Ocean Conservation: taking steps in public awareness and gillnet management

Sometimes progress in ocean conservation must be measured in inches instead of yards. Whether that will be sufficient to ward off an ecosystem collapse or a species extinction depends on the specific issue and whether such progress might slowly build upon itself and begin to expand exponentially. In any event, it all has to start somewhere. Here are a couple of encouraging examples.

Ocean Conservation Exhibition in Taiwan
In Taiwan, this week saw the opening of a marine ecology exhibition in Taipei City's National Taiwan Museum. Designed to highlight the nation's unique ocean diversity (over 400 varieties of coral and 3,000 species of fish), the exhibition will feature live specimens including a red coral valued at over $344,000USD and a Japanese spider crab - the world's largest crab species - in addition to multimedia presentations that highlight coral spawning, mangroves, and shallow-water hydrothermal vents.

What makes this exhibition, which runs until early August, so special is that Taiwan is an important gateway to Asian markets for a variety of commercial seafood - much of which is being overfished. Asian cultures can often be resistant to outside influences or opinions that can be perceived as criticizing their way of life. An event such as this is an incremental step in changing public perceptions internally about endangered species, such as sharks and tuna, and developing a greater appreciation for marine natural resources - before they are all gone.

“As an island, Taiwan is inextricably tied up with the ocean,” said Huang Shu-fang, curator of the event and chief of the museum's research section. “It is important we learn about the abundant marine species and their habitats.” Echoing that sentiment was Jeng Ming-shiou of the Academia Sinica's Biodiversity Research Center. “We hope the event will help raise public awareness of the importance of protecting the ocean.”

Australian Gillnet Regulations
Commercial gillnets are notorious for claiming the lives of countless sea creatures that are discarded as accidental bycatch. In many cases, the majority of what gillnets ensnares is thrown away. Gillnets can catch sharks, turtles, even dolphins - anything that can get caught up in nets that can stretch for miles.

In southern Australia, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has put additional gillnet management regulations into effect to better protect sea lions and other non-target species. The new regulations cover the Gillnet, Hook and Trap (GHAT) Sector of the Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery.

“These changes are designed to offer better protection to non-target species in the fishery, particularly Australian sea lions, and to improve data collection on interactions with threatened, endangered and protected species,” said Dr. James Findlay, Chief Executive Officer of AFMA.

Predictably, representatives for the commercial shark fishing industry complained that the new gillnet regulations will increase their costs. However, gillnet fishermen have to take much of the blame for the need for stricter management policies as the commercial gillnet fishers have been shown to be under-reporting the level of interactions with threatened, endangered, and protected species.

“It is clear that some vessels have not been accurately reporting interactions with protected species as required as a condition of their access to the fishery. Accurate information on the level of fishery interactions with non-target species is essential to ensure that our fisheries are managed in an ecologically sustainable manner,” said Dr, Findlay.

In addition to a restriction in the use of gillnets in and around over 30 sea lion colonies, thereby doubling the total area under protection from 6,300 sq. kilometers to 18,500 sq kilometers, the use of either on-board scientific observers or remote cameras to monitor the catch was increased. Those vessels that participate in the remaining open gillnet fishing areas in South Australia will be continuously observed, either in person or electronically.

Ocean conservation, one step at a time. And, hopefully, not a second too late.

Turtles and Sharks: long migrations studied in the South Atlantic

Animal migration is one of nature's most mysterious presentations of animal behavior. What makes an animal travel great distances? How are they able to do it in a relatively straight path? Why do they use the same route year after year? Just how are they so good at it, while I can get lost in the local Costco?

One vast body of water where several marine species migrate but where mankind has not spent much time studying these movements is the South Atlantic, between South America and Africa. However, two recent studies have shed some interesting light on the long migration paths taken by leatherback turtles and blue sharks. Both of these species are threatened with possible extinction, so the more we know, the better we can manage our conservation efforts.

As reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, researchers from England tagged and track the migratory routes of leatherback turtles for five years, from a breeding colony in Central Africa to feeding grounds in the southwestern Atlantic. Using satellite tracking tags on 25 females, the researchers found that the turtles followed three migratory paths, often traveling in remarkably straight lines.

One female turtle was tracked along a path that totaled just under 4,700 miles and took about 150 days of nonstop swimming to complete. The researchers are keen to know the "when and where" of these journeys to ensure that commercial fisheries do not take advantage of the turtle's singular purpose and place themselves right in the turtles' paths. The researchers are hoping to avoid a large decline in leatherback turtles in the South Atlantic as has happened to leatherbacks in the Pacific.

"All of the routes we've identified take the leatherbacks through areas of high risk from fisheries, so there's a very real danger to the Atlantic population," said University of Exeter professor Brendan Godley.

At the same time, researchers from the University of Florida were tracking the migratory routes of the blue shark. Working with a Brazilian team of researchers, Felipe Carvalho, under the supervision of renown shark expert Dr. George Burgess, Director of the Florida Program for Shark Research, began tagging blue sharks along the Brazilian coast. The question was whether the tracking results would show a migration that would link shark populations in both the southeastern and southwestern Atlantic.

Blue sharks are heavily fished in the South Atlantic and within coastal territorial waters some nations are trying to determine how to best manage the remaining populations. By showing a migratory link between these separate locations, it emphasizes the need for multinational cooperation. As it turned out, one of Carvalho's blue sharks, tagged off the coast of Brazil, was detected off Africa 87 days later.

“This is the first evidence of the transatlantic migration of a blue shark from the southwestern Atlantic Ocean to the southeastern Atlantic Ocean. We thought this migration might be happening, but we never had the data before to prove it,” Carvalho said.

More and more, we are finding species that travel along oceanic highways, making incredible journeys over and over again. Navigating by prevailing currents, or visual cues, or even by the Earth's magnetic fields - all have been suggested as possible theories that could account for the animal's amazing accuracy.

Whatever the method, it is important for us to understand these migrations and their purpose and use that knowledge to protect rather than take advantage of leatherback turtles, blue sharks, and so many other species that roam the seas.

Read about tracking leatherback turtles from the Associated Press.
Read about tracking blue sharks from Physorg.com

ICCAT & Tuna: "extraordinary" meeting - depends on who you ask

One final report on ICCAT (International Convention for Conservation of Atlantic Tuna) and the conclusions from its recent annual meeting: the future of bluefin tuna in 2011. As reported earlier, bluefin tuna - particularly Atlantic and Mediterranean tuna - are on perilously shaky ground. ICCAT currently limits its members to a catch quota of 13,500 tons of tuna. This past weekend in Paris, ICCAT set a new level for next year: 12,900 tons - a reduction of only 600 tons or 4 percent.

In ICCAT's press release, the meeting was described as "extraordinary."

Here is how the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) summed it up:

"At its annual meeting last year, ICCAT decided to set catch levels so that bluefin tuna would have at least a 60% chance of recovering by 2022. In October, ICCAT's scientific advisory committee reported that this goal could be met by keeping annual catch limits at the current level of 13,500 tons. Improving the chances of recovery, they added, would require cutting catch levels to below 6000 tons. On Saturday, ICCAT member countries agreed (pdf) to a 12,900-ton ceiling for eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna."

Here is how Oceana, who was in attendance to promote a range of tuna, billfish, turtle, and shark conservation measures, described the meeting's conclusions:

"While ICCAT reduced the allowed catch for eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna to 12,900 tonnes, this four percent reduction is almost laughable. Furthermore, ICCAT failed completely to take action to establish spawning ground sanctuaries, a basic and much-needed management measure. Oceana supports a closure of the bluefin tuna fishery until a system is in place that follows scientific advice on catch levels, ensures stock recovery, stops illegal fishing, and protects spawning areas in the Gulf of Mexico and Mediterranean Sea.

'This trivial quota reduction for the eastern bluefin tuna stock is a political decision, not a science-based one,' said Maria Jose Cornax, fisheries campaigns manager for Oceana. 'Without an industrial fishing closure, it actually encourages illegal fishing and fails to ensure stock recovery. This political outcome is not good for the fish or the fisherman, and will certainly result in further stock depletion.'”

Analogous to ICCAT and the economic interests it protects, is the energy/fossil fuel industry. Oil companies could break the back of our fossil fuel addiction in relatively short order with a major commitment and shift to alternative energy sources. They could dominate that new market as surely as they dominate oil and the environment would probably be the better for it in the end. But their focus is primarily on sustaining current business models with just enough token support in alternative energy so as to appear as if they are forward-thinking. They know what the future holds in store but choose not to fully address it.

ICCAT is following the same path, sustaining a dying fishing industry at the expense of dwindling marine species. Conservation groups, to their credit, will continue to pressure ICCAT to reconsider its fundamental strategy of minimal change for the sake of short-term financial goals. But what will it take? An empty sea?

Read the ICCAT press release.
Read the AAAS Science article on the ICCAT meeting.
Read Oceana's article on the ICCAT meeting.

Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: species' future once again debated by controversial ICCAT

Starting this Wednesday in Paris, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) will hold its annual meeting to review catch quotas for the coming year. The 48 member governments of ICCAT constitute one of the few international fishery management organizations that can address the issue of rapidly declining stocks of bluefin tuna, billfish, and even sharks. But to date it has a dismal track record in the eyes of many scientific and conservation organizations.

At last year's meeting, the ICCAT ignored the recommendations of even their own scientific advisers and set catch levels at 13,5000 tons - well above the recommendations ranging from 6,000 tons to an all out ban. It became clear that ICCAT's mission was not the conservation of an aquatic species but that of propping up a dwindling industry in the short term.

So, once again, they meet to discuss the future of Atlantic commercial fishing in a time of worldwide economic pressures, a huge demand for bluefin tuna in Japan with astronomical prices to match, and political pressures to keep supporting a commercial fishing industry with the status quo - rather than transition it to a more sustainable future.

Gloomy outlook, but there is some interesting political jockeying going on.

According to the New York Times, "The European Union’s fisheries commissioner, Maria Damanaki, with backing from Sweden, Germany and Britain, has called for an Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean quota of 'less than 6,000 tons.' The union’s 27 members are supposed to reach a consensus and vote as a bloc."

Ready to challenge that proposal may be France, Italy, and Spain. France has come under fire, in particular, for an apparent reversal in their support of an outright ban proposed just 3 months ago at a UN meeting on endangered species. "In addition to the apparent about-face by President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government, the hosts may find the situation delicate for another reason: the French Agriculture Ministry was singled out in the [International Consortium of Investigative Journalists] report as having allegedly connived for many years to help French fishermen understate their catch," reported the New York Times. ‘‘'France is becoming the Darth Vader of the bluefin fishery,' Rémi Parmentier, an adviser to the Pew Environment Group, said in a recent interview. 'France appears to be doing its best to sink proposals to reduce the catch.'"

Following the Gulf oil spill and concerns of potential impacts on Gulf of Mexico bluefin tuna breeding grounds, the position of the United States is a mixed bag. Jane Lubchenco, head of NOAA, said that Washington would support the scientific recommendations - which lean towards radically reduced catch levels. But northeast politicians, who represent major industrial Atlantic fishing fleets, are riding the wave of unemployment concerns and resisting efforts to have the bluefin tuna listed as an endangered species under U.S. law. Again, short-term gain that serves only as a precursor to a total industry collapse.

The interesting wild card in all of this has been indications from Japan that they might consider stricter fishery management. At the recent Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) meeting, Japan stymied all efforts to protect tuna under CITES rules, declaring ICCAT to be the more appropriate forum. Now the pressure is on Japan to put their money where their mouth is. Being consumers of more than three quarters of the catch of Atlantic bluefin tuna, Japan could endorse significantly lower catch levels - or even a moratorium, as some Japanese officials have said they would be willing to support.

Or they can watch their market demand vaporize before their eyes in just a few short years with the loss of one of the ocean's great predator species. The battle of short-term versus long-term goals continues.

Read article in New York Times.

Failing Fishery Management: report and video illustrate excesses by EU and Japan

The logic is so simple: if you harvest from a finite resource without giving back then you will deplete it.

But combating that is the economic principal that requires the use of available resources to meet market demand and sustain business growth.

These are the concepts that fishery management has been wrestling with for decades - and it is becoming more and more apparent that economic interests win in the short term and the environment loses in the long term.

I have sited in past postings the European Union's inability to effectively manage its industrial fishing. It has failed to the extant that it moves from one species to another, harvesting until there effectively is no more in their territorial waters. And so they export their trade to other countries, fishing in the territorial waters of developing countries who are lured by the economic gains of providing fishing rights and/or fishing crews to prop up struggling economies - ultimately sacrificing their natural resources for short term gain.

A report recently published by the New Economics Foundation declares that the EU has now basically consumed all of its own fish and must look elsewhere to meet demand. The report says the EU has reached a "fish dependence day" and is now having to live off the rest of the world when it comes to seafood.

The report, Fish Dependence: The Increasing Reliance of the EU on Fish From Elsewhere, states, "In a context of finite resources and growing populations, the current EU model is unsustainable. The EU's increasing fish dependence has implications for the fish stocks in other countries, which are also overfished, and for the communities that depend upon them."

It makes me recall the science fiction film, Independence Day, which portrays an attack on the earth by malevolent aliens that travel the galaxies, plundering all the natural resources of a victim planet before moving on to the next one. We don't need fictional aliens to see that that is exactly what is happening right now in our oceans.

Click here to download a copy of the report.

Also making the rounds of various online forums right now is a startling video from Alex Hofford, showing industrial shark fishing at its most graphic. In the Japanese city of Kesen-numa City, blue sharks and salmon sharks are piled high like cord wood, awaiting processing which includes the removal of their fins and, in the case of the salmon sharks, their hearts. In watching the video I was struck by the methodical way in which the workers went about their business - with gentle musak playing in the background and visitors walking above.

Here are hundreds and hundreds of sharks - animals that, because of their low reproductive rates, can in no way withstand such massive harvesting - all being dispatched like cattle in a slaughterhouse. And to the Japanese, that is exactly what it is. This is something that many western pro-shark advocates fail to appreciate: to the Asian markets, seafood is food, no different than beef or poultry. The butchering of sharks to them is no different than the butchering of cattle or chickens.

But there is one crucial difference: cattle and poultry are breed and raised for consumption; the majority of seafood is not.

The Asian markets may not have developed sizable cattle and poultry operations, and they may never will. But if any society - Asian, European or otherwise - is going to respond to a growing market demand for seafood, then they must make a concerted commitment and effort in developing effective and environmentally-safe aquaculture while also radically changing open-water commercial fishing as we know it today. Unless capable of being successfully grown in an aquaculture environment, some commercial species will need to be severely restricted, if not off limits all together.

The EU report states, "There is only so much fishing that our oceans can sustain. So for fisheries policies to be sustainable, they need to acknowledge and respect the ecological limits of the marine ecosystems on which they depend."

The logic is simple. But the motivation to act in the face of a bleak future is apparently difficult.

Read more about the EU fisheries report in the Guardian.
See the shark fishery video at Alex Hofford Photography.

Shifting Baselines: what is the appropriate measurement of a healthy ocean?

When we examine a marine ecosystem or the population of a particular species and observe that "it's not what it once was," we are, in simple terms, observing a shifting baseline. The use of shifting baselines, or what has sometimes been called Shifting Baseline Syndrome (SBS), has become a common but controversial tool in evaluating fishery management, species population, and general ocean vitality. In fact, it has been used as the basis of study for a variety of scientific and societal conditions - from ocean conservation to Hollywood entertainment.

One of the challenges in using SBS is in determining what the fundamental baseline is - what is the baseline that represents a fully healthy, functioning marine ecosystem or species population? Is it what it was 10 years ago? A century? Or before the arrival of mankind? To determine such an ultimate starting point, scientists often have to take a variety of empirical and anecdotal data and work backwards. Sometimes this works, sometimes not.

As an example, one study in the late 1990's determined that the appropriate baseline population for green sea turtles in the Caribbean was 660 million, based on an extrapolation of the extent of a particular sea grass that figured prominently in the turtle's diet. Several years later, based on a reevaluation of the sea grass growth, that number was scaled back to 16 to 33 million - quite a reduction but still, given today's population of less than 200,000, what can we realistically expect as a conservation goal?

In other situations, SBS gets oversimplified in its application regarding policy. When research determined that over-fishing was the primary cause of a drop in Canadian cod fisheries, a moratorium was put in place in the early 90's. However, the cod population has failed to recover and the moratorium remains in place. What may have been missed is some unforeseen cascade effect, some other component to a healthy cod population that is missing or altered, perhaps triggered by the over-fishing, perhaps not.

Many scientists see value in using SBS but there are some who feel that it must be utilized in a more comprehensive fashion that also incorporates other theoretical approaches including resilience and social-ecological systems (SES) which introduce variables of human involvement or impact while trying to determine an appropriate future baseline.

In the end, it can be a vexing question: as we consider the health of marine species or ecosystems, what is the ideal goal that we can truly expect to strive for, regardless of how things were in the past? Can science accurately and reliably make that determination? Hopefully, it can but it will require a broad spectrum of scientific approaches to do so.

Click here for a proponent web site that explains shifting baselines.
Click here to read a scientific paper on SBS weaknesses and solutions.

Shark News: improved regulations in Florida; handling conspiracy buzz

Two issues regarding shark conservation: one encouraging; the other not so encouraging, if not down right annoying.

Florida Tightens Rules: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission recently took additional steps to improve the protection and management of sharks within Florida waters. The commission prohibited the harvesting of sandbar, silky, and Caribbean sharpnose sharks and extended the minimum catch size to 54-inches on approximately 14 shark species. This will decrease the take of juvenile sharks and hopefully improving the chance for better reproduction rates. Additionally, the new rules require that sharks are to be taken by hook-and-line only and must be brought back whole - the head and tails cannot be removed at sea, as has been currently happening. This allows for better monitoring and management of catch levels by government officials.

A lot of attention amongst shark advocates has been placed on protection of Florida's lemon sharks - sharks that have been gaining considerable interest with commercial shark fisheries for the shark fin market. Lemon sharks can congregate in large numbers in shallow water and this makes them a potentially easy catch. The Florida commission has responded with a proposed rule that prohibits recreational and commercial harvesting of lemon sharks in Florida waters. This is a great step on the commission's part but it is only a proposal - meaning it's subject to a period of public comment before being acted upon or rejected. You can expect plenty of comment from conservationists and commercial or sportfishing interests alike. And I am sure there will be plenty of pro-lemon shark petitions circulating for you to consider.

Read FWC press release.

Shark Con and the 100 Million Debate: The less-than-encouraging news has to do with a soon-to-be-released documentary that purports a conspiracy within the shark conservation/shark ecotourism community. It all started with an issue of concern - the possible exaggeration of the worldwide shark catch numbers. Ever heard the figure 100 million sharks killed each year? I'm sure you have but that number is being challenged or questioned (and perhaps rightfully so). But the concern for accuracy is being manipulated into being the tip of the iceberg of some worldwide conspiracy to be exposed in the upcoming film Shark Con.

As a filmmaker, I smell a hyper promotional campaign in full swing and while I regard the need for using verifiable or at least reasonably estimated data when it comes to shark catch numbers, I have suggested to other shark advocates to take a breath and rather than add to the hype and buzz that the producers are looking for, let's wait until the film is out so that we can better examine - and I suspect dispute - what ever fanciful conspiracy theory they are putting forth.

David Schiffman at the Southern Fried Science blog, ran a post about this issue and received some 40 responses to date. Here was my response:

For myself, as an ocean advocate but also someone who is familiar with the film/TV business, I am both concerned – when inaccuracy can be construed as incompetence or, even worse, conspiracy – and I am suspicious – as we have filmmakers here who are trying to generate buzz and sell a product.

Indeed, 100 million has always been a conveniently round number. When I speak to groups about shark conservation, I have used the range of “20 million to as high as 100 million” and then I proceed to explain the wide discrepancy as an estimate based on legal catch, illegal catch, and by-catch – questionable variables indeed and ones that many scientists and researchers do not like to work with. But even if we use the low-end numbers, given the low reproductive rate of these animals, wouldn’t that be cause enough for concern?

But nothing hurts a cause more than exaggeration. And, conversely, exaggeration is a mainstay of entertainment promotion.

So, what is the big Shark Con? A conservation movement fabricating numbers for what nefarious purpose? Shark diving operators forming some worldwide collective of small businessmen to drain divers of their hard-earned dollars? Shark-huggers hiding the fact that the populations of sharks are greater than they ever have been? Or . . . an attempt to simply exploit and capitalize on, for entertainment purposes, the lack of precision that is inherent with many environmental issues today – from shark conservation to climate change?

I suspect we are witnessing a classic public relations strategy: start a quiet dialog about shark catch discrepancies; raise the bar with indignant reactions and comments from some scientists and researchers; introduce the conspiracy angle; let the viral/rumor mill stir a bit; then start promoting the film that purports to bare it all.

We are living in a world of rumor, over-opinionated blogs and radio hosts, heated partisanship, and unfettered viral communication. Shark conservationists need to take a breath, calmly and rationally promote the cause based on the most reliable data, and rebut Shark Con only when they have made their arguments or accusations clear.

Arctic U.S. Waters: off limits to commercial fishing by December

Here's another press release, this time from Oceana.org, regarding the closing of U.S. waters north of Alaska's Bering Strait to commercial fishing (the Arctic Fishery Management Plan) . The federal closing recognizes the lack of sufficient scientific data on fish populations and the impact from climate change, overfishing, and other environmental or man-made factors.

While encouraging, the downside is that the Minerals Management Service is moving full speed to allow for oil drilling in the same region. With heavy lobbying from the oil industry, permits are being granted without updated and sufficient scientific impact studies and data - the opposite approach of the Arctic Fishery Management Plan.

This exemplifies the ongoing tug-of-war that goes on in Washington DC: energy vs. the environment. At some point, politics and commerce will need to realize that objective, unbiased scientific research data will need to be the final referee.

U.S. Closes Arctic Waters to Industrial Fishing

Regulations call for more science before any fishing allowed in U.S. Arctic; conservationists call for same approach for oil and gas

November 3, 2009
Washington, DC

Final regulations protecting almost 200,000 square miles of U.S. Arctic waters from industrial fishing were released today and will be effective starting December 3, 2009. The new regulations close all U.S. waters north of Alaska’s Bering Strait to commercial fishing to allow time for more science to assess the health of Arctic ocean ecosystems and the potential impacts of large-scale fishing given the impacts the Arctic is already facing from climate change and ocean acidification. The regulations do not affect subsistence fishing, and are in fact designed to help protect Arctic ocean ecosystems central to subsistence. Conservationists hailed the regulations and called for a similar approach for other industries and in other nations.

“This is ‘doing it right’ in the Arctic—there is a desperate need for more science to be done before we add any more stress to an area already feeling the heat of climate change,” said Dr. Chris Krenz, Arctic Project Manager for Oceana. “We need a rush of scientists into the Arctic, not an armada of cargo ships, oil platforms and fishing trawlers.”

The same U.S. Arctic waters protected from fishing are squarely in the crosshairs of the oil industry. Last month the Minerals Management Service (MMS) approved a plan for drilling in the Beaufort Sea next summer, and a similar plan for the Chukchi Sea is currently under review with a decision expected this month. Conservationists, scientists, local communities and others have called for a science-based precautionary approach for oil that is now in place for fishing, especially given the higher risks of oil spills in the Arctic and the inability to contain, control or clean up an accident in the icy waters of the Arctic.

The Arctic is home to thousands of people who rely on ocean ecosystems as central to a subsistence way of life practiced for generations. Climate change and ocean acidification are already placing stress on those ecosystems, and adding additional pressures from fishing or oil and gas activities could push them past the brink. Arctic communities showed strong support for the Arctic fishing protections and have expressed concern that activities from oil and gas, including seismic testing and the risk of oil spills, could adversely impact bowhead whales and other animals that are vital sources of food for local peoples.

President Obama’s Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force is likely to recommend addressing the changing Arctic conditions as a national priority and using an ecosystem based management approach to protect, maintain and restore the health of the nation’s marine ecosystems. The Arctic Fishery Management Plan exemplifies this approach.

“MMS has given the green light to drill in the U.S. Arctic Ocean next July using the same inadequate and out of date science that led fisheries managers to close the region to commercial fishing,” said Krenz. “One of the reasons Americans elected President Obama is because they believe in sustainable development based on sound science and demonstrated response capabilities. MMS and Shell continue on an unrelenting course that MMS records indicate are likely to bring a major spill and calamity to the Arctic.”

The U.S. State Department is in discussions with other Arctic nations to expand these same fishing protections across international boundaries. These Arctic fishing regulations set a worldwide precedent of putting management in place before commercial fishing occurs.

Commercial Fisheries: new economic objectives for a public resource

I was reviewing several articles regarding fish stocks and fisheries. Many of these articles were based on recent scientific studies covering a range of issues that reflect the current declining state of fish populations and the precarious position that industrialized fishing finds itself.

To be expected, over-fishing is one glaring issue, from declining cod fisheries in the North Atlantic to dwindling anchovy and other "feeder fish" populations in the waters off of developing nations in Africa and Southeast Asia. In some cases it is a matter of specific species depletion and in other cases, it's an overall decline brought about by a disrupted ecosystem.

Bycatch also plays a key role, particularly in areas where industrial fishing is present. This includes longline and driftnet fishing either for pelagic species or bottom-dwellers like rockfish or shrimp.

Then there is climate change, which is disrupting populations by compressing northern habitats for species like cod through overall increases in water temperature. Or the opposite expansion of habitats for warmer-water species has been effecting ecosystems and predator-prey relationships as new species migrate into different regions, also exposing themselves as potential commercial target species.

In Scientia Marina (Vol. 73[2]), Daniel Pauly postulates that the key issues that have sent commercial fishing to the brink of collapse has been a decades-long, post-World War II tri-mix of underreporting, ignoring scientific advise, and blaming the environment whenever a fishery collapsed. And as fisheries weakened, economic decisions were made to expand fishing territories, making agreements with other countries as if the fish in other territorial waters were natural resources that were fixed in place (a kind of "what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas" view of fish populations). Additionally, the shift was made to different species to catch, sometimes selecting a "lesser grade" species and often mislabeling these catches (in Southern California markets, for many years local Rockfish was listed as Pacific Snapper, which is a separate species unto itself).

Pauly concludes that, "Notably, fisheries biology, now predominantly concerned with the welfare of the fishing industry, will have to be converted into fisheries conservation science, whose goal will be to resolve the toxic triad alluded to above, and thus maintain the marine biodiversity and ecosystems that provide existential services to fisheries. Similarly, fisheries economists will have to get past their obsession with privatising fisheries resources, as their stated goal of providing the proper incentives to fishers can be achieved without giving away what are, after all, public resources."

The ocean is one vast public resource. Despite the territorial lines drawn on a map, it belongs to everyone and its future is every one's responsibility. Or else we all pay the price.

Support individuals and organizations, whether political or scientific, who are working towards better fishery management and make sound personal choices regarding seafood, whether you choose to consume "sustainable" species or decide to pass on eating seafood altogether.

Read entire article.

European Union Scorecard: 1 for sharks, 1 against tuna

Following up on two recent posts about the CITES status for Bluefin Tuna and Sharks, there's good news and bad news.

The good news: The European Union countries have agreed on a German proposal to submit two species of shark to CITES for consideration as an Appendix II listed endangered species. The two species are Porbeagle sharks, a deep water species in the North Atlantic that reaches a length of 10 feet; and the Spurdog, or Spiny Dogfish, a small 3-foot variety. Both have been heavily fished for their meat to satisfy European market demand and their populations have declined worldwide. An Appendix II listing would require close fishery management of their catches by all CITES member nations.

The bad news: The EU countries also rejected support of a Monaco proposal to place the Bluefin Tuna in an Appendix I status. This would ban all international trade in this species. The proposal was strongly opposed by Mediterranean countries, who have substantial tuna fleets and would, it seems, prefer to continue supporting those fleets with fishery management policies that have, to date, failed to produce a sustainable population. In fact, at today's catch rate, the species is bound for extinction in the eyes of many scientific and research experts.

Perhaps the conservation-minded Monaco will still continue with their proposal to protect Bluefin Tuna, when the CITES members meet in March of next year.

Seafood Sobriquets: tastier names to meet demand

I was reading a Washington Post article today that referenced a report about the state of our commercial fisheries worldwide. As many of you know, they are not in very good shape and predictions abound about the total collapse of many commercial species populations in the next few decades.

The report cited the growth in demand for seafood and how that has caused commercial fishing to steadily migrate from inshore to progressively more open ocean and deeper water. To catch fish at deeper depths required more extensive commercial fishing techniques, like longlines, to meet catch requirements. Unfortunately, those techniques also increased the levels of bycatch.

On a somewhat comical note, it also inspired fishermen to rename certain species which had been discarded or ignored in the past, thereby making them more marketable. Here are a few cited in the article:

• Slimehead became . . . . . . orange roughy
• Patagonian toothfish became . . . . . . Chilean sea bass
• Goosefish became . . . . . . monkfish
• Catfish is becoming . . . . . . delacata
• and Whore's eggs (urchin) became . . . . . . uni for the Japanese sushi market

As humorous as these name changes are, it also represents the desperate lengths that commercial fisheries are going to in meeting demand. And that's not so funny.

The one somewhat upbeat note that the report brought up was that over half of the commercial species could be saved from collapse if aggressive action is taken to better manage the fisheries. That includes regulating the size of the catch and better managing the impact of accidental bycatch.

BTW: Growing up in Southern California, I always chuckled over
Aquatic Hygenic Technician . . . . . . pool cleaner.

Read Washington Post article (membership required).