Are “Strongly Protected” MPAs the Future of Ocean Conservation?

A new paper in science by Jane Lubchenco and Kirsten Grorud-Colvert discusses the recent progress and advocates for creating and enforcing “strongly protected” marine protected areas (MPAs). For the purposes of this paper, strongly protected MPAs are those that restrict all commercial activity and allow only light recreational or subsistence fishing. Today only 3.5% of the ocean is protected but only 1.6% is strongly protected. The 10% protection goal for coastal marine areas by 2020 decided recently at the Convention on Biological Diversity is too loosely defined and should be specific to strongly protected MPAs or marine reserves. However it should be noted that significant progress has been made in establishing more strongly protected MPAs in the past decade, which, “reflects increasingly strong scientific evidence about the social, economic and environmental benefits of full protection.”

The authors highlight seven key findings suggesting that such MPAs are indeed needed in a greater percentage of global oceans. Successful MPA programs must be integrated across political boundaries but also with the ecosystems they assist – an ecosystem-based management approach is essential. Engaging users almost always improves outcomes. MPAs may improve resilience to future effects of climate change, but there is no question that, “Full protection works,” such that primary ecological goals are almost always met with strongly protected MPAs.In conclusion, six political recommendations are outlined. An integrated approach is equally important in the political balance for successful MPAs – other management schemes must be considered and dynamic planning is most effective in preparation for changing ecological systems. There is no one-size-fits-all method for MPAs. Top-down or bottom-up approaches have been successful and to determine the right strategy stakeholders should always be involved in the process. Perhaps most importantly, user incentives need to be changed in order to alleviate the economic trauma of short-term losers.

Comment by Robert Kearney, Emeritus Professor,  University of Canberra

Lubchenco and Grorud-Colvert espouse a relationship between the declaration of “totally protected” areas and the science and politics of the provision of ocean protection. However, in the absence of description of the relationship between the threats to oceans and the protection being attempted, coupled with the lack of assessment of the effectiveness of outcomes, the association they assert is unjustified.Ocean protection is indeed an issue of immense global importance. The myriad reports of declines in ocean health confirm that opportunities for policy progress need to be pursued.Assessment of the effectiveness of the “science and politics” in any discipline is dependent on evaluation of outcomes against clearly defined objectives. Unlike politicians, scientists have a responsibility to define objectives and strategies unambiguously. The objective of the provision of “ocean protection” is not immune from this requirement.Dictionaries define ‘protection’ as the action of protecting, with the clear implication (usually stated) that it is the result of action against a real or perceived threat or threats. In the absence of a threat ‘protection’ has no relevance. Evaluation of actual, or even anticipated, outcomes, such as the provision of protection, has little credibility in the absence of evidence-based assessment of cause and effect.Normal scientific process dictates that determination of the appropriate ‘actions of protecting’ would be preceded by determination of the threats to whatever it is that is to be protected. Presumably the interests of efficient provision of protection would be influenced by addressing threats in some priority order, commonly related to the severity of the threat. The effectiveness of the provision of protection should then be based on assessment of the degree to which all threats, or at least those that pose the greatest threat, have been ameliorated.While there is not international agreement on the ordering of the threats to the world’s oceans there is acceptance that they are many. They include: chemical and physical pollution in many forms, ocean warming, increased acidification, sea-level rise, destructive practices and alterations to physical habitats, inadequately regulated fishing and introduced and artificially translocated species. As the priorities for addressing threats are influenced by the perceptions of those informing management the projection of inadequately researched advice, and/or the provision of mis-information, to managers including politicians, are themselves also threats.The Lubchenco and Grorud-Colvert article does not prioritise the many threats to oceans. The authors do, however, unambiguously give selected prominence to the regulation of extraction. Areas are stated to be “fully protected” if extraction is excluded. The primacy they attach to having more areas closed to extraction is confirmed by the signal prominence of their figure depicting “Growing Protection”. Their measure of ‘protection’ is the amount of area claimed as ‘fully protected’, i.e. all extraction is prohibited. This measure is, unfortunately, merely a descriptor of one form of input. It is not a measure of the level of protection (the required outcome) actually provided.When directly addressing interpretation of ‘protection’ the authors lament the ‘loose definition’ provided in the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). They provide as an alternative definition a series of degrees of protection based exclusively on the regulation of levels of extraction from selected areas. Importantly, they assert that areas be considered “fully protected” if there are “no extractive activities allowed”. Several forms of fishing are the only extractions specifically mentioned.There are several fundamental inconsistencies in this basic assertion:

1. Regardless of the absolute priority that might be given to individual threats to oceans there is no doubt that injection into oceans of many anthropogenic outputs (most obviously within the generic category of ‘pollutants’) constitutes great threat. In the light of growing recognition of the impacts of pollution, including the secondary effects on ocean warming and acidification, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, injection directly and indirectly into marine environments should not be considered a lesser threat to total “ocean protection” than extraction from selected areas.
2. Unless all threats are addressed and outcomes demonstrated to be effective an area should not be espoused to be “fully protected”. In the absence of demonstrated amelioration of at least the major threats categorisation as even “strongly protected” is highly questionable.
3. Exclusion of even all fishing (and/or other forms of extraction) from part of an area does not render even that part of the total area ‘fully protected’, even from the impacts of fishing and/or other forms of extraction. Unmanaged fishing and numerous other forms of extraction adjacent to closed areas can significantly impact the contents of those areas and thus the level of ‘protection’ achieved.

Lubchenco and Grorud-Colvert acknowledge that “reserves cannot address all stressors.” They accept the need to “integrate reserves with other management measures” specifically identifying “issues such as bycatch, unsustainable and IUU fishing, climate change and ocean acidification.” Again the prominence they have given to fishing activities confirms bias in their prioritising of threats and objectives. It is surprising that the authors’ recognition that such fundament fishing activities as bycatch and unsustainable fishing will not be adequately addressed by reserves has not shaken their belief that even selected areas will be “totally protected” and effective “ocean protection” provided by regulating extraction.The assertion that even parts of oceans can be “fully protected” by regulating extraction is not consistent with the available evidence. Acceptance of it distracts “the science and politics of ocean protection” away from evidence-based pursuit of amelioration of the real threats to the world’s marine environments.

Robert Kearney is an emeritus professor at the Fisheries Institute for Applied Ecology at the University of Canberra.

---

Read the original post: http://cfooduw.org/ 

Anchovy "collapse" a manufactured 'crisis'

D.B. Pleschner: Anchovy "collapse" a manufactured 'crisis'

Saving Seafood has covered issues related to the various "forage fish" campaigns of the past several years, which have been organized by interest groups in the wake of the Lenfest Report, "Little Fish, Big Impact."  In today's Santa Cruz Sentinal, Diane Pleschner, executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association, addresses a recent campaign regarding anchovy fishing in the Monterey Bay area. In her essay, Ms. Pleschner argues that a controversial recent study is based on outdated samples, ignoring the latest observations.  The Pacific Fishery Management Council votes on the issue later today.The California Wetfish Producers Association is a nonprofit dedicated to research and to promote sustainable wetfish resources. Read the opinion piece in the Santa Cruz Sentinal  SANTA CRUZ, California (November 15, 2015) -- If you follow news about the Monterey Bay, you've undoubtedly heard the recent outcry by environmentalists in the media claiming the anchovy population in California has collapsed and the fishery must be closed immediately. The current controversy stems largely from a study funded by environmental interests that claims an apocalyptic decline of 99 percent of the anchovy population from 1951 to 2011. However, fishermen have seen a surge in anchovies in recent years. Data collected at the near shore Southern California Coastal Ocean Observing System stations and other recent surveys also document a big upswing in anchovy numbers. For example, a 2015 NOAA rockfish cruise report found that "catches of [Pacific sardine and northern anchovy] larvae and pelagic juveniles were the highest ever in the core [Monterey Bay to Point Reyes] and north and still relatively high in the south." Yet the recent study bases its conclusion on outdated historic anchovy egg and larval samples, not recent observation. Outdated data didn't stop extremists from seizing on the study to manufacture an anti-fishing crisis for anchovy where none exists. They're now lobbying the Pacific Fishery Management Council for an emergency closure of the small anchovy fishery in Monterey Bay, saying the current anchovy catch limit of 25,000 metric tons is dangerously high. In reality, anchovy management employs an extremely precautionary approach, capping the allowed harvest at 25 percent of the estimated population. Josh Lindsay, policy analyst for the National Marine Fisheries Service, which enforces the fishing cap, says, "We took the overfishing limit and told the fishing fleet that they could only catch 25,000 metric tons. That's a pretty large buffer built into our management." Wetfish fishermen fish on a complex of species including sardine, mackerel and squid. Anchovy is a small - but important - part of the complex, a fill-in for Monterey fishermen when other species are not available. Environmental extremists ignore the fact the anchovy harvest has totaled less than half the allowed limit in the past two decades. The light effort is one reason why the fisheries service has not formally assessed the species since 1995, focusing limited research dollars on more active fisheries. The big increase in anchovy abundance in nearshore waters in recent years has precipitated a record whale-watching spectacle in Monterey and along the Central Coast. Despite allegations to the contrary, whales and other marine life gorging on anchovies are oblivious to the fishery. In October 2013, for example, Monterrey Bay had record sightings of humpback whales, while fishing vessels caught more than 3,000 tons of anchovy. Consider reports from fishermen: Corbin Hanson, a southern California fisherman, saw a large volume of anchovy show up on the Southern California coast beginning around 2011. "The largest volume of anchovy I've ever seen was running up coast from Point Conception to Monterey this summer - miles of anchovies. ... We couldn't escape them. We drove through hundreds of thousands of tons in one night this summer. Other fishermen saw the same thing I did - whales, birds, seals all gorging on anchovy." Tom Noto has fished in Monterey for more than 30 years, one of only about eight fishermen who fish anchovy in on the edge of Monterey canyon. He says, "Anchovies like to dive deep. Our sonars mark anchovy in on the edge of Monterey canyon. He says, "Anchovies like to dive deep. Our sonars mark schools that are hundreds of feet thick, but our nets just skim the surface of these schools. ... They're are everywhere, but we only fish them in Monterey Bay." Fisherman Neil Guglielmo told the Santa Cruz Sentinel, "I've been fishing anchovies since 1959, and I don't see any problem with the anchovies for the whales. ... The [claim] that we're scaring whales or catching their food source is ridiculous." When the Pacific Fishery Management Council convenes Nov. 15, to discuss anchovy, we hope sanity and best available common sense will prevail, in addition to "best available science." Council members need to incorporate evidence of recent anchovy (and sardine) recruitment into future management decisions.

Letters: Plentiful anchovies far from collapse

Plentiful anchovies far from collapseI’ve been fishing for more than 50 years up and down the West Coast and I’m shocked at all the hysterical claims I’ve read in the media recently about the anchovy “collapse.” Much of the hype stemmed from an anchovy study still in peer review, but the truth of the matter is that its conclusions are disastrously wrong!I’m one of a handful of fishermen who fish anchovy in Monterey. I’m on the water nearly every day and I’ve seen a big surge in the anchovy population in recent years. Anchovies now stretch from the “pinheads” fishermen see in Southern California all the way up the coast past Half Moon Bay, where a large group of whales was recently spotted feeding on anchovies.Our fishery simply skims the surface of anchovy schools that often run hundreds of feet deep. The allowed anchovy harvest is limited at 25,000 tons, leaving 75 percent of the biomass in the ocean as forage. Bottom line: There are plenty of anchovies in the sea.I hope sanity prevails when the Pacific Council meets to decide the fate of the few Monterey fishermen who need to fish anchovy to pay our bills.— Aniello Guglielmo, Camarillo

---

Published: http://www.montereyherald.com/opinion/

Letters, Nov. 12, 2015: Anchovy population has not collapsed

Anchovy population has not collapsedI’ve been fishing in Monterey and along the West Coast for more than 30 years and I’m one of only about eight fishermen who fish anchovy in Monterey Bay. I’m shocked at the recent outcry in the media that claims the anchovy population has collapsed!Environmentalists who are calling for the immediate closure of our local anchovy fishery are basing their claims on a flawed study that deliberately omits data from recent years showing a huge upswing in the anchovy population.Our sonars mark schools that are hundreds of feet thick, but our nets just skim the surface of these schools. Fishermen up and down the coast are seeing the same thing: anchovies are everywhere.It’s time to stop pointing fingers at fishermen and get out and see what’s really going on in the ocean.— Tom Noto, Salinas

---

Published: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com

Ray Hilborn: NGO Approach to Seafood Sustainability has lost its way, putting money over Science

— Posted with permission of SEAFOODNEWS.COM. Please do not republish without their permission. —

Copyright © 2015 Seafoodnews.com

---

SEAFOODNEWS.COM by Ray Hilborn October 26, 2015

Ray Hillborn posted the following comment on the new Cfood  - Science of Fisheries Sustainability website. He is responding to the recent Criticism of the GSSI tool by the World Wildlife Federation (WWF) which was one of the developers of the tool, but seems to see a conflict between its role as an NGO and its role in supporting science.

Where is the science in seafood sustainability and certification?It is about money and values – science has been largely lost.

Seafood sustainability is again in the news as the Global Seafood Sustainability Initiative (GSSI) released its tool for evaluating the sustainability of fisheries. The GSSI tool has drawn immediate criticism from World Wildlife Fund (WWF) as they recently published an article titled, “GSSI compliance does not indicate sustainability certification, WWF warns.” This is an interesting development since WWF is on the board of GSSI.

GSSI is intended to provide an agreed standard for the wide range of certification and seafood labeling schemes. As their web site says “GSSI is a global platform and partnership of seafood companies, NGOs, experts, governmental and intergovernmental organizations working towards more sustainable seafood for everyone.” So who is right in this case, does the GSSI benchmarking tool tell you if a fishery is sustainable?At its core, seafood sustainability is about the ability to produce food from the sea in the long term. Are the fishery and its management system operated in such a way that our grandchildren can still enjoy the same production from the fishery (subject to the constraints of external factors such as climate change) as we do today?The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, whose objective is food security, has been a big supporter of GSSI. For FAO, sustainability is about continued food production. During the 1990s when overfishing in developed countries was at its height, many retailers supported seafood certification because they wanted to have products to sell in the future … again a focus on food sustainability.However, environmental NGOs such as WWF are interested less in food sustainability, and more in reducing the environmental impacts of fishing, whether that be catch of non-target species like sharks, or impacts of fishing gear on the seafloor. Consequently, WWF has been a strong supporter of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which is the leading certification scheme for sustainable fisheries. The MSC standard covers much more than sustainable food production and sets a high bar for environmental impacts of fishing. Yet environmental NGOs, including some national chapters of WWF, reject MSC certification because they feel the environmental standards in MSC are not high enough.Due to the support of a broad range of diverse stakeholders, GSSI is a potential challenger to the MSC as the premier standard of what fish species are sustainably fished. If the GSSI standards are widely accepted, competitors to MSC that have a lower standard may be accepted by retailers as defining sustainability. Currently, consumer and retailers face a broad range of conflicting seafood advice. Once the criteria moves beyond just the sustainability of the fishery to include environmental impacts, things become confusing as there are so many different types of impacts with no consensus on which ones are more important than others. This is where fisheries certification moves from the arena of science, to one of values.For consumers and retailers, all the conflicting seafood advice is confusing. Take pollock from Alaska, the largest fishery in the US. This fishery is MSC certified, yet the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch does not rate it as a top choice, but as a “good alternative.” Greenpeace puts pollock on its red list.Equally interesting is the conflict within the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch itself. Skipjack tuna is one of the largest fisheries in the world and provides most of the world’s canned tuna. Skipjack from the western Pacific are red (Avoid), yellow (Good Alternative) and green (Best Choice) on the Seafood Watch guide, depending on how they are caught. Purse seine fishing has by-catch of many species and is thus red, while pole-and-line fishing has less by-catch and is green. However, purse seining has a much lower carbon footprint than pole-and-line fishing. Seafood Watch is valuing by-catch more than carbon footprint.There is a major role for science in seafood sustainability. Science can determine if the management of a fishery will lead to long-term sustainability of food production. Science can also evaluate the environmental impacts of a fishery. However, science cannot tell you what environmental impacts are valued – that is a question of individual choice or public policy.So where does this leave consumers, retailers and the rest of us interested in fish as food?The answer is confusing and will likely remain so. GSSI was seen as a hope to sort out the conflicts in seafood labelling – given the WWF response it doesn’t seem likely it will do so.The most interesting development in seafood sustainability is the force driving certification, and — spoiler alert — it isn’t consumers. Not too many people buy their fish based on sustainability ratings. Retailers, like your neighborhood Whole Foods, Costco or Safeway, do not want the media on their backs or an environmental NGO picketing their store for selling unsustainably harvested fish; they would rather be seen as supporting sustainable fishing to avoid negative press. They consider seafood certification that is backed by key NGOs like WWF as their protection. The next logical step for retailers is formal partnership agreements with the relevant NGO to advise them on what fish products to sell and to pay for this service.This is a dangerous development because the seafood certification turned partnership becomes a secure funding source for the NGO. Tim Wilson, in his 2012 paper, called this relationship between “friendly” NGOs that provide cover from “hostile” NGOs that might picket a retailer “naked extortion.” If, however, initiatives like GSSI were to be widely accepted, those steady sources of funds will dry up.Moreover, it is in the nature of NGOs to raise money to fund their activities; alarmist appeals to stop fisheries collapses continue to bring in the big bucks. News of fisheries successes might, at best, raise an indifferent, “meh.”I know of many private conversations where quite reasonable NGO staff admit the need to find new crises to keep donations flowing. It’s no wonder then, that no matter how well fisheries are actually performing, the bar must be raised again and again to maintain the story that fisheries are failing to meet the ever shape-shifting sustainability standards.In the immortal words of Deep Throat — Follow the money! Science, poor beggar, has largely been lost.

---

Subscribe to Seafoodnews.com

Ask Well: Canned vs. Fresh Fish

Credit Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

Q: Does canned fish like tuna and salmon have the same nutritional value as fresh fish?

The canned products are certainly cheaper, available and convenient.

A: Yes, fresh and canned fish have roughly the same nutritional value, according to experts and the United States Department of Agriculture’s National Nutrient Database. And whether to eat one over the other isn’t an obvious choice, because each has advantages and disadvantages, said Alice Lichtenstein, a professor at Tufts University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy.

Canned tends to be cheaper and easier than fresh, with a longer shelf life. But it also tends to have more sodium than fresh, she said, and many people prefer the taste of fresh.

Canned fish is also more likely to be wild than farmed, said Kristin Kirkpatrick, a registered dietitian and manager of nutrition services at the Cleveland Clinic Wellness Institute; some types of farmed fish have been found to be high in pollutants. Plus, canned fish such as sardines generally provide more calcium, because the calcium-rich bones are softened by processing and therefore more likely to be eaten.

In terms of mercury levels, a particular concern for pregnant women, Dr. Lichtenstein said she suspected that canned fish like salmon probably contains less mercury than fresh, because smaller-size fish, which carry less mercury than larger ones, are more likely to end up in cans.

If you choose canned, fish canned in oil is more likely than fish packed in water to retain more omega-3 fatty acids, considered good brain food, Ms. Kirkpatrick said, because the oil helps keep the nutrients in the fish. Oil adds extra calories, but if packing in oil means someone will eat fish they wouldn’t otherwise, it’s worth it, Dr. Lichtenstein said.

“Bottom line,” Ms. Kirkpatrick said, “it’s important to get your omega-3s, and one of the easiest and most affordable ways to do that is to go canned. You won’t be skimping on nutrition.”

Do you have a health question? Submit your question to Ask Well.

---

Read the original post: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com

Researchers Keep Missing Picture on Sardines, Where there is a 1400 Year History of Boom and Bust

— Posted with permission of SEAFOODNEWS.COM. Please do not republish without their permission. —

Copyright © 2015 Seafoodnews.com

---

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.

(Click on Image for larger Version)

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.

---

Copyright © 2015 Seafoodnews.com

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