Saving Seafood

Plan to change New England ocean stewardship up for debate

November 24, 2017 — The federal government is close to enacting new rules about New England ocean habitat that could mean dramatic changes for the way it manages the marine environment and fisheries.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has been working on the rules for some 13 years and recently made them public. They would change the way the government manages the Gulf of Maine, Georges Bank and southern New England waters, which are critical pieces of ocean for rare whales, unique underwater canyons and commercial fishermen.

The new rules would affect the way highly valuable species such as scallops and haddock are harvested, in part because it would alter protections that prohibit fishing for species in parts of the ocean. The proposal states that its goal is to minimize “adverse effects of fishing on essential fish habitat.”

Read the full story from the Associated Press at ABC News

 

Atlantic Menhaden Board Votes Against Ecological Management Plan For Fishery

November 17, 2017 — The Atlantic Menhaden Board voted earlier this week to stick to the status quo when managing the menhaden fishery and made slight changes to the annual catch limit. However, Saving Seafood, a group that represents the commercial fishing industry, has mixed feelings about those changes.

Menhaden are a forage fish found across the Atlantic Coast. The Board was considering implementing a new ecological-based management plan that was designed for forage fish.

The plan would have required fishermen to leave enough fish in the water for it to replenish itself and enough for predators to eat. However, the board voted no for the plan because it’s not specifically designed for menhaden.

Bob Vanasse, executive director at Saving Seafood, said the group agrees with the board’s decision.

“I think this was a strong statement that moving forward science needs to prevail, data needs to prevail and we need to look at this complex system in its complexity and not try apply a rule of thumb in every circumstance,” Vanasse said.

The menhaden board also voted to increase the annual catch quota by eight percent.

Read the full story at WNPR

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the full hearing here

Agency gave bad data to senator trying to stop shark finning

October 27, 2017 — A federal agency said on Thursday that it made a mistake with a key piece of data it gave to U.S. Sen. Cory Booker as he was building a case to shut down America’s shark fin trade.

Booker, a New Jersey Democrat, has cited more than 500 incidents involving complaints of shark finning in the U.S., dating back to January 2010, as cause to support shutting down the trade. But the number is actually 85.

Booker reached out to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration months ago to find out how often it investigates allegations of shark finning, an illegal practice in which a shark’s fins are removed and the shark is dumped back into the water, sometimes while it’s still alive.

An NOAA worker’s error involving a new case management system caused the mistake in the number of finning incident reports, said Casey Brennan, chief of staff for the NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement. He said the number of reports that led to charges was 26.

Saving Seafood, a fishing industry trade group, asked the NOAA to clarify the figures about shark finning incidents after seeing conflicting data on the agency’s website.

“Shark finning is a reprehensible activity that has been outlawed in the U.S. and is opposed by participants in the sustainable U.S. shark fishery,” said Robert Vanasse, executive director of the group. “Members of our coalition do not believe there is any need for Booker’s bill.”

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Washington Post

NCFC Members to Testify at House Hearing on Fishery Bills

September 25, 2017 — Tomorrow at 10:00 AM, two members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities will testify before a House Natural Resources subcommittee on four bills affecting fisheries and fisheries management. Jon Mitchell, the Mayor of New Bedford, Massachusetts and head of the NCFC member New Bedford Harbor Development Commission, and Mike Merrifield, of the Southeastern Fisheries Association, will join other witnesses at tomorrow’s hearing.

The following information on the hearing was released by the House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans:

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in room 1334 Longworth House Office Building, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans will hold a legislative hearing on the following bills:

  • H.R. 200 (Rep. Don Young), To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for fishermen, and for other purposes.
  • H.R. 2023 (Rep. Garret Graves), To modernize recreational fisheries management “Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017.”
  • H.R. 3588 (Rep. Garret Graves), To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide for management of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes. “RED SNAPPER Act.”
  • Discussion Draft of H.R. ____ (Rep. Jared Huffman), To amend and reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and for other purposes.

Witnesses:

The Honorable Jonathan Mitchell 
Mayor
City of New Bedford
New Bedford, Massachusetts

Mr. Chris Macaluso
Director, Center for Marine Fisheries
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
Washington, DC

Ms. Susan Boggs
Co-Owner
Reel Surprise Charter Fishing
Orange Beach, Alabama

The Honorable Wilbur Ross (Invited)
Secretary
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, DC

Mr. Ben Martens
Executive Director
Maine Coast Fisherman’s Association
Brunswick, Maine

Mr. Mike Merrifield
Southeastern Fisheries Association
Tallahassee, Florida

Mr. Chris Blankenship
Commissioner
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Montgomery, Alabama

More information on the hearing, including a link to a live stream of the proceedings, can be found at the House Natural Resources Committee website.

Zinke: Open up first Atlantic monument to commercial fishing

September 18, 2017 — PORTLAND, Maine (AP) — Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke wants to open up the first marine monument in the Atlantic Ocean to commercial fishing, according to a recommendation he made in a memo to President Donald Trump.

Zinke’s memo touches on his recommendations for a host of national monuments, including Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. Former President Barack Obama designated some 5,000 square miles (12,950 square kilometers) off New England as the marine monument about a year ago.

Obama’s proclamation should be amended to include commercial fishing activities regulated under federal law, Zinke’s memo said. The memo states that instead of prohibiting commercial fishing, the government should allow it in the area under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which is the primary law governing the U.S.’s marine fisheries and meant to prevent overfishing and guarantee a safe source of seafood.

Zinke’s memo states that the monument was established “to protect geologic features, natural resources, and species,” but regulators have charged that it disrupts their ability “to manage species to balance protection with commercial fishing.”

Conservationist groups slammed the recommendation on Monday, while fishing groups said they’ve been making the same proposal all along. Allowing regulated commercial fishing in the area is a conservation-minded move, said Robert Vanasse, the executive director of Saving Seafood, a fishing advocacy group.

“Regulated fishing everywhere under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is pro-conservation and appropriate for all federal waters,” he said. “It’s scientifically sound.”

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

 

NCFC Members View Interior Department Review of National Monuments As Step In the Right Direction

Responsibly and sustainably caught Atlantic red crab, harvested from the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument region, and landed in New Bedford, Massachusetts, being served at Luke’s Lobster in Washington, D.C.

August 24, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC):

This afternoon, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke delivered his recommendations to President Trump on changes to existing national monuments. While the details of the Secretary’s recommendations have not been made public, the AP reported today that they pertain to a “handful” of monuments, and include boundary adjustments and restoration of public access for uses such as fishing.

In March, Mayor Jon Mitchell of New Bedford, Massachusetts, the nation’s top-grossing commercial fishing port, submitted testimony to Congress on behalf of the NCFC expressing concern over marine monuments. The mayor released the following statement in light of Secretary Zinke’s findings and recommendations today on national monuments:

“The fisheries management process under the existing Magnuson Act is far from perfect but its great strength is that it has afforded ample structured opportunities for all stakeholders to study and comment on policy decisions and for peer review of the scientific basis for those decisions. The marine monument designation process may have been well intended, but it has simply lacked a comparable level of industry input, scientific rigor, and deliberation. That is why I think the decision to step back and reassess how best to proceed on marine monument designations ought to be welcomed no matter where one stands in the current fisheries debates. We are now presented with an opportunity to integrate the monument designation process with the proven processes established under Magnuson, and that will lead to better policy and better outcomes for all stakeholders.”

Robert Vanasse, Executive Director of Saving Seafood and the NCFC, released the following statement:

“We appreciate Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s comments to the Associated Press regarding his report to the President on the review of national monuments created by prior administrations. We are encouraged by his statement that in certain national monuments, public access for uses including fishing would be maintained or restored. We agree with the Secretary that regions inside monuments can be protected ‘by keeping public access to traditional uses.’ The Secretary’s review has been professional, open, and transparent. The Secretary and his staff have been respectful and courteous. They have listened and paid attention to the concerns of our members whose interests were damaged by actions of previous administrations. The vitriol aimed at the Secretary and his staff, and the inaccurate mass e-mail campaigns from numerous groups who oppose a thoughtful review of these monuments has been unfortunate. We look forward to seeing the Secretary’s recommendations in full after they are reviewed by the White House, and we are hopeful for a return to the management of fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the regions contained in these marine monuments.”

The following members of our National Coalition for Fishing Communities will comment upon the release of the Secretary’s full recommendations:

  • Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association
  • Destin Charter Boat Association
  • Fisheries Survival Fund
  • Garden State Seafood Association
  • Hawaii Longline Association
  • Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
  • North Carolina Fisheries Association
  • Seafreeze Shoreside
  • Southeastern Fisheries Association
  • Western Fishboat Owners Association
  • West Coast Seafood Processors Association

Saving Seafood Adds Civil Comments to Our Posts

August 10, 2017 (Saving Seafood) — WASHINGTON — Many news sites’ comment sections have devolved into miserable places for conversation on the internet. Online insults and internet trolling has become endemic, and even the target of an ongoing storyline on South Park.  Because we don’t have the staff to monitor comments, until now, Saving Seafood has not included comment sections in our posts. But in our current regulatory and political climate, the fishing community should have a public place to discuss the issues we confront, and one that is relatively safe from trolls and bots.

So beginning today, we are adding commenting on Saving Seafood posts, using a service called Civil Comments.  The system is unique and one we think will create a lively and engaging community that we hope you’ll join. With Civil Comments, you’ll be asked to rate the civility of several other comments from the site — and then your own comment — before you’re allowed to submit it. This kind of crowdsourced moderation is a unique way to try to ensure higher quality comments without the heavy hands of moderators deleting offending posts. Once you start commenting, and rating others’ posts, the machine-learning algorithms will get to know our commenters, and its ability to weed out trolls and spam will gradually improve. The system is programmed to quickly detect attempts to game the system by voting disingenuously on others’ posts.

Here are some questions and answers about the new system, from the Civil Comments FAQ page:

Why do I have to rate other people’s posts?
Internet comments can be a place for spirited, meaningful debate about all kinds of topics. All too often, though, they turn into a festering garbage fire of harassment, abuse, and spam. Computer algorithms aren’t yet good enough to accurately determe meaning from free text, but human beings are great at it! To help keep your community civil and respectful (and free of annoying spam), we ask that commenters pitch in by helping with moderation. Over time, with proven civility and trust, this rating system becomes opt-in, as a reward for qualified commenters.

How do you keep people from gaming the system? Won’t users just vote down posts they disagree with? What if the majority votes down minority opinions, even if they’re civil?
We were worried about this, too! It’s why we put tons of thought, care, and effort into designing the backend algorithms that analyze the reviews, to prevent bias. Having a “civil” comments section doesn’t mean a groupthink echo chamber. Each comment is reviewed by multiple people, and we pool and analyze those reviews to check for patterns of abuse. We also use that data to help decide who sees which comments for review, and we anonymize veteran commenters to prevent bias against specific users. So far, it’s been working well! One great finding has been how rare the attempts at cheating/gaming the system actually are. We’ve found that the overwhelming majority of people actually vote in good faith, so +1 for humanity. With Civil Comments®, people are attacking ideas, instead of each other.

What do you mean by “good” comments vs. “civil” comments?
For each comment, we first ask the reviewer, “is this a good comment?” Here, “good” means whatever you, personally, think is “good.” Does the comment contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way? Maybe it’s funny or insightful, or you just agree with it. If you have no opinion on a comment’s quality, you can choose the middle option of “Sorta” or “Somewhat”. If you really think the comment is bad—off-topic, poorly-reasoned, or you just don’t agree with it—you can choose the “No” option. Answers to this first question don’t affect whether or not a comment is published, but they do contribute to the way comments are ranked when sorted by “Highest Rated” (along with “likes” received).

The second question our system asks is, “Is it civil?” A civil comment can still be angry and passionate, but cannot include threats, personal attacks, name-calling, racial slurs, doxxing/de-anonymizing (revealing personal information about another commenter, including their real name, home address, phone number, etc.) and obvious spam.

Think about what would be considered “rude” in real life; it’s a good guideline for what we mean by “uncivil.”

Isn’t this censorship? What about free speech?
The first amendment guarantees that no one can be thrown in jail for what they say. We’re strong believers in freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but our stance can be summarized by the old adage, “my right to extend my fist ends where your face begins.” Spam, personal attacks, harassment, abuse, and even death threats are so common in comment sections that many sites are just turning comments off entirely, which effectively silences everyone. Sites that do keep comment sections open need to be constantly vigilant, with staff policing the rampant bad behavior and deleting spam. Since comment sections clearly do need moderation, we think it’s far more fair for your comment to be judged by several of your peers—the people with whom you share the community—than by a single moderator, who is separated from the community and typically employed by the site.

Why don’t sites just hire moderators?
Most publications just don’t have the time and/or resources to hire moderators to monitor the comments 24/7. A few very large sites have full-time staffs dedicated to this, but some spend over $1 million per year on moderation, and still must limit the number of comments they publish, due to staffing constraints. With traditional moderation, each comment is only be seen by one person, where it receives one pass/fail grade. With Civil Comments, each comment is judged by several people. Our patent-pending Behavior Engine then analyzes those judgments and attempts to account and correct for bias and people trying to cheat the system.

Despite all of your safeguards, I saw some spam/harassment/abuse in the comments!
Oh, no! Our system works really well so far, but it’s still new and improving. Sometimes uncivil things will slip through the cracks—that’s why the we have a flag button! If you see anything that qualifies as abuse, harassment, or spam, you can flag it to notify publication staff. Keep in mind that flagging without valid reason will have a negative impact on a user’s trust rating, though, and their flags will cease to “count.” So, please only flag if the comment is truly problematic!

Trump Administration Decision Signals Possible Shift In Fishing Regulations

August 1, 2017 — When it comes to regulatory issues, the fishing industry often finds itself facing off against environmentalists. And some recent moves by the Trump administration seem to be leaning more in the direction of siding with fishermen.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), the regulatory body that sets the rules for the fishing industry, is meeting this week, and one of the topics of conversation is a recent decision regarding fishing in New Jersey.

The ASMFC said the population of summer flounder – also known as fluke –has been declining since 2010 and is at serious risk. So the commission reduced limits on how much could be caught. New Jersey came up with alternative plan which the state asserted would protect the fish, while still allowing more fishing. But the fisheries commission rejected the New Jersey plan, saying too many fish would be caught, and that it would be bad for the population.

Ordinarily, the federal government listens to the commission’s recommendations. But last week, the U.S. Department of Commerce rejected its recommendation, allowing New Jersey to go ahead with its plan. The ASMFC says this is the first time since passage of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act in 1993 and the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act in 1984 that the secretary of commerce rejected a noncompliance recommendation by the commission.

“I do think it’s healthy for the administration to not simply rubber stamp everything that is done by these commissions, but rather have an actual role in it,” said Bob Vanasse, executive director of an industry group called Saving Seafood. “And I do think that elections matter,” he said.

Vanasse said this is an example of Trump administration listening to the fishing industry.

“I think there’s definitely been a shift in how the commercial fishing industry, how their issues are being addressed by this administration,” he said. “And I think, frankly, it’s a mistake to think it’s some kind of right-wing, Trump administration, erroneous action. I think it’s actually, overall, positive.”

Vanasse said another example of that positive impact is the federal review that’s happening now of national monuments, including Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, which is about 130 miles off the coast of Cape Cod. The Obama administration designated it an offshore monument near the end of his presidency, closing it off to a lot of fishermen.

Vanasse said the Trump administration’s review of that monument designation is an example of something that’s being handled responsibly by people who have careers in this area — not just political appointees.

Read and listen to the full story at WGBH

Americans Need to Know U.S. Fisheries are Sustainable: Former Senior NOAA Official

July 24, 2017 — Earlier this month, Saving Seafood unveiled our campaign to tell the public that American Seafood is Sustainable Seafood™. A recent paper by Mark Helvey, former NOAA Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries for the Pacific Region, confirms that purchasing U.S.-caught seafood is one of the most sustainable choices consumers can make, and notes that, “Most Americans remain unaware of the high environmental standards by which U.S. federal marine fisheries – and many state fisheries – are managed, in compliance with multiple state and federal laws.”

According to the paper, the standards under which U.S. fishermen operate “conform to or exceed internationally accepted guidelines for sustainable fisheries adopted by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.”

The first recommendation made in the peer-reviewed paper is to “increase awareness…of the high environmental standards by which U.S. federal marine fisheries – and many state fisheries – are managed.”

The paper makes the case that, “Sea Grant Extension Programs in U.S. coastal states and territories have conducted education and out-reach, with NOAA Fishwatch and a number of nongovernmental organizations also helping to bridge this gap. However, further efforts to address this lack of understanding are needed.”

This is precisely the goal of our American Seafood is Sustainable Seafood™ campaign.

Mr. Helvey provided the following summary of his paper to Saving Seafood:

  • The United States is recognized for its robust seafood appetite and strong commitment to environmental conservation. However, efforts to close or restrict its own domestic fisheries in pursuit of environmental protection are often not considered within the context of seafood consumption.
  • Restricting U.S. fisheries comes at the cost of displaced negative environmental impacts associated with the fishing activities of less-regulated, foreign fisheries.
  • The authors provide six solutions for addressing this issue beginning with the need for U.S. consumers becoming more aware of the exceedingly high environmental standards by which U.S. marine fisheries are managed relative to many foreign ones.
  • While efforts by NOAA’s Sea Grant Extension Program, FishWatch, and a number of nongovernmental organizations are bridging the information gap, the authors stress that more is required for increasing awareness that U.S fisheries are sustainable fisheries.

The paper, “Can the United States have its fish and eat it too?,” was published in the January 2017 volume of Marine Policy and is co-authored by Caroline Pomeroy, Naresh C. Pradhan, Dale Squires, and Stephen Stohs.

Read the full paper at ScienceDirect