August 17, 2017 — The Netherlands is testing a new technique to fish – using electric currents. Electrofishing is controversial and is banned by the EU, but can be used on an experimental basis. Critics argue it is cruel because it breaks the backs of some larger cod. But advocates say it is less damaging for the environment than traditional beam trawling. James Clayton reports for BBC Newsnight.
Stony Brook University Wins NOAA Research Grant
August 8, 2017 — Stony Brook University has received a nearly $170,000 grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to support marine science and fisheries research. The money will be used to improve management of protected species of fish and marine mammals within what is called the Northeast United States Large Marine Ecosystem.
The grant will support the use of state-of-the-art climate models to develop tools to assist the commercial fishing industry in reducing bycatch of marine mammals and fish in long-line and midwater trawl fisheries, according to a statement by Lesley Thorne, a Stony Brook University assistant professor. This, Dr. Thorne said, will increase the efficiency and profitability of marine resources.
New Study Puts Hard Numbers on Impacts of Bottom Trawling
July 24, 2017 — Roughly a fifth of all fish eaten globally are caught using nets towed along the bottom of the ocean. There’s long been concern that this method – known as trawling – destroys or severely damages the ecosystems where it’s used. Now, a new meta-analysis of the science available on this topic offers some quantification of the impacts of different type of trawls.
Previous studies have found that the mud plumes from some trawls can be seen from space, and that “bottom trawling related to commercial fisheries leaves a greater physical footprint on the seafloor than the combined effects of all other human activities, including scientific research, fossil fuel recovery and waste disposal.”
While it is undeniable that dragging metal gear across the seafloor impacts the ecosystems there, a new analysis of seventy different studies finds that not all trawls are equal, and that some do significantly less damage than others.
In particular, otter trawls – the type most commonly used in New England – have the least impact of the four types compared. Otter trawls scrape, on average, just under an inch off the seafloor and remove about six percent of the animals living there. In contrast, hydraulic dredges squirt water into the sediment to release buried animals, reaching about six inches into the sea floor and removing more than forty percent of animals.
University of Washington: Bottom-trawling techniques leave different traces on the seabed
July 18, 2017 — The following is excerpted from an article published yesterday by the University of Washington:
Fishing fleets around the world rely on nets towed along the bottom to capture fish. Roughly one-fifth of the fish eaten globally are caught by this method, known as bottom trawling, which has been criticized for its effects on the marine environment.
An international group has taken a close look at how different types of bottom trawling affect the seabed. It finds that all trawling is not created equal — the most benign type removes 6 percent of the animal and plant life on the seabed each time the net passes, while most other methods remove closer to a third. A University of Washington professor is among the main authors on the study, led by Bangor University in the U.K. and published July 17 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The meta-analysis looks at 70 previous studies of bottom trawling, most in the Eastern U.S. and Western Europe. It looks across those studies to compare the effects on the seabed of four techniques: otter trawling, a common method that uses two “doors” towed vertically in the water or along the bottom to hold the net open; beam trawls, which hold the net open with a heavy metal beam; towed dredges, which drag a flat or toothed metal bar directly along the seafloor; and hydraulic dredges, which use water to loosen the seabed and collect animals that live in the sediment.
“We found that otter trawls penetrated the seabed 2.4 cm (0.94 inches) on average and caused the least amount of depletion of marine organisms, removing 6 percent of biota per trawl pass on the seabed,” first author Jan Geert Hiddink at Bangor University said in a statement. “In contrast, we found that hydraulic dredges penetrated the seabed 16.1 cm (6.3 inches) on average and caused the greatest depletion, removing 41 percent of the biota per fishing pass.”
Depending on the type of fishing gear, penetration depth and environmental variables such as water depth and sediment composition, it took from 1.9 to 6.4 years for the seabed biota, or marine plants and animals, to recover.
“These findings fill an essential science gap that will inform policy and management strategies for sustainable fishing practices by enabling us to evaluate the trade-off between fish production for food, and the environmental cost of different harvesting techniques,” said Ray Hilborn, a UW fisheries professor and one of four co-authors who designed the study.
“There’s a common perception that you trawl the bottom and the ecosystem is destroyed,” Hilborn said. “This study shows that the most common kind of trawling, otter trawling, does not destroy the marine ecosystem, and places that are trawled once a year really won’t be very different from places that are not trawled at all.”
NORTH CAROLINA: Public comment to be taken on petition impacting shrimp trawling
January 16, 2017 — A meeting set for this week will put the issue of resource protection versus gear restrictions on the shrimping industry up for debate.
The five advisory committees to the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission will meet jointly on Jan. 17 at the New Bern Riverfront Convention Center to receive public comment on a petition for rulemaking that would, if adopted, impact shrimp trawl fishing in most North Carolina waters.
The North Carolina Wildlife Federation submitted the petition on Nov. 2, and the commission has 120 days from that date to grant or deny the request that calls for stricter regulations for shrimp trawling and the shrimp season as a means to better protect habitat for juvenile finfish.
The petition asks the commission to designate all coastal fishing waters not already designated as nursery areas as special secondary nursery areas, including the ocean out to three miles. It also calls for establishing clear criteria for the opening of shrimp season and defining the type of gear and how and when gear may be used in special secondary nursery areas (SSNAs) during shrimp season.
Jerry Schill, president of the North Carolina Fisheries Association, a nonprofit organization for the state’s commercial fishing industry, said the restrictions sought through the petition would have severe impacts on the state’s shrimping industry.
Beyond the direct impact to fishermen, Schill said that by accepting the petition for rulemaking, the MFC will waste a tremendous amount of tax dollars and effort spent studying the shrimp bycatch and trawling issue.
NORTH CAROLINA: Opponents line up in showdown over limits to shrimp trawling
January 12, 2017 — Hyde County Commissioners, along with local stakeholders and seafood advocates, have issued strong opposition to proposed rules that would result in major changes to the state’s commercial trawling industry. They say the restrictions could ultimately end the state’s access shrimp.
A petition for the changes was submitted to the North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission on Nov. 2 by The North Carolina Wildlife Federation. It asks the state to designate coastal fishing waters in the sounds and 3 miles into the ocean as primary nursery areas for various fisheries.
The petition was discussed at the commission’s November meeting. On Jan. 17, five joint advisory committees will meet and hear public comment on the issue in New Bern. Then, the commission will review comments and take action at its February meeting.
Other rule changes outlined in the 99-page NCWF petition are: Limiting shrimp trawling to three days a week; limiting trawling to daytime only; limiting the total head rope (the span of the nets) to 90 feet; establishing 45-minute tow times; define type of gear and how it can be used in special secondary nursery areas;and opening the season based on a 60 shrimp per pound.
Last week, Hyde County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution opposing the rules. Dare County and its towns are also taking up resolutions. Groups such as North Carolina Catch and the North Carolina Fisheries Association have taken stands against the petition and an individual effort has started a counter-petition.
The Hyde resolution says that hundreds of local businesses and families depend on catches from trawlers. Shrimp catches represent paychecks for the captain, crew and seafood industry, as well as products to market to visitors. The affects range across the 20 coastal North Carolina counties that boast a commercial fishing history.
“This petition would obviously cripple the state’s shrimp fishery, which is the second most valuable in our state and supports a number of other valuable industries such as gear design and manufacture, boat building and repair, refrigeration and repair, mechanical engineering, marine propulsion dealers, fuel distribution, seafood processing and a vibrant restaurant industry,” said Lauren Salter of Williston.
Salter serves on the board of directors for North Carolina Catch, a statewide group that works with several localized fishing partnerships to educate consumers about the importance of buying local seafood.
“This goes beyond shrimping,” said Salter, who is also the daughter of a down-east commercial fisherman. “If special interest groups continue to successfully limit access to our seafood by skillfully sidestepping the established fisheries management process, no seafood will be safe.”
Fishery council says no to river herring and shad plan
October 7, 2016 — A call to put river herring and shad in the same fishery management plan as mackerel, squid and butterfish was voted down by the Mid-Atlantic Marine Fisheries Council.
Incidental bycatches in ocean trawl fisheries was a main reason behind the consideration, but the council will stick with a plan already in place for dealing with it.
American shad, hickory shad, alewife and blueback herring — a quartet of anadromous fish that are at historic low population levels — often mix with mackerel in the ocean.
They get scooped up incidentally in commercial trawl nets meant for mackerel. The MAMFC said the amount may be substantial enough to negatively impact their populations.
The plan had the support of many sport fishermen, environmental and conservation groups on the Eastern seaboard who said the it would’ve led to more aggressive stewardship on the species.
AL BURCH: Governor should recognize value of Alaska groundfish industry
July 25, 2016 — My brother and I were some of the pioneers of the trawl fishery here in Kodiak. We started from scratch when the United States claimed a 200-mile zone. I remember the foreign fleets off our shores, and once they were replaced by U.S. vessels like ours, I remember how the trawl fishery for pollock and cod helped put the town back on its feet after the collapse of the crab and shrimp fisheries in the late 1970s. I am proud of the fact that the fishery I helped pioneer now supports a year-round fishing economy here in Kodiak.
Although I am retired now, I continue to follow how the fishery is run. And I am concerned.
In the past, when we were struggling to build the fishery, the state of Alaska was on our side. We worked hard together to build a fishery that was managed by scientific principles and research, with no overfishing. We pioneered putting observers on U.S. vessels, and unlike a lot of other fisheries here in Alaska we have had observers for roughly 30 years. We worked alongside the state and the North Pacific Fishery Management Council to meet conservation and management challenges together, to ensure practical solutions that ensured an economically sustainable fishery for Kodiak and other Alaska coastal towns.
But now it seems that the state of Alaska is not concerned about the impacts of its decisions on the hard-working participants in this fishery and communities like mine that are dependent on groundfish.
Commercial fishermen: Net ban would destroy N.C. seafood industry
May 23, 2016 — A state House bill first introduced 16 years ago has been resurrected that would ban the use of large trawling nets in state waters, a move that the commercial fishing industry says could destroy the livelihood for most North Carolina fishermen.
New Bern native Billy Richardson, D-Cumberland, filed a bill that would let voters decide whether to outlaw gill and certain other nets in all state coastal waters. If the N.C. General Assembly supports House Bill 1122, the binding referendum would be on the November election ballot.
“It would be the end of North Carolina’s (commercial) fishery,” said Wayne Dunbar, a waterman for nearly 40 years, located in Pamlico County’s Paradise Shores on Lower Broad Creek, leading into the Pamlico Sound. “People that don’t fish wouldn’t get North Carolina seafood.”
Dunbar said this time of the year most of the fishermen trawl inland waters for speckled trout, flounder, spot, croakers and menhaden. On a typical day, he will go out in his small boat with 300 yards of net and fill a fish box with about 300 pounds of seafood.
Dunbar, who studied fish and wildlife management at Wayne Community College, said a net ban also would be devastating to the crab industry, the largest of the state’s fisheries.
The bait includes menhaden and other fish caught in nets.
Helping Fishermen Catch What They Want, and Nothing Else
May 3, 2016 — Heather Goldstone, of NPR affiliates WGBH and WCAI, discusses bycatch reduction in fisheries on a recent episode of “Living Lab.” Her guests were veteran gear designer Ron Smolowitz of the Coonamessett Farm Foundation, who has worked with the southern New England scallop industry; Steve Eayrs, a research scientist at Gulf of Maine Research Institute, who has worked with groundfishermen in Maine; and Tim Werner, a senior scientist with the New England Aquarium, who put acoustic pingers on gill nets to warn away dolphins. An excerpt from the segment is reproduced below:
It’s the holy grail of commercial fishing: catch just the right amount of just the right size of just the right species, without damage to the physical environment. It’s a tall order, and few fisheries are there yet.
Leaving aside the issue of straight up over-fishing, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that, each year, fishermen around the world accidentally catch more than seven million tons of marine life – everything from whales and turtles, to sea cucumbers – that they weren’t even after. Such by-catch, as it’s known, is essentially collateral damage.
And fishing has other environmental impacts. In some parts of the ocean, the scars left by trawls dragged across the sea floor can be seen for years.
But, it doesn’t have to be that way. Over the past decade or so, a lot of effort has gone into designing fishing gear and related equipment that allows fishermen to catch more of what they do want, and less of what they don’t, while also minimizing damage to the environment. For example:
- Veteran gear designer Ron Smolowitz and the Coonamessett Farm Foundation have worked with the southern New England scallop industry over the past several years to develop a trawl that excludes loggerhead sea turtles. It turns out, it’s also better at capturing scallops, with the end result that scallopers can use smaller areas and less fuel – 75% less – to make their catch.