LITTLE FISH, BIG INDUSTRY: Proposed Restrictions on the Menhaden Industry Threaten Atlantic Coastal Economies
Just as scientists note the complex interdependence of species in the natural world, economists note a similar kind of interdependence at work with industries, communities, and livelihoods. With so much already on the line during these trying times, menhaden policies based on disputed, inconclusive ecological theories could yield devastating impacts on this economic web of life.
With an economy struggling to regain equilibrium, governments at all levels have adopted policies aimed at triggering a resurgence in job growth and economic stimulus. Unfortunately, the prospect of some new policies may create more challenging conditions for one important industry based on a small and prolific fish – the Atlantic menhaden.Most Americans know little about menhaden, an oily fish more likely to be found in their medicine cabinets than on their dinner plates. Prized as one of the main sources for fish oil and fish meal, menhaden are also found in hundreds of household items, from margarine to pet food to salad dressing. The fish also make great bait for crabbers and lobstermen. All told, the resource supports thousands of jobs – directly and indirectly – and generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually, in effect, representing a significant path towards improving the country’s dour economic circumstances.But this path may become fraught with obstruction, which largely stems from disagreement about the sustainability of the fish and mounting pressure on the regulatory authority that oversees its management. Lauded as a victory for environmental and recreational angling groups who have long dismayed of commercial menhaden fishing, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), a deliberative body of representatives from all 15 Atlantic coast states, recently voted to set new “safe harvest” limits on menhaden. Before they are implemented, the ASMFC Menhaden Board – a committee comprised of state fisheries professionals and political appointees – will need to determine the regulations that will achieve these newly approved goals. The question is: will they implement policies that cause economic harm to the industry and, consequently, the myriad jobs and communities that rely on it? Read the rest of the article on Saving Seafood.
What Obama’s Government Reform Proposal Means for Our Oceans
Making Sure NOAA Stays Strong During Federal Reorganization
By Michael Conathan | Director of Ocean Policy
On January 13, President Barack Obama announced his plan to implement a sweeping reorganization of the Department of Commerce by consolidating six agencies involved in trade and economic competitiveness. One unintended consequence of this reshuffling is that by redesigning the Commerce Department, we now must find a home for the agency that comprised more than 60 percent of its budget—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, our nation’s primary ocean research agency.In a December 2010 report, “A Focus on Competitiveness,” John Podesta, Sarah Rosen Wartell, and Jitinder Kohli detailed why President Obama’s proposed restructuring makes sense for America. But it’s worth taking a closer look at how such a move would affect NOAA and in turn affect how we manage our oceans.The president’s plan would relocate NOAA to the Department of the Interior. In his remarks, President Obama went so far as to suggest that the Department of the Interior was a “more sensible place” for NOAA, and that it only ended up at Commerce at its inception in 1970 because then-President Richard Nixon was feuding with then-Secretary of the Interior Walter Hickle, who had publicly criticized President Nixon’s handling of the Vietnam War.While this storied example of Beltway pettiness has circulated among ocean policy wonks for years, the reality is rather more complex. In fact, when NOAA was established in 1970, 80 percent of its budget and more than two-thirds of its employees came from the Environmental Science Services Administration—an agency that included the Weather Bureau, the Coast and Geodetic Survey, and Environmental Data Services—which was already housed at the Department of Commerce.Since the announcement, many environmental groups have decried the move as potentially compromising NOAA’s scientific integrity by shifting the agency to a department that has developed a reputation for being industry friendly. Certainly, degradation of NOAA’s science-first attitude is to be avoided at all costs. Yet there is no reason the agency’s mission can’t be maintained under the auspices of Interior provided the agency retains its structural integrity and its budgetary clout.
Read the rest of the story on American Progress.
Plans Set for March National Fishing Rally in D.C.
By Richard Gaines | Staff Writer
Commercial and recreational fishing interests today announced plans for a March 21 mass demonstration at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., to energize the push for amending the law that directs the regulation of America's fisheries, a little more than two years after the 2010 "United We Fish" rally turned up the national heat on regulatory and enforcement issues.The 2012 "Keep Fishermen Fishing" rally was announced this morning in a release that focuses on the organizers' foes — "a handful of mega-foundations and the anti-fishing ENGOs (environmental non-government organizations) they support to drive fishermen off the water."To do that, demonstration organizers contend, nonprofit giants such as Environmental Defense Fund have influenced the government to misinterpret the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries and Conservation Act, which was amended significantly in 1996 and 2006.Since the first mass rally, which drew as many as 5,000 participants on Feb. 23, 2010, the fisheries policies of the Obama administration — embodied by NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco, who came to office from academia and a board of director's post with EDF, have produced fierce resistance on the water and in Congress to the green-government power bloc.Among the changes sought is the flexibility of time frames for rebuilding stocks, rather than clamping down fishing limits organizers say unduly harm the industry and fishing communities. Read the rest of the article on Gloucester Times.
Where do you think your food comes from?
Written by Christina Rexrode | AP Business Reporter
Americans are finding some surprises lurking in U.S. government information about where the food they eat comes from.One food revelation came when low levels of a fungicide that isn’t approved in the U.S. were discovered in some orange juice sold here. It was then revealed that Brazil, where the fungicide-laced juice originated, produces a good portion of the orange pulpy stuff Americans drink.While the former may have sent prices for orange juice for delivery in March down 5.3 percent last week, the latter came as a bombshell to some “Buy American” supporters.Overall, America’s insatiable desire to chomp on overseas food has been growing. About 16.8 percent of the food that Americans eat is imported from other countries, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, up from 11.3 percent two decades ago. Here are some other facts:Not all juices are treated the same. About 99 percent of the grapefruit juice Americans drink is produced on U.S. soil, while about a quarter of the orange juice is imported; more than 40 percent of that is from Brazil.About half of the fresh fruit Americans eat comes from elsewhere. That’s more than double the amount in 1975.Some 86 percent of the shrimp, salmon, tilapia and other fish and shellfish Americans eat comes from other countries. That’s up from about 56 percent in 1990. Read the rest of the story from Associated Press.
Partnership Preserves Livelihoods and Fish Stocks
By LESLIE KAUFMAN
HALF MOON BAY, Calif. — Stevie Fitz, a commercial fisherman, was pulling up his catch in one of his favorite spots off of Point Reyes in June when he saw something terrifying — in his nets were nearly 300 bocaccio, a dwindling species of rockfish protected by the government.There are such strict limits on catching the overfished bocaccio that netting a large load, even by accident, can sideline and even ruin an independent fisherman.Still, Mr. Fitz did not try to hide his mistake by slipping it back into the deep. Instead, he reported himself. With a few swipes on his iPad, he posted the exact time and location of the catch to a computerized mapping system shared by a fleet of 13 commercial boats, helping others to avoid his mistake.“It was a slap in the face,” he said, “but we are trying to build an information base that will help everyone out.” He was later able to sell the bocaccio, although the catch still counted against his quota for the year.A lifelong fisherman, Mr. Fitz is part of a very unusual business arrangement with the Nature Conservancy, an environmental group that is trying to transform commercial fishing in the region by offering a model of how to keep the industry vital without damaging fish stocks or sensitive areas of the ocean floor.Five years ago, the conservancy bought out area fishing boats and licenses in a fairly extreme deal — forged with the local fishing industry — to protect millions of acres of fish habitat. The unusual collaboration was enjoined to meet stricter federal regulations and the results of a successful legal challenge. But once the conservancy had access to what was essentially its own private commercial fishing fleet, the group decided to put the boats back to work and set up a collaborative model for sustainable fishing.Bringing information technology and better data collection to such an old-world industry is part of the plan. So is working with the fishermen it licenses to control overfishing by expanding closed areas and converting trawlers — boats that drag weighted nets across the ocean floor — to engage in more gentle and less ecologically damaging techniques like using traps, hooks and line, and seine netting.The conservancy’s model is designed to take advantage of radical new changes in government regulation that allow fishermen in the region both more control and more responsibility for their operating choices. The new rules have led to better conservation practices across all fleets, government monitors say.“It is blowing me away what is happening out there,” said William Stelle, the administrator for Pacific Northwest region of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s marine fisheries service. But, he added, the conservancy “may be the most sophisticated example of the successful marriage of interests between the environmental community and the fishing industry in marine conservation.” Similar programs are beginning to appear in other places.American fish stocks have been troubled since the early 1990s and remain so because of overfishing, pollution, and warming seas. The government says that today 23 percent of fish stocks are not at self-sustaining levels at current fishing pressure.Congress passed a law in 1996 demanding that local fishery councils protect “essential fish habitat.” In 2006, it also imposed tight catch limits for overfished species. As a result, if a fishery exceeds its limit on just one of these species, under federal law, the entire area could be closed to commercial boats for a season.Local councils have struggled to balance the inherent tensions of adhering to these limits without ruining the fishermen’s ability to make a living. To do this, they have imposed regulations like prohibiting fishing in some areas, dictating the catch season and limiting what techniques and gear are used.But last year, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council replaced some of those restrictions with strict quotas on six imperiled species and parceled them out among all 138 commercial vessels along the coast. Government observers are now put on every boat to make sure there is no cheating.The downside is that if one boat lands too much of a sensitive species, known as bycatch, it must be docked until it can buy another boat’s unused quota — and there is not always a market to balance the catch. The quota system also provides incentive for each fisherman in the risk pool to help prevent others from using up their quota. And the early results for fish stocks are promising. Bycatch has dropped from 15 percent to 20 percent of the total haul to less than 1 percent.The Nature Conservancy first got involved in central California in 2004 when it was looking to invest in marine conservation zones. The group realized that it needed better information to preserve the most critical areas.“What the fishermen had was a deep local knowledge of the habitats of certain species,” said Michael Bell, senior project director with the conservancy. “There wasn’t scientific information at that level that could match the fisherman knowledge.”Read the rest from The New York Times.
Unidentified floating objects are squid boats
Lighted vessels seen off Laguna Beach recently and now off San Clemente are catching ‘market squid’ that will end up as calamari.
By FRED SWEGLES / THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
If you've seen the light, and it was off the coast the past few nights, chances are it was from a fleet of commercial boats harvesting squid.
They are known as "light boats," and they use floodlights to attract squid, which a companion boat then gathers into a net.
They aren't a new phenomenon, but anytime they show up off the coast, residents wonder what they are. Ken Nielsen, a longtime commercial fisherman and coastal researcher, says the boats were off Laguna Beach for two weeks and now are off San Clemente.
The squid they are netting are known as "market squid," Nielsen said. They're 8 to 12 inches long – not the same as several hundred jumbo squid that washed ashore in September. Those are known as Humboldt squid.
Read the rest of the story from the Orange County Resister.
Squid and sardine fishing is no danger to species in Monterey Bay
By D.B. PleschnerSpecial to the Mercury News
Posted: 11/22/2011
The Monterey Bay region's healthiest fisheries are under attack by extremists.Touting studies with faulty calculations, activists have been trying to persuade federal regulators to massively curtail sardine limits, if not ban fishing outright. But the science doesn't support their conclusions. California already has a precautionary management system in place that provides comprehensive overfishing protection for sardines and other coastal pelagic "wetfish," including market squid.The facts don't seem to matter to groups with a protectionist agenda. Their rhetoric leaves those unfamiliar with the fishing industry with the impression that overfishing is a huge problem in California. It isn't.Oceana and similar organizations want unnecessary cutbacks in sardine fishing, as well as substantial limits on other forage fish, including herring, anchovies and squid -- which are also already managed sustainably.Today's fishery management of coastal pelagic species along the West Coast portion of the California Current Ecosystem is recognized as the most protective in the world, one of only a few areas that's deemed sustainable by internationally recognized scientists. This is not a newly implemented strategy. The state and federal government established guidelines more than a decade ago for coastal pelagic species harvested in California and on the West Coast, maintaining at least 75 percent of the fish in the ocean to ensure a resilient core biomass for other marine species.
The sardine protection rate is even higher, at close to 90 percent. In addition, California implemented a network of marine reserves in state waters through the Marine Life Protection Act. Many reserves were established explicitly to protect forage species for other marine life. For example, more than 30 percent of traditional squid harvest grounds are closed in reserve, including important bird rookery and haul-out areas around Año Nuevo and the Farallon Islands.Does that sound like overfishing to you?Environmental groups say they want to establish an ecosystem-based approach to fishery management that takes into account species' dependence on one another and would ultimately result in lower fishing limits. These groups were the prime movers behind AB 1299, a bill that failed to pass the Legislature, for good reason.California already has the most precautionary fishery management system in the world. That bill would restrict our state's fishermen unnecessarily and unfairly: Virtually all the forage species listed in the bill are actively managed or monitored by the federal government as well as the state, and most species are harvested along the entire West Coast, not just in California.As for sardine management, environmentalists complained that the harvest-control rule used to set fishing quotas was outdated. But recent scientific analyses showed that the rule actually underestimated sardine productivity. Thus, recent year harvest limits were even more precautionary than necessary.The Scientific and Statistical Committee advising the Pacific Fishery Management Council recommended a workshop in 2012 to review harvest control rule parameters, including sardine reproductivity. Annual fertility in sardines is known to be heavily age and size dependent. Future analyses, including both stock assessments and harvest management analyses, should include this important life-history trait. The fishing industry supports this work. A new and more complete assessment of the sardine-control rule will be developed.Further, it's time to enact international management cooperation for the sardine resource, not just restrictions on the state level. An international effort to mount a summer survey extending into both Mexico and Canada is planned for 2012. If Oceana and its allies are really interested in protecting sardines, they should fully support this scientific effort. We certainly do.D.B. Pleschner is executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association.
Another Banner Year for Market Squid
By Danna Staaf
The California market squid fishery is about to be closed for the second time in its entire history.
That may sound bad, but it's actually a sign of a booming business. The annual quota for market squid is 118,000 tonnes, a number so high that for years no one was sure it would ever be reached. But just last year, an abundance of squid led the fishery to be closed on December 17th, and this year it's due to close a month earlier: November 18th.
It's worth remembering that this fishery follows a boom-and-bust cycle, and the science behind the squid is poorly understood. Last year I interviewed two squid scientists (former co-workers of mine) for an article in the Monterey Weekly, and came away with this:
Read the rest on Science 2.0.