sustainable seafood

The beginning of the end for overfishing

flickr/www.futureatlas.com

In 2007, Congress set a deadline for ending overfishing and mandated science-based catch limits for all U.S. fisheries. This sign was part of a campaign by Pew Environment Group supporting catch limits requirements.

When Congress reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act in 2007, they gave federal fisheries regulators a deadline: establish catch limits and end overfishing by 2011. As the fateful year dawned a couple of months ago, recently retired NOAA Fisheries Chief Scientist Steve Murawski made an historic announcement: mission accomplished. Headlines trumpeted the end of overfishing in the United States.

Overfished vs. Overfishing

Fisheries management is full of arcane terminology, including the subtly different designations “subject to overfishing” and “overfished.” A fish population that is subject to overfishing is being caught at a rate that is actively depleting the population, not allowing it to maintain or grow in size. To be “overfished” means the population has been depleted by overfishing and is smaller than managers consider healthy. Although the two designations often overlap, overfished populations are not necessarily subject to overfishing, and vice versa.

And yet, the most recent status reports from NOAA’s Office of Sustainable Fisheries still list 40 stocks – including 10 in New England, alone – as being actively subject to overfishing. Why?

Emily Menashes, Acting Director for the Office of Sustainable Fisheries, says it’s the “difference between implementing measures and having positive verification of [their] success.” Or, put another way, the difference between belief and knowledge. The strict catch limits put into place for the 2010 fishing season are based on scientists’ interpretation of available information about how many fish there are and also a complex suite of what are known as life history traits, such as life span and reproductive success. Regulators believe that the current limits are set at a point that will end overfishing. But they won’t know that for sure for some time.

The first step toward that knowledge is confirming that fishermen have stayed within the limits. That will come when the total catches for the 2010 fishing season are tallied in April.

But the final confirmation will have to wait for thorough stock assessments. For some species, like pollock, that could come as soon as this summer. But others, like yellowtail flounder in southern New England, won’t be fully assessed again until 2012.

And even if such assessments support taking all forty stocks off the “active overfishing” list, NOAA’s Monica Allen says it’s important to remember that ending overfishing is not a one-time deal.

Sustainable fish stocks must be maintained over the long-term. Because the marine environment is dynamic and constantly changing, we’ve developed adaptive, responsive management to sustain successful fisheries. There will be fish stocks where we end overfishing at one point, but then learn that overfishing is occurring at some future time. Our goal is to respond quickly to continue the longterm effort to rebuild healthy sustainable fisheries.

Menashes says she prefers to think of it as the beginning of sustainable fishing rather than the end of overfishing.

FILED UNDER: Adaptation, sustainable seafood

Comments Off
Tweet
Permalink

February 24, 2011 | 1:03 PM | By Heather Goldstone

What fishermen can learn from farmers

Fish ecologist John Waldman says that, in the search for sustainable fisheries, there are lessons to be learned from the clean energy and local food movements:

How we manage the sea and its fisheries would benefit from lessons drawn from two great realms that are returning towards diversification and familiarity: Both are just now emerging from brute domination by massive industrial practices into a more progressive “sensible mix” of options. The ocean realm trails behind… There is still little penetration of locally produced seafood in most greenmarkets. Many consumers remain confused about which seafoods are safe from the threat of chemical contamination. Some strain to remember advice from environmental organizations on which species get green, yellow, or red lights for their conservation status. Others struggle to weigh the environmental effects of commercial fishing versus aquaculture in choosing which fish to buy.

Waldman draws Michael Pollan’s In Defense of Food and Paul Greenberg’s Four Fish to offer a few key recommendations:

Small is beautiful: First and foremost, stop subsidizing industrial-scale production. Waldman reports that “global subsidies to commercial fisheries total $15 billion per year, with a sizeable portion going to industrial fishing fleets” and contributing directly to overfishing. In this country, such subsidies largely go to covering fuel costs. Eliminating those subsidies, Waldman says, would force consumers to face the true cost of the seafood they crave and could put greater focus on local, artisanal fisheries that typically fetch higher prices for their fish and have a smaller ecological footprint.
Respect the little guys: Small fish at the base of the food chain are often used for bait or fish food. Waldman argues their ecological value may outweigh their economic value, and that they should be protected. But another fisheries expert – Villy Christensen – has argued that we should start considering the economic and nutritional value of small fish as human food.
Diversity: Waldman argues that we need to stop thinking about what’s hauled up in a net or caught on a hook as either a “target” or unintended “by-catch.” Instead, everything that’s caught should be respected and milked for its maximum value.
Farm smart: Aquaculture can contribute to sustainable seafood production, Waldman says, but only if it’s done carefully and thoughtfully. He cites tilapia and milkfish as examples of fish that can be farmed efficiently and with relatively little environmental impact, but warns against salmon.

FILED UNDER: Adaptation, Human Impacts, sustainable seafood

January 27, 2011 | 11:41 AM | By Heather Goldstone

Unsustainable seafood listings not so outdated

Deep Sea News’ Miriam Goldstein digs into Legal Seafood’s CEO Roger Berkowitz’s claim that the science behind blacklisting tiger shrimp, Atlantic cod, and hake is outdated and insufficient:

The only case of “outdated scientific findings” I could find was that Gulf of Maine cod is no longer classified as “overfished.” I personally would not feel guilty about eating locally caught Gulf of Maine cod cheeks (yum!), but would continue to attempt to avoid black tiger prawn and hake.

A little elaboration on the complicated cod situation, as researched by Miriam: Gulf of Maine Cod is no longer considered “overfished” by the National Marine Fisheries Service, but stocks are still severely depleted compared to historical levels and bottom trawling is undeniably damaging to benthic ecosystems. The fish served by Legal Seafood was hook-and-line caught – a better option.

The big picture is there’s often no clear-cut right or wrong answer – the point Legal Seafood was trying to make. But flaunting fisheries science and honest efforts to provide consumers with reasonable recommendations may or may not get that point across. From Miriam:

There are just less fish than there used to be. This means that we need pressure from consumers for effective management – people have to have the correct information about where their fish comes from, and to understand why they should care. Thumbing one’s nose at those no-fun fisheries scientists and environmentalists is not going to change the fact that fisheries are in serious trouble.