes to discharge regulations since 2007. The Coast Guard Reauthorization Act received bipartisan support, with Senators Dan Sullivan (R-AK), John Thune (R-SD) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) serving as sponsors.

Another bill, the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017, was approved by a voice vote. The legislation, which was introduced by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and is backed by the environmental group Oceana, would prohibit the commercial use of shark fins in the U.S. It is strongly opposed by commercial fishermen, as well as by many shark biologists.

While the bill was approved by a voice vote, Sen. Sullivan, who serves as chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries, registered a formal “No” vote – the only one to do so. Sen. Nelson also indicated he had received feedback from many Floridians who were concerned that the bill would harm commercial fishermen in Florida. Commercial fishermen are expected to continue fighting the legislation as it moves through the Senate and House.

In addition to VIDA and the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act, the Committee approved four bills, including an amendment to the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998. Introduced by Sen. Nelson, this bill aims to fight harmful algal blooms that have plagued Florida in recent years.

The Committee also approved the Reinforcing American-Made Products Act of 2017, the Maritime Administration Authorization and Enhancement Act for Fiscal Year 2018, and a bill to make technical amendments to certain marine fish conservation statutes.

ENGOs Renew Push for Shark Trade Elimination Act Passage; Industry, Scientists Push Back

May 16, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Like sharks in a feeding frenzy, a group of scientists, students and Oceana are circling, renewing their push to pass the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act, threatening sustainable U.S shark fisheries. The scientists and ENGOs also say sharks are in decline.

On the other side, the Sustainable Shark Alliance, a U.S. seafood industry trade group, opposes the legislation. It’s unnecessary, they say, won’t make a dent in the global shark trade and ultimately penalize responsible fishermen.

“Oceana presents a false choice between a sustainable domestic shark fishery and other uses, such as tourism,” Shaun Gehan, a lawyer for the Sustainable Shark Alliance, said in a statement. “University and federal studies alike show growing domestic populations.”

The practice of shark finning, using only the fins and releasing the shark, has been banned in the U.S. since 1993. Some states have passed legislation banning trade of some shark parts or some species.

“The Shark Finning Prohibition Act ended the brutal practice of finning, the removal of the sharks’ fins while discarding their bodies at sea, and the Shark Conservation Act eventually closed some of its loopholes ensuring that sharks are landed with their fins naturally attached to their bodies,” the scientists wrote in their May 9 letter to Congress. “However, the United States continues to allow the buying and selling of fins. Five of the 11 countries that export shark fins to the U.S. do not prohibit shark finning. Therefore, while the U.S. bans shark finning in its own waters, it indirectly promotes this practice elsewhere and perpetuates the global trade in shark fins.”

Alliance members and other scientists counter that the Shark Trade Elimination Act will, by removing sustainably sourced shark parts, result in the increase of illegal trade of shark fins.

“Oceana and their partners are grossly misinformed and are misinforming the public,” said Bob Jones, Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association. “The U.S. shark fishery is the most sustainably run shark fishery in the world. Oceana should be promoting the responsible practices of the fishery instead of working to dismantle it.”

Dr. David Shiffman, a renowned shark conservation biologist, also is against the proposed legislation and wrote about it on the marine science and conservation blog Southern Fried Science.

“Shark fin trade bans do not allow for a sustainable supply of shark fins to enter the marketplace, punishing American fishermen who are doing it right,” Shiffman wrote. “Sustainable trade is incompatible with a total ban on trade, at least in the same place and time. The United States has some of the most sustainable managed shark fisheries on Earth. When these fisheries provide fins to the marketplace, it shows that fins can absolutely come from a well-managed shark fishery.”

Moreover, using the sustainably managed U.S. shark fisheries as examples would be better in the long run when the U.S. is negotiating with other countries, Shiffman said.

“This can be an important example for international fisheries negotiations and associated advocacy (e.g., ‘the United States manages their shark fisheries well, and so can you, here’s how.’),” Shiffman wrote. “According to Dr. Robert Hueter of Mote Marine Laboratory, a nationwide ban on the shark fin trade ‘will cause the demise of a legal domestic industry that is showing the rest of the world how to utilize sharks in a responsible, sustainable way.’ (And yes, sustainable shark fisheries absolutely can exist and do exist, although there are certainly many more examples of unsustainable shark fisheries.)”

While not affecting illegal international shark populations, the bill will hurt U.S. shark fishermen who play by the rules. It will force fishermen to dispose of shark fins on every shark they catch, which currently account for 50 percent of a shark’s value. Proper management can only occur when U.S. shark fisheries are allowed to collect the full value of their catch – without this revenue, shark fisheries will not be able to afford fuel costs and will cease to exist, the Alliance said in the statement.

“Our members are struck by the intolerance of the proponents of this campaign. It is clear that they are indifferent to the potential loss of income. I guess the livelihoods of fishing families are insignificant to the folks who support Oceana’s agenda,” said Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association.

Other respected shark scientists have come out in opposition to the legislation as well, including Dr. Robert E. Hueter. Hueter is the Director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota Florida, and has more than 40 years of experience in shark research.

“This bill will do nothing to effectively combat the practice of finning on the high seas and in other countries, where the real problem lies, and it will not significantly reduce mortality of the sharks killed in global fisheries every year,” Hueter wrote in a letter to Congress.

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

DAVID SHIFFMAN: The Case Against Shark Fin Trade Bans

May 15, 2017 — The following is an excerpt from a story published in Southern Fried Science on May 13:

The United States Congress is considering a nationwide ban on buying, selling, or trading shark fins. While several of my posts and tweets have briefly discussed my stance on such policies, I’ve never laid out my full argument in one post. Here is why I, as a shark conservation biologist, oppose banning the shark fin trade within the United States.  The short answer is that the US represents a tiny percentage of overall consumers of shark fin, but provide some of the most sustainably caught sharks on Earth, as well as important examples of successful management, to the world. This means that banning the US shark fin trade won’t reduce total shark mortality by very much, but will remove an important example of fins coming from a well-managed fishery while also hurting American fishermen who follow the rules. Also, a focus on these policies promotes the incorrect belief that shark fin soup is the only significant threat to sharks, and that addressing the tiny part of that problem locally represents the end of all threats. For the longer answer, read on. And for the case for shark fin bans, please see this guest post from Oceana scientist Mariah Pfleger.

Shark fin trade bans do not allow for a sustainable supply of shark fins to enter the marketplace, punishing American fishermen who are doing it right. Sustainable trade is incompatible with a total ban on trade, at least in the same place and time. The United States has some of the most sustainable managed shark fisheries on Earth. When these fisheries provide fins to the marketplace, it shows that fins can absolutely come from a well-managed shark fishery. This can be an important example for international fisheries negotiations and associated advocacy (e.g., “the United States manages their shark fisheries well, and so can you, here’s how.”) According to Dr. Robert Hueter of Mote Marine Laboratory, a nationwide ban on the shark fin trade “will cause the demise of a legal domestic industry that is showing the rest of the world how to utilize sharks in a responsible, sustainable way.” (And yes, sustainable shark fisheries absolutely can exist and do exist, although there are certainly many more examples of unsustainable shark fisheries.) Several experts in international fisheries negotiations have privately told me that the US has more negotiating power when we can say “manage your fishery sustainably like we do” instead of “you should manage your fishery sustainably, but we decided to stop participating in this market entirely”/ “we won’t buy your product regardless of how sustainable you make it.”

Most shark scientists, including me, prefer sustainable trade to banning all trade in general. As part of my Ph.D. research, I surveyed the members of the world’s largest professional societies focusing on sharks. 90% of respondents believe that when possible, sustainable fisheries exploitation is preferable to banning all exploitation or trade. (Shark fin bans themselves received the second-lowest support, and second-highest opposition, of any policy tool I asked about.)

Read the full story at Southern Fried Science

Sustainable Shark Alliance Opposes Unnecessary Bill Threatening to Shut Down U.S Shark Fisheries

May 12, 2017 — The following was released by the Sustainable Shark Alliance:

The future of sustainable U.S. shark fisheries is threatened by a renewed push by environmental groups to pass an unnecessary law that will do little to dent the illegal global shark trade, while penalizing responsible U.S. fishermen. Earlier this month, Oceana circulated a new letter with 150 signers, mostly academics and students, in favor of the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act, which would ban the buying and selling of shark fins in the United States but do nothing to improving shark conservation.

Shark finning – a reprehensible practice universally derided by responsible fishermen whereby a shark’s fins are removed and the mortally wounded creature is released back into the ocean – has been banned in the U.S. since 1993.

“Oceana presents a false choice between a sustainable domestic shark fishery and other uses, such as tourism,” said Shaun Gehan, a lawyer for the Sustainable Shark Alliance. “University and federal studies alike show growing domestic populations.”

Today, roughly three percent of shark fins in the global market come from the United States. Removing these sustainably sourced fins will only create a void that would be filled from illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing operations operating in the international market.

“Oceana and their partners are grossly misinformed and are misinforming the public,” said Bob Jones, Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association. “The U.S. shark fishery is the most sustainably run shark fishery in the world. Oceana should be promoting the responsible practices of the fishery instead of working to dismantle it.”

While not affecting illegal international shark populations, the bill will hurt U.S. shark fishermen who play by the rules. It will force fishermen to dispose of shark fins on every shark they catch, which currently account for 50% of a shark’s value. Proper management can only occur when U.S. shark fisheries are allowed to collect the full value of their catch – without this revenue, shark fisheries will not be able to afford fuel costs and will cease to exist.

“Our members are struck by the intolerance of the proponents of this campaign. It is clear that they are indifferent to the potential loss of income. I guess the livelihoods of fishing families are insignificant to the folks who support Oceana’s agenda,” said Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association.

Respected shark scientists have come out in opposition to the legislation, including Dr. Robert E. Hueter. Dr. Hueter is the Director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota Florida, and has over 40 years of experience in shark research.

“[The Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act] is not about ending finning, therefore, but instead will cause the demise of a legal domestic industry that is showing the rest of the world how to utilize sharks in a responsible, sustainable way,” wrote Dr. Hueter in a letter to Congress. “This bill will do nothing to effectively combat the practice of finning on the high seas and in other countries, where the real problem lies, and it will not significantly reduce mortality of the sharks killed in global fisheries every year.”

The Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act paves the way for illegal fishing operations to thrive while effectively shutting down a U.S. industry that has adhered to stringent regulations for decades. Instead of attempting to send a symbolic message, it’s far more important that the U.S. continues to support a shark fishing operation that exemplifies sustainable practices for the world to follow.

About the Sustainable Shark Alliance 

The Sustainable Shark Alliance (SSA) is a coalition of shark fishermen and seafood dealers that advocates for sustainable U.S. shark fisheries and supports healthy shark populations. The SSA stands behind U.S. shark fisheries as global leaders in successful shark management and conservation. Its supporters in the U.S. shark fishery include:

Safe Harbour Seafood, Bon Secour, AL
Bryant Products, Bayou La Batre, AL
Madeira Beach Seafood, Madeira Beach, FL
Save On Seafood, St. Petersburg, FL
Seafood Atlantic, Port Canaveral, FL
Greg Abrams Seafood, Panama City, FL
AP Bell Seafood, Madeira Beach, FL
Fishermen’s Ice & Bait, Madeira Beach, FL
Kings Seafood, Port Orange, FL
Wild Ocean Market Seafood, Titusville, FL
Omni Shrimp Company, Madeira Beach, FL
Day Boat Seafood, Lake Park, FL
Phoenix Fisheries, Southport, FL
DSF, Inc., Daytona Bch., FL
Hull’s Seafood Markets, Inc., Ormond Beach, FL
Phillips Seafood, Townsend, GA
Ocean Fresh Seafood, New Orleans, LA
Venice Fish and Shrimp, Venice, LA
Southern Seafood Connect’n, Crisfield, MD
Crystal Coast Fisheries, Morehead City, NC
Avon Seafood, Avon, NC
Wanchese Fisheries, Wanchese, NC
O’Neal’s Sea Harvest, Wanchese, NC
Jeffery’s Seafood, Hatteras, NC
B & J Seafood, New Bern, NC
Willie R. Etheridge Seafood, Wanchese, NC
Crystal Coast Dayboat Seafood, Morehead City, NC
Viking Village Seafood, Barnegat Light, NJ
Carolina Seafood, Rutledge Leeland, SC

Read the release here 

To help stop illegal fishing, ban practice of transshipment on high seas, researchers say

May 2, 2017 — New research concludes that a total ban on the practice of transshipment on the high seas is necessary to help stop illegal fishing and reduce the human trafficking and labor rights abuses that often accompany unlawful fishing activities.

“Transshipping enables fishing vessels to remain at sea for extended periods of time,” Washington D.C.-based oceans conservancy NGO Oceana explains. “Fishing vessels and refrigerated cargo vessels rendezvous at sea in order to transfer seafood, fuel or supplies. While this transshipping practice can be legal in many cases, it also can facilitate the laundering of illegally caught fish, especially on the high seas and in waters surrounding developing and small island nations with insufficient resources to police their waters.”

As detailed in a report released last month, Oceana found that close to 40 percent of suspected instances of transshipping occur on the high seas — areas outside of any national jurisdiction, which make up about two-thirds of Earth’s oceans. Russia’s Sea of Okhotsk, the high-seas regions of the Barents Sea, the national waters of Guinea-Bissau, and just outside the national waters of Argentina and Peru are reportedly the world’s chief transshipping hotspots.

Oceana’s report was based on an analysis of data collected by West Virginia-based environmental monitoring NGO SkyTruth and Global Fishing Watch, a partnership between Google, Oceana, and SkyTruth, which documented more than 5,000 “likely” cases of illegal transshipment and over 86,000 “potential” cases between 2012 and 2016.

In a paper published in the journal Marine Policy last month, a team of researchers make the case that a global ban on the practice of transshipment on the high seas is necessary in order to curb illegal fishing and human rights abuses in the global fishing industry.

“This practice often occurs on the high seas and beyond the reach of any nation’s jurisdiction, allowing ships fishing illegally to evade most monitoring and enforcement measures, offload their cargo, and resume fishing without returning to port,” Jennifer Jacquet, an assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Studies at New York University (NYU) and a co-author of the paper, said in a statement.

Read the full story at Mongabay.com

Scientists tested seafood at six D.C. restaurants. It didn’t always match the menu.

April 25, 2017 — When you order ahi tuna tartare at a D.C. restaurant, can you be sure that’s what you’re getting? A new study from George Washington University found that some restaurants are serving similar, but not the exact, species of fish advertised on local menus.

A group of scientists led by Keith Crandall of the university’s Milken Institute School of Public Health tested 12 dishes at six seafood chains with locations in Washington to see if the fish or crustacean DNA matched what it was called on the menu. They found that one-third of the samples were incorrectly labeled.

But these weren’t cases in which tilapia was being sold as snapper. In most of the mislabeled samples, the DNA matched a closely related species and wasn’t an egregious substitution.

The study discovered “pretty mild substitutions,” Crandall said. “We didn’t see anything that looked like some kind of comprehensive fraud, to swap out an expensive piece of seafood for something much less expensive.”

Still, there were a few restaurants whose results might raise an eyebrow. At Bobby Van’s steakhouse, a dish advertised as a rock shrimp tempura was a DNA match with whiteleg shrimp, which is typically a much cheaper, farmed shrimp.

The testing was performed in 2015, and Bobby Van’s doesn’t have a rock shrimp tempura on the current menu. Jonathan Langle, the chain’s head of operations for Washington, said he doesn’t recall it being on the menu, and that it may have been a special.

Read the full story at the Washington Post

Environmentalists Can’t Help Defend Fishing Rules

April 20, 2017 — Three environmental groups cannot join the U.S. government to defend against a challenge to an Obama administration rule requiring seafood companies to report the origin of the fish they sell, a federal judge ruled.

The National Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity and Oceana asked the court on March 7 to join the government in defending a suit from a group of fishing companies challenging the seafood traceability rule, which requires companies to disclose on a government form the vessel or collection point of origin for their fish.

The companies say the rule will make seafood more expensive. The environmentalists say it is critical to protecting fish populations from illegal fishing. The environmentalists made specific arguments in support of the rule, telling U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta that reversal would affect their daily lives.

Rachel Golden Kroner, in a declaration supporting Oceana, said that if the companies invalidate the seafood traceability rule she would be at greater risk of buying illegally fished seafood, preventing her from making “sustainable seafood choices.”

Todd Steiner, with the Center for Biological Diversity, said that without the rule he would have a harder time studying at-risk populations.

But on Monday Mehta shot down their chance to make their case in court, saying the groups had not shown that overturning the rule would harm them enough to give them standing in the case.

Read the full story at the Courthouse News Service