Saving Seafood

Federal Fishery Managers Cap Bycatch in California Swordfish Drift Gillnet Fishery

September 14, 2015 – Today, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) adopted hard limits on the number of endangered marine mammals and sea turtles that can be injured or killed in the California-based swordfish drift gillnet fishery. Oceana commends the Council’s action to safeguard sensitive marine wildlife. If too many endangered species are caught over a two-year period, the fishery will be shut down for the remainder of the fishing season.

“This important action is needed to clean up one of the nation’s dirtiest fisheries,” said Ben Enticknap, Oceana’s Pacific Manager and Senior Scientist. “The bycatch caps will help protect animals most at risk and create an incentive for fishermen to avoid catching these animals in the first place. Ultimately, however, the swordfish fishery needs to switch to clean gear types.”

Drift gillnets — stretching a mile in length and 200 feet below the ocean’s surface — target swordfish and thresher sharks in federal ocean waters off California. Yet they create a deadly trap for all ocean wildlife that swims in their path. On average, the swordfish drift gillnet fishery throws overboard 64 percent of its catch, much of it dead or dying. Marine mammals feeding off the coast of California are regularly ensnared in these invisible nets and they drown when they are not able to surface for air.

According to the Council decision, hard caps will be set for the following nine wildlife species: endangered fin, humpback, and sperm whales, short-fin pilot whales, and common bottlenose dolphins; as well as for endangered leatherback, loggerhead, olive ridley, and green sea turtles (see table, below). Federal fishery observers are expected to monitor 30% of the fishery to determine if the caps are hit in the next two fishing years, and fishery monitoring will increase to 100% in 2018 according to the Council action.

Read the full story from Yuba Net

NMFS Must Consider Climate in Turtles Plan

September 2, 2015 — WASHINGTON –The National Marine Fisheries Service erred by not considering the impact of climate change when it drafted a biological opinion on loggerhead turtles in the northwest Atlantic, a federal judge ruled.

But in his August 31 ruling, U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman said over all the agency’s biological opinion on the impact of seven east coast fisheries on turtle populations is not arbitrary, as greens had charged.

Friedman granted in part and denied in part a motion for summary judgment filed by Oceana Inc., challenging the agency’s determination that seven fisheries it studied are not jeopardizing the existence of loggerhead sea turtles, and sent the opinion back to the fisheries service for certain clarifications.

In an “incidental take” report on seven east coast fisheries, the agency calculated the numbers of sea turtles that might be caught in specific types of fishing devices, and of those how many might die.

By the agency’s calculations, approximately 483 loggerhead turtles will be caught annually, 239 of which might die.

Oceana had challenged the agency’s report, saying it uses five year study intervals in its calculations, which is too long, and doesn’t take into effect the shorter-term effects of global warming.

Friedman agreed with Oceana that the “incidental take” report doesn’t explain how the agency will monitor whether the take limits have been exceeded, and that the agency’s reasons for why it only monitors the turtles every five years aren’t clear.

While the court isn’t in a position to say that the agency’s five year monitoring cycle is “per se arbitrary and capricious,” as Oceana had claimed, Friedman found that, “there is apparent ‘tension’ between the regulatory mandate and the infrequency with which NMFS measures take estimates against the take limit … and this dissonance places an onus on the agency to adequately explain the reasonableness of the approach.”

Read the full story at Courthouse News Service

 

ALASKA: Fish and Game hiring too many environmentalists, says Alaska state senator

August 6, 2015 — ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Alaska Department of Fish and Game Commissioner Sam Cotten is defending the recent hire of a former employee of the environmental group Oceana following a complaint from a Republican state senator that Cotten’s department is picking new employees from the “injunction industry” — a sarcastic reference to lawsuits filed by advocacy organizations.

Anchorage Sen. Cathy Giessel sent a letter to Cotten last week referring to a “steady stream of personnel changes” at Fish and Game, with replacements coming “overwhelmingly from the conservation advocacy sector.”

“It is my sincere hope that the arrival of individuals who have dedicated a part of their lives in an antagonistic relationship with the state of Alaska is not a reflection of a new philosophy in policy on the part of the department,” said the letter from Giessel, who chairs the Senate’s resources committee and is a mining- and oil-industry booster.

Cotten said in a phone interview Wednesday that he’d been hearing concerns about his department’s recent hiring of Chris Krenz, a former senior scientist at Oceana who worked on the group’s campaign opposing Shell’s oil drilling program in the Arctic.

Read the full story at Alaska Dispatch News 

 

Feds Let New England Fish Go to Waste, Oceana Claims

August 3, 2015 — WASHINGTON — New federal bycatch rules are not enough to keep Northeast Fisheries from circling the drain, environmental protection group Oceana claims in Federal Court.

Oceana filed a lawsuit against the government last week for its “continued failure to create a method for monitoring the amount of wasted catch in New England and Mid-Atlantic fisheries, a region spanning from North Carolina to the Canadian border,” according to an Oceana statement.

The group sued United States Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

“Bycatch” is the term for the collection of ocean species other than the ones for which commercial fishery crews are fishing. Often, these fish and animals are discarded, either dead or dying, into the ocean, or when the boat reaches shore.

In its statement announcing the lawsuit, Oceana writes, “New England, in particular, has been plagued for decades by lax monitoring and overfishing. The failure to monitor catch and enforce catch limits is in part responsible for the collapse of the New England groundfish fishery, including historically important Atlantic cod populations in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank, which are currently at 3 and 7 percent of their former population levels.

Read the full story at Courthouse News Service 

OCEANA AGAIN SUES NOAA OVER BYCATCH MONITORING

July 29, 2015– WASHINGTON — Oceana, the maritime environmental group that successfully sued NOAA Fisheries in 2011 over its bycatch rules, is challenging the federal regulator of the nation’s fisheries over its newest bycatch rule for the Northeast region.

Oceana again sued NOAA Fisheries on Wednesday, claiming the current bycatch reporting rule finalized last month for the region — in part, as a response to Oceana’s earlier legal victory — is underfunded, uniformly inadequate for providing accurate information and in violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The 43-page lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., claims the new bycatch rule “leaves loopholes that would guarantee that observer coverage will never meet its performance standards, ultimately failing to fix current insufficiently low levels of monitoring in the region,” Oceana said.

The group’s lawsuit said NOAA’s new Statistical Bycatch Reporting Method (SBRM) “fails to address the fundamental legal flaws” identified in its previous lawsuit and “effectively doubles down on the Fisheries Service’s decade-long practice of under-funding and marginalizing its bycatch monitoring systems.”

That under-funding, Oceana said, impedes NOAA Fisheries’ ability to generate statistically reliable data needed to assess the impact of bycatch on individual fisheries.

The lawsuit draws a direct connection between faulty bycatch monitoring and overfishing. It specifically targets NOAA Fisheries’ bycatch monitoring performance in New England and among the Northeast multispecies groundfish fleet.

“New England in particular has been plagued for decades by lax monitoring and overfishing,” said Oceana Assistant General Counsel Eric Bilsky. “The failure to monitor catch and enforce catch limits is in part responsible for the collapse of the New England groundfish fishery, including the historically important Atlantic cod populations of the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank.”

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

 

Oceana Petitions Feds to Mandate Use of Species Specific Seafood Labels

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [SeafoodNews] July 22, 2015 — Oceana has started a campaign to get US officials to clear up seafood nomenclature issues and mandate “one name for one fish” for use on products labels, menus and other packaging.

Currently the FDA only requires the acceptable market name to be used for consumer-facing seafood labels, which Oceana says can cause confusion among consumers about the source and type of seafood they are buying and eating.

“Throughout the supply chain, seafood is often transformed from whole fish to fillet, shrimp to cocktail and crab to cake. The current seafood naming system makes it almost impossible for consumers to make informed choices about what they eat. For example, it’s difficult for seafood buyers to know if their ‘grouper’ sandwich is made with a more responsibly-fished black grouper caught off Florida’s Gulf coast or if it’s actually a vulnerable giant grouper from the Indo-Pacific, or even a critically endangered Warsaw grouper,” said Beth Lowell, Oceana’s senior campaign director.

Seafood labeling has become a point of contention for some domestically managed US fisheries like Alaska-caught walleye pollock. In this case, the acceptable market name for walleye pollock products sold in the US is “Alaska pollock.” This is regardless if the fish is caught in Alaska or Russia. For the Alaskan fishery the issue lies in the large difference between the sustainability and management practices of the Alaskan pollock fishery versus the Russian counterpart.

“As I have previously stressed, this change in nomenclature is necessary to minimize consumer confusion and avoid ongoing misrepresentation of the origin of pollock that is purchased and consumed in the United States,” Sen. Murkowski said in the letter sent to the FDA in May. “This problem has been compounded by the large volume of Russian-harvested pollock, 113 million pounds in 2012, that is sold to U.S. consumers as ‘Alaska pollock.’”

Oceana’s goal would be to eliminate the use of acceptable market names in favor of the scientific name. For pollock this would require all “Alaska pollock” be deemed just “pollock.”

“Requiring the use of species-specific names – one name for one fish – from boat to plate will help deter seafood fraud and illegal fishing. One name for one fish will benefit American consumers as well as the U.S. seafood industry, which is being undercut by illegal and mislabeled products. It will also protect endangered and vulnerable species, decrease the chance of eating seafood with health advisories such as for mercury and allow consumers to source sustainably caught seafood,” Lowell said.

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

 

DON CUDDY: Spreading misinformation about our fisheries

July 15, 2015 — Anyone knowledgeable about the commercial fisheries of the United States will find nothing original in the op-ed piece recently submitted to the New York Times by the environmental organization Oceana.

Even its title ‘A Knockout Blow for American Fish Stocks’ is misleading. American fish stocks are healthy. NOAA’S annual report to Congress, submitted at the end of 2014 showed that only twenty-six of the three hundred and eight fish stocks assessed were subject to overfishing.

‘Overfishing’ occurs when too many fish are removed from a population to produce maximum sustainable yield. As a scientific term it is quite misleading, carrying, as it does, the clear implication that low stock assessments result solely from fishing pressure; whereas ‘overfishing’ can result from a number of other factors, such as changes in water temperature or salinity, degraded habitat and increased predation.

NOAA also maintains an ‘overfished’ list; comprising any stock whose biomass is such that its capacity to produce its maximum sustainable yield is in jeopardy. Only thirty-seven of two hundred and twenty eight stocks found themselves on that list. Hardly a knockout. No new stocks were added to the list in 2014. In fact, three were removed from the previous year, according to the NOAA report.

The Oceana piece also asserts that recent estimates determined that New England cod stocks were at three to seven percent of target levels. As fishermen in the Gulf of Maine can attest, most of that bottom is now taken over by lobster gear and neither the fishermen nor the NOAA survey vessel can tow through that. So nobody can determine with any certainty how much cod might be out there; not to mention the fact that if a fisherman sees cod in the water he goes someplace else. Why? Because the introduction of fishing sectors and catch shares in New England have made cod a commodity, like pork bellies. The result is best illustrated by New Hampshire fisherman Dave Goethel’s plight. He has a photo showing 2000 pounds of cod that his 40-foot boat caught, after a one-hour tow on a research trip last December. If sold, the cash value at the dock would have brought him $3,000. But to lease those 2,000 pounds of cod would have cost him $4500. That’s what you call a knockout. In a multispecies fishery you need some cod quota, even if you are targeting haddock or other groundfish species and so the lease price keeps going up. That is one reason why the percentage of fishing quota actually caught in the New England groundfishery in 2013-2014 was only 33 percent of the allowable catch limit. Because of regulatory constraints fishermen are now avoiding fish that allegedly are not there.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times