Fisheries Management Is Actually Working, Global Analysis Shows
Increasing fish stocks around the world give credibility to strong management and the importance of fisheries data
Story modified from the original press release issued by the University of Washington
Nearly half of the fish caught worldwide are from stocks that are scientifically monitored and, on average, these stocks are increasing in abundance. According to a new global analysis, effective management appears to be the main reason these stocks are at sustainable levels or rebuilding successfully.The analysis, which incorporated fisheries data from around the world, was conducted by an international research team supported by the Science for Nature and People Partnership. Their results were published January 13th in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.The results show that fisheries management works when applied, and the solution for sustaining fisheries around the world is implementing effective fisheries management, the authors explained."There is a narrative that fish stocks are declining around the world, that fisheries management is failing and we need new solutions — and it’s totally wrong," said lead author Ray Hilborn, a professor in the University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences. "Fish stocks are increasing in many places, and we already know how to solve problems through effective fisheries management."The project builds on a decade-long international collaboration to assemble estimates of the status of fish stocks — or distinct populations of fish — around the world, from Peru to the Mediterranean, and to Japan. This information helps scientists and managers know where overfishing is occurring or where some areas could support even more fishing.The team's database includes information on nearly half of the world's fish catch, or about 880 fish stocks, providing perhaps the most comprehensive picture worldwide of the health and status of fish populations."The key is we want to know how well we are doing, where we need to improve, and what the problems are," Hilborn said.By pairing information about fish stocks with recently published data on fisheries management activities in about 30 countries, the researchers found that more intense management led to healthy or improving fish stocks, while little to no management led to overfishing and poor stock status."With these data, we could test whether fisheries management allows stocks to recover. We found that, emphatically, the answer is yes," said co-author Christopher Costello, a professor of environmental and resource economics at University of California, Santa Barbara, and a board member with Environmental Defense Fund. "This gives credibility to the fishery managers and governments around the world that are willing to take strong actions."To be successful, management should be tailored to fit the characteristics of the different fisheries and the needs of specific countries and regions. The main goal should be to reduce the total fishing pressure when it is too high, and find ways to incentivize fishing fleets to value healthy fish stocks."There isn't really a one-size-fits-all management approach," Costello said. "We need to design the way we manage fisheries so that fishermen around the world have a long-term stake in the health of the ocean."Still, there are data-deficient areas of the world. Scientific estimates of the status of most fish stocks in South Asia and Southeast Asia are not available, and fisheries in India, Indonesia and China alone represent 30% to 40% of the world's fish catch that is essentially unassessed."There are still big gaps in the data and these gaps are more difficult to fill," said co-author Ana Parma, a principal scientist at Argentina's National Scientific and Technical Research Council and a member of The Nature Conservancy global board. "This is because the available information on smaller fisheries is more scattered, has not been standardized and is harder to collate, or because fisheries in many regions are not regularly monitored."Hilborn and collaborators recently presented this work at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations' International Symposium on Fisheries Sustainability in Rome.Other co-authors are from University of Victoria, University of Cape Town, National Institute of Fisheries Research (Morocco), Rutgers University, Seikai National Fisheries Research Institute Japan, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Fisheries New Zealand, Wildlife Conservation Society, Marine and Freshwater Research Center (Argentina), European Commission, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology, Center for the Study of Marine Systems, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, The Nature Conservancy, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.The research was funded by the Science for Nature and People Partnership (SNAPP), a collaboration between the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis at UC Santa Barbara, The Nature Conservancy, and Wildlife Conservation Society. Individual authors received funding from The Nature Conservancy, The Wildlife Conservation Society, the Walton Family Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, the Richard C. and Lois M. Worthington Endowed Professorship in Fisheries Management and donations from 12 fishing companies.
Original post: https://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/
Fish Stocks Are Declining Worldwide, And Climate Change Is on the Hook
For anyone paying attention, it’s no secret there’s a lot of weird stuff going on in the oceans right now. We’ve got a monster El Niño looming in the Pacific. Ocean acidification is prompting handwringing among oyster lovers. Migrating fish populations have caused tensions between countries over fishing rights. And fishermen say they’re seeing unusual patterns in fish stocks they haven’t seen before.Researchers now have more grim news to add to the mix. An analysis published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that the ability of fish populations to reproduce and replenish themselves is declining across the globe.“This, as far as we know, is the first global-scale study that documents the actual productivity of fish stocks is in decline,” says lead author Gregory L. Britten, a doctoral student at the University of California, Irvine.Britten and some fellow researchers looked at data from a global database of 262 commercial fish stocks in dozens of large marine ecosystems across the globe. They say they’ve identified a pattern of decline in juvenile fish (young fish that have not yet reached reproductive age) that is closely tied to a decline in the amount of phytoplankton, or microalgae, in the water.“We think it is a lack of food availability for these small fish,” says Britten. “When fish are young, their primary food is phytoplankton and microscopic animals. If they don’t find food in a matter of days, they can die.”The worst news comes from the North Atlantic, where the vast majority of species, including Atlantic cod, European and American plaice, and sole are declining. In this case, Britten says historically heavy fishing may also play a role. Large fish, able to produce the biggest, most robust eggs, are harvested from the water. At the same time, documented declines of phytoplankton made it much more difficult for those fish stocks to bounce back when they did reproduce, despite aggressive fishery management efforts, says Britten.When the researchers looked at plankton and fish reproduction declines in individual ecosystems, the results varied. In the North Pacific — for example, the Gulf of Alaska — there were no significant declines. But in other regions of the world, like Australia and South America, it was clear that the lack of phytoplankton was the strongest driver in diminishing fish populations.“When you averaged globally, there was a decline,” says Britten. “Decline in phytoplankton was a factor in all species. It was a consistent variable.”And it’s directly linked to climate change: Change in ocean temperature affects the phytoplankton population, which is impacting fish stocks, he says.Food sources for fish in their larval stage were also a focus of research published earlier this summer by Rebecca Asch, now a postdoctoral research associate at Princeton University. Asch studied data from 1951 to 2008 on 43 species of fish collected off the Southern California coast and found that many fish have changed the season when they spawn. When fish spawned too early or too late in the season, there can be less plankton available to them, shrinking their chance of survival. She calls it a “mismatch” between when the fish spawn and when seasonal plankton blooms.Knowing just how vulnerable our fisheries are to potential climate change is on the radar of NOAA Fisheries. The agency has put together a Fish Stock Climate Vulnerability Assessment report expected to be released in early 2016. And like many things associated with climate change, there will be winners and losers.Jon Hare is the oceanography branch chief for NOAA Fisheries’ Northeast Fisheries Science Center and a lead researcher on the agency’s assessment. He says they looked at 82 fish and invertebrate species in the Northeast. About half of the species, including Atlantic cod, were determined to be negatively impacted by climate change in the Northeast U.S. Approximately 20 percent of the species are likely to be positively impacted — like the Atlantic croaker. The remainder species were considered neutral.Similar assessments are underway in the California Current and the Bering Sea, and eventually in all of the nation’s large marine ecosystems.“This is where the idea of ecosystem-based management comes in. It’s not only fishing that is impacting these resources,” says Hare. “We need to take a more holistic view of these resources and include that in our management.”Britten says the fact that productivity of a fishery can change should be an eye-opener for fisheries management.“It’s no longer just pull back on fishing and watch the stock rebound. It’s also a question of monitoring and understanding the ability of stocks to rebound, and that’s what we demonstrated in this study. The rebound potential is affected as well,” says Britten.
Original story: www.npr.org/ Copyright 2015 NPR.
D.B. PLESCHNER: Recent Fishery Study Debunked by 1,400 Years of Data
September 2, 2015 — The following op-ed by D.B. Pleschner was submitted to Saving Seafood:In an article in International Business Times (August 5, 2015), Aditya Tejas quoted researcher Malin Pinsky in his recently published paper that claims smaller, faster-growing fish like sardines and anchovies are more vulnerable to population collapses than larger fish.“Climate variations or natural boom-and-bust cycles contribute to population fluctuation in small fast-growing fish,” Pinsky said, “but when they are not overfished, our data showed that their populations didn’t have any more tendency to collapse than other fish.” He called these findings counterintuitive because the opposite dynamic holds true on land: “Mice thrive while lions, tigers and elephants are endangered,” he said.While it’s common these days to blame the ocean’s woes on overfishing, the truth is Pinsky’s conclusions don’t paint a complete picture. Fortunately, we do have an accurate picture and it’s definitely better than the proverbial thousand words.The picture is a graph (adapted from Baumgartner et al in CalCOFI Reports 1992, attached) that shows sardine booms and busts for the past 1,400 years. The data were extracted from an anaerobic trench in the Santa Barbara Channel which correlated sardine and anchovy recoveries and collapses with oceanic cycles.
It’s important to note that most of sardine collapses in this timeframe occurred when there was virtually no commercial fishing. The best science now attributes great fluctuations and collapses experienced by sardines to be part of a natural cycle.“Pinsky has never been a terrestrial biologist or naturalist or he would have known that small rodents have boom and bust cycles brought about by combinations of environmental conditions and the mice’s early maturity and high fecundity rates,” says Dr. Richard Parrish, an expert in population dynamics now retired from the National Marine Fisheries Service, .“All fish stocks show boom and bust cycles in recruitment unrelated to fishing,” says Dr. Ray Hilborn, internationally respected fisheries scientist from the University of Washington. “Sardines in particular have been shown to have very great fluctuations and collapses long before commercial fishing. Fast growing, short-lived species will be much more likely to decline to a level called “collapse” when recruitment fluctuates because they are short lived — longer lived species won’t decline as much.”As a further poke in the eye to the truth, Pinsky cites sardines off the coast of Southern California as a species that has seen fluctuations for thousands of years, but “not at the levels that they’ve experienced in recent decades due to overfishing.”Again, this simply is not true.Since the fishery reopened in 1987, Pacific sardines have been perhaps the best-managed fishery in the world – the poster fish for effective ecosystem-based management. The current harvest control rule, updated to be even more precautionary in 2014, sets a strict harvest guideline that considers ocean conditions and automatically reduces the catch limit as the biomass declines.If the temperature is cold – which scientists believe hampers sardine recruitment – the harvest is reduced. And if the population size declines, both the harvest rate and the allowable catch will automatically decrease, and directed fishing will be stopped entirely when biomass declines below 150,000 mt.In fact, the current sardine harvest rule is actually more precautionary than the original rule it replaced. It does this by producing an average long-term population size at 75 percent of the unfished size, leaving even more fish in the water, vs. 67 percent in the original rule. The original harvest rule reduced the minimum harvest rate to 5 percent during cold periods. The present has a minimum rate of 0 percent during cold periods.Compare this to the 1940s and ’50s when the fishery harvest averaged 43 percent or more of the standing sardine stock with little regulatory oversight and no limit on the annual catch. This, coupled with unfavorable ocean conditions, culminated in the historic sardine fishery collapse that devastated Monterey’s Cannery Row.But that was nearly 70 years ago, not “recent decades.” Our current fishery harvest is less than a quarter of the rate observed during that historical sardine collapse.As a scientist, Pinsky should be aware of the complex, proactive management efforts that have been in place for decades to prevent overfishing in California and the west coast. He should also be aware of the data from Baumgartner that contradicts his faulty conclusions.D.B. Pleschner is executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association, a nonprofit dedicated to research and to promote sustainable Wetfish resources.
Read the original post: www.savingseafood.org
Letters: Grossman Article on Reasons for Sardine Decline Inaccurate
— Posted with permission of SEAFOODNEWS.COM. Please do not republish without their permission. —
SEAFOODNEWS.COM [Letters] - June 23, 2015Editor’s Note: The following letter from D.B. Pleschner was reviewed and supported by Mike Okoniewski of Pacific Seafoods.To the Editor: I take exception to your statement: "The author of this piece, Elizabeth Grossman, buys into the argument, but in a fair article.”In no way was this “fair” reporting. She selectively quotes (essentially misquotes) both Mike Okoniewski and me (and this after I spent more than an hour with her on the phone, and shared with her the statements of Ray Hilborn, assessment author Kevin Hill and other noted scientists.) She does not balance the article but rather fails to emphasize the NOAA best science in favor of the Demer-Zwolinski paper, published in NAS by NOAA scientists who did not follow protocol for internal review before submitting to NAS (which would have caught many misstatements before they saw print).NOAA’s Alec MacCall later printed a clarification (in essence a rebuttal) in NAS, which pointed out the errors and stated that the conclusions in the Demer paper were “one man’s opinion”.Oceana especially has widely touted that paper, notwithstanding the fact that the SWFSC Center Director also needed to testify before the PFMC twice, stating that the paper’s findings did not represent NOAA’s scientific thinking.After the Oceana brouhaha following the sardine fishery closure, NOAA Assistant Administrator Eileen Sobeck issued a statement. SWFSC Director Cisco Werner wrote to us in response to our request to submit Eileen’s statement to the Yale and Food & Environment Reporting Network to set the record straight:“The statement from the NMFS Assistant Administrator (Eileen Sobeck) was clear about what the agency's best science has put forward regarding the decline in the Pacific Sardine population. Namely, without continued successful recruitment, the population of any spp. will decline - irrespective of imposed management strategies.”It is also important to note that we are working closely with the SWFSC and have worked collaboratively whenever possible.I would greatly appreciate it if you would again post Sobeck’s statement to counter the inaccurate implications and misstatements in Elizabeth Grossman’s piece.Diane Pleschner-SteeleCalifornia Wet Fish Producers AssociationPS: I also informed Elizabeth Grossman when we talked that our coastal waters are now teeming with both sardines and anchovy, which the scientific surveys have been unable to document because the research ships survey offshore and the fish are inshore.Sobeck’s statement follows:Researchers, Managers, and Industry Saw This Coming: Boom-Bust Cycle Is Not a New Scenario for Pacific SardinesA Message from Eileen Sobeck, Head of NOAA FisheriesApri 23, 2015Pacific sardines have a long and storied history in the United States. These pint-size powerhouses of the ocean have been -- on and off -- one of our most abundant fisheries. They support the larger ecosystem as a food source for other marine creatures, and they support a valuable commercial fishery.When conditions are good, this small, highly productive species multiplies quickly. It can also decline sharply at other times, even in the absence of fishing. So it is known for wide swings in its population.Recently, NOAA Fisheries and the Pacific Fishery Management Council received scientific information as a part of the ongoing study and annual assessment of this species. This information showed the sardine population had continued to decline.It was not a surprise. Scientists, the Council, NOAA, and the industry were all aware of the downward trend over the past several years and have been following it carefully. Last week, the Council urged us to close the directed fishery on sardines for the 2015 fishing season. NOAA Fisheries is also closing the fishery now for the remainder of the current fishing season to ensure the quota is not exceeded.While these closures affect the fishing community, they also provide an example of our effective, dynamic fishery management process in action. Sardine fisheries management is designed around the natural variability of the species and its role in the ecosystem as forage for other species. It is driven by science and data, and catch levels are set far below levels needed to prevent overfishing.In addition, a precautionary measure is built into sardine management to stop directed fishing when the population falls below 150,000 metric tons. The 2015 stock assessment resulted in a population estimate of 97,000 metric tons, below the fishing cutoff, thereby triggering the Council action.The sardine population is presently not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. However, the continued lack of recruitment of young fish into the stock in the past few years would have decreased the population, even without fishing pressure. So, these closures were a “controlled landing”. We saw where this stock was heading several years ago and everyone was monitoring the situation closely.This decline is a part of the natural cycle in the marine environment. And if there is a new piece to this puzzle -- such as climate change -- we will continue to work closely with our partners in the scientific and management communities, the industry, and fishermen to address it. Read/Download Elizabeth Grossman's article: Some Scientists and NGO’s Argue West Coast Sardine Closure was too Late
Subscribe to seafoodnews.com
West Coast Fish Species Recovers Decades Ahead Of Schedule
Fishery managers say canary rockfish have recovered from being overfished decades ahead of schedule.
Fishery managers say two valuable West Coast groundfish have recovered ahead of schedule: canary rockfish and petrale sole.That's good news for the fishing industry. The fleet has been restricted from catching healthy stocks of fish that swim alongside these protected species at the bottom of the ocean.For more than a decade, canary rockfish have been what's considered a "choke" species. That is, protecting them choked off fishing access to other valuable species like Dover sole and black cod.There were so few canaries left, no one was allowed to catch very many, according to John DeVore, a groundfish manager with the Pacific Fishery Management Council. Assessments in 2000 found the canary rockfish population was down to 6.6 percent of the "unfished biomass" or what it was estimated to be before people started fishing it. It was hard to catch other fish at the bottom of the ocean without the risk of also catching a canary."It really affected our fisheries as dramatically as any species ever has," he said. "These fish tend to be found in lots of different places. A lot of our conservation management measures were affected by canary rockfish."Efforts to rebuild canary rockfish led managers to close entire sections of the ocean to fishing. They also contributed to a total redesign of the commercial trawl fishery. The new fishery gives fishing boats ownership shares of the available catch. It's designed to give fishers a financial incentive to avoid protected species like canary rockfish. The latest assessment shows canary rockfish have increased by roughly sixfold since 2000.Managers didn't expect the canaries to rebound until 2057. So, they're way ahead of schedule. Another valuable ground fish, petrale sole, was declared overfished five years ago. And stock assessments show it's already rebuilt as well.Other species, including yelloweye rockfish, are still considered overfished. But fishermen say they're looking forward to having fewer restrictions and higher catch limits now that two key species have been restored.Brad Pettinger, director of the Oregon Trawl Commission, said at one point the canary rockfish catch limit for the entire West Coast was just 40 tons while the limits for other species were 10,000-20,000 tons. If the fleet caught too many canaries while targeting other fish, the entire fishery would be shut down."We used to catch 400,000 tons of canary rockfish back in the heyday," he said. "It's not like we want to go out and catch that many as soon as it's rebuilt, but this should open up a lot of opportunity to catch other fish. It is good news, and we're darn thankful."The process of protecting and rebuilding overfished stocks has taken a big toll on the number of groundfish boats in operation on the West Coast. Before 1994, Pettinger said, there were 500 trawl vessels catching groundfish. Now, he said, the fleet is down to about 70 boats coastwide.
Read the original post: http://kuow.org
Why Is This Fisherman Selling Threatened Bluefin Tuna For $2.99 A Pound?
By Clare Leschin-Hoar
Twenty minutes before the San Diego Tuna Harbor Dockside Market was set to open, the line was 75 people deep and starting to curl past the pier. The crowd here last Saturday didn't come for the local sand dabs or trap-caught black cod. They were bargain hunters looking to score freshly caught, whole Pacific bluefin tuna for the unbelievably low price of only $2.99 a pound.That's less per pound for this fish — a delicacy prized for its fatty flesh, whose numbers are rapidly dwindling — than the cost of sliced turkey meat at a supermarket deli.It's a low price that doesn't reflect the true state of Pacific bluefin: Scientists and environmentalists say the species is in deep trouble. According to population estimates, stocks of Pacific bluefin tuna are at historic lows, down 96 percent from the levels they'd be at if they weren't fished.But commercial fishermen like David Haworth, who brought this pile of small, steely gray bluefin to market, say that assessment doesn't match up with what they're seeing in the water: a record-smashing abundance of Pacific bluefin tuna."Our spotter pilots that have been fishing with us for up to 40 years here say they're seeing the most bluefin they've ever seen in their lifetimes, and our government is not documenting any of it," says Haworth.Haworth, 52, is the last purse-seine tuna fisherman in San Diego — a city once heralded as the tuna capital of the world. Making a living isn't easy for commercial fishermen like Haworth. For much of the year he fishes for squid, but El Nino patterns have changed fishery patterns, making squid harder to find. And forget about the sardine fishery — crashing stocks have triggered its closure until 2016.At the same time, warmer ocean conditions have brought an abundance of bluefin tuna into the region, shifting Haworth's focus.Historically, he says, "there was never really a quota on bluefin, and we could go out and catch plenty and sell them. Or we could catch sardines, or mackerel, so we'd have something to do when [ocean] conditions changed" or when the species that Haworth depended on for his income became less reliable. "Now, we're just so restricted."Bluefin tuna has long been listed as a species to "avoid" by influential groups like the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program. It's a warning that many seem to have taken to heart. And it means the higher prices fishermen like Haworth used to count on for bluefin are no longer a sure thing.Haworth says wholesalers who used to clamor for his bluefin now pass on it, preferring yellowfin tuna instead. Supermarkets and chefs that once eagerly purchased bluefin have pledged not to carry it. Fellow San Diego fisherman Tory Becker tried to sell some of Haworth's bluefin tuna at a local farmers market last week and was publicly scolded by a customer.Haworth says that the buyer he had originally lined up for his haul backed out of the sale, then later offered him a mere $1-$2 a pound — too low for him to break even. Instead, he took his catch and headed for San Diego's fledgling fishers market to sell directly to local foodies."If you have a 30-pound fish, and you're selling it to a consumer for $2.99 a pound, it's $90 for one fish. I was trying to get to the price point where we're going to make decent money, but one where every family could come down and grab a fish if they want one," says Haworth.But the bounty of bluefin that California fishermen like Haworth report seeing is not what it seems, scientists say."It's a very difficult task to count animals as elusive as tuna," says Craig Heberer, the West Coast regional coordinator for recreational fisheries for NOAA Fisheries. "The increase in the number of bluefin spotted by Southern California fishermen likely [reflects] a change in the percentage of migrating fish, not the overall population numbers."Pacific bluefin off the coast of California and Mexico aren't counted in current stock assessments. That's because spawning grounds for Pacific bluefin are located in the western Pacific Ocean, near Japan. Some, but not all, of those fish then migrate to the U.S. West Coast and Mexico to feed. Counting them where they spawn, rather than where only a portion of them migrate, is how regulators say they get the most accurate information.The migration to the U.S. side of the Pacific happens when bluefin are between 1 and 3 years old, which also explains why the tuna Haworth caught were so small — just 20 to 30 pounds each. They're technically still juveniles that haven't had the opportunity to reproduce and help replenish bluefin numbers. Mature Pacific bluefin can reach 1,200 pounds, and don't typically reproduce until they're closer to 5 years old. By that point, they would have already migrated back to their spawning grounds on the other side of the Pacific.Theresa Sinicrope Talley, a coastal specialist with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, says local fishermen like Haworth are simply catching what's plentiful and pricing it to local demand."They're trying to make this business work. They're aware," she says. "They don't want to harm the environment, either — their livelihood depends upon it.""From their perspective," she says, "they're abiding by the law."In recent years, Haworth and other commercial fisherman in the U.S. have seen the amount of bluefin they're allowed to catch slashed drastically as part of international agreements. Bluefin were once reliably lucrative for Haworth, but the cuts have affected his ability to make a living, he says. And he feels strongly that in the larger scheme of things, the amount of bluefin he catches is so small, it doesn't negatively impact global stocks."Mexico now has a quota of 6,000 metric tons of fish over two years," he notes, while the quota for U.S. commercial fishermen is just a tenth of that. "How could our 600 metric tons not be sustainable, when you think about it in the picture of the whole world? We're only catching 600 tons," says Haworth.Haworth says he often feels villainized by environmental groups for fishing for this vulnerable species. But not everyone blames small fishermen like him for declining stock levels. Some are pointing the finger at the very organizations that oversee bluefin fisheries and set the world's catch limits.
Andre Boustany, a research scientist and bluefin expert at Duke University, faults the agencies that manage the fishery for failing to conduct a full assessment of Pacific bluefin stock until 2012 — "well after massive damage had already been done.""While Pacific bluefin tuna are not currently listed as endangered in the U.S., that could change if the stock maintains its current trajectory. And I say that as a scientist that is most definitely not an alarmist," Boustany says.The Pew Charitable Trusts plans to call for stronger measures to protect Pacific bluefin later this month, when the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission — the agency responsible for setting international catch limits — meets in Ecuador."We would disagree that the quotas, as they are currently set, are sustainable," says Jamie Gibbon, a tuna expert with Pew.But there's still hope for the Pacific bluefin — and for fishermen like Haworth. For years its cousin, the Atlantic bluefin, was also experiencing rapidly declining stocks, garnering lots of headlines and hand-wringing. All that attention now seems to be paying off: This year, for the first time since 2006, stocks are healthy enough that catch quotas were actually increased by 20 percent. Gibbon says it's not too late for the Pacific bluefin, either."This is a population that can recover, and can recover in a relatively short amount of time," he says.
Read the original post: www.kplu.org
Demystifying Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) became a major initiative of resource managers around the world beginning in the 1990s. Unlike traditional management approaches that focused solely on the biology of a particular stock, EBFM provides a more holistic approach to fisheries management – one that takes into account the complex suite of biological, physical, economic, and social factors associated with managing living marine resources.EBFM has continued to evolve over the past 20 years and is now a cornerstone of NOAA Fisheries’ efforts to sustainably manage the nation’s marine resources. But despite substantial progress in the science behind and application of EBFM, a perception remains that the science and governance structures to implement EBFM are lacking, when in fact they have already been resolved in the United States and other developed countries. An April 2015 article in Fisheries took on the important challenge of identifying some of the most common myths that can impede the implementation of EBFM. Here’s a look at some of them.
Myth 1: Marine ecosystem-based management lacks universal terminology, making it difficult to implement.
- Ecosystem approaches to fisheries management (EAFM) focus on a single fisheries stock and include other factors that can influence a stock.
- Ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) focuses on the fisheries sector (multiple fisheries).
- Ecosystem-based management (EBM) focuses on multiple sectors, such as fisheries, ecotourism, and oil and gas exploration.
Myth 2: There's no clear mandate for EBFM.
Myth 3: EBFM requires extensive data and complicated models.
Myth 4: EBFM results will always be conservative and restrictive.
Myth 5: EBFM is a naïve attempt to describe a complex system.
Myth 6: There aren't enough resources to do EBFM.
Dispelling the myths and taking action
These myths have discouraged some managers from even trying EBFM and have prevented them from getting the best available information needed for resource management. Instead of viewing EBFM as a complex management process that requires an overabundance of information, it should be viewed as a framework to help managers work with the information they have and address competing objectives. To learn more about EBFM and how NOAA is implementing it, click here.
Read the original post: www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov
West Coast sardine fishery being shut down
Sardine commercial fishery shutdown: Story and video — www.kionrightnow.com
Includes interviews with CWPA Board members Anthony Russo and David Crabbe.
