October 23 – All About Aquaculture: Current Status in New England - In the fourth and final post in the All About Aquaculture series, we take a look at current aquaculture research and production in New England and the government agencies involved in the regulation of aquaculture operations.

October 26 – Fish Talk in the News – Friday, October 26 - In this week’s Fish Talk in the News, scientists and environmental groups speak out against a proposed fisheries data confidentiality rule; Carl Safina and Andrew Read argue against a delay for a gillnetting closure; The New York Times discusses the damaging effects of trawling; fishing communities prepare for Hurricane Sandy, a coalition celebrates the removal of a dam in Taunton; a new bill would allow spearfishing for stripers in MA; NMFS proposes more relaxed regulations for dogfish; Ellen Pikitch argues for precautionary, ecosystem-based fisheries management.

A New Bedford trawler leaves port.

“Groundfish resources off New England have experienced significant changes in abundance during the past 30 years and have now fallen to all time record lows.” 

-  Ronald Brown, Secretary of Commerce. Declaration of Disaster Affecting the New England Fishing Industry – March 18, 1994

“…I don’t hear so much in New England that ‘there are plenty of fish, our scientists got it wrong’…right now what I hear  – and what I see in the eyes of fishermen  – is people are saying ‘we can’t find codfish’ and they are really worried about their ability to stay in business…”

-  John Bullard, NOAA Northeast Administrator. MPBN Radio Interview – August 29, 2012

Why does this current groundfish crisis seem so familiar? As the populations of New England’s cod, haddock and flounder have continued to decline, it’s not surprising that the number of fishing boats chasing them have declined. The business of consolidation within any industry is often a fact of doing business and we know that consolidation has been happening in the New England groundfish fleet for decades. So far, the New England Fishery Management Council has avoided any serious approach to addressing fleet diversity and consolidation as it kicks the can down the road on the development of Amendment 18, and the National Marine Fisheries Service has been willing to watch from the sidelines. Some members of the New England Congressional delegation are trying to reduce the potentially devastating economic blow to fishing families and coastal communities by seeking federal disaster assistance, and for their good intentions and hard work, are getting a bizarre and negative counter reaction. And, NOAA appears to look for grossly wrong-headed short-term fixes, such as the concept of an accelerated effort to open some of the best remaining habitat areas in the Gulf of Maine to increased trawling and dredging.

Consolidation, fleet diversity, maintaining our region’s fishing heritage, federal assistance and creating new economic opportunities for fishing families are all important and serious issues, but they continue to avoid the core problem. The bottom line is that when there are no fish, there will not be a fishing industry.

What NOAA can do now is to exhibit leadership: stop looking towards actions which would heave the decades-long saga of the New England groundfishery into the next episode and, instead, focus on restoring the fish populations which are the basis for the jobs, resources and tremendous benefits which we all need and enjoy. Don’t wait for the elections and for Congress to sort itself out. Don’t seek to cheat on “inaccessible” fish stocks by opening closed areas. Catch limits which are not based on scientific data may be more politically palatable, but will only continue to mask the simple fact that the region’s best fishing captains aren’t finding fish because the fish are not there.

Here’s a proposal to NOAA: Follow the law. Tell the truth. Do the right thing.

Realistic catch limits are based on scientific data and incorporate a responsible amount of precaution. NOAA can establish rebuilding timelines which create a much higher likelihood of restoring fish populations. Ending overfishing is not just a legal requirement but a best management practice.

In addition to strict scientifically set catch limits, the most basic component for healthy fish populations and ocean wildlife is to protect and maintain quality habitat. This is an area of management which NOAA can effectively control. NOAA needs to come to grips with the reality that better protection and restoration of degraded habitat is not only integral to the recovery of fish populations, but serves to create the long term resilience that fish populations need when the more unpredictable effects of climate change hit. Existing habitat areas and areas already closed to bottom trawling and dredging, juvenile groundfish in nursery areas and essential fish habitat are building blocks for restoring the fishery. This is a Basic 101 Management issue.

Fishing families and coastal communities deserve any help they can get in an economic crisis. Over a year ago the Department of Commerce deployed Economic Development and Assistance Teams to assess economic impacts to New England communities. Those reports are gathering dust. High-level interagency coordination helped develop solutions in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, and they can do that on a respectable scale in New England. Support communities with the available programs of the Departments of Labor, Housing and Urban Development, the Small Business Administration and community grants.

August 24 – Court Order Sets Clock Ticking for Action on River Herring – In a few weeks the New England Fishery Management Council will get a letter, probably a long one, explaining why the coming year will bring big changes to the way the council handles severely depleted river herring and shad.

August 24 – Fish Talk in the News – Friday, August 24 – In this week’s Fish Talk in the News: NOAA asks Congress to keep NERO in Gloucester; the Boston Globe supports John Bullard; New England fishing is the deadliest profession in the country; the South Shore Seafood Exchange grows; rising seal numbers cause concern; a gold rush for New England conch; river herring return to Upper Mystic Lake; and a cooking competition raises awareness of local, sustainable seafood.

• 

  Photo credit: Sean Cosgrove

  May 17 – “Slinging Mud” – The mud in Casco Bay, Maine, is changing. According to an article last fall in the Bangor Daily News, areas that used to contain vast quantities of economically valuable clams are now “dead mud.” Local clammers are finding that sites of former abundance are now completely devoid of shellfish. Even efforts to seed the formerly thriving areas with shellfish larvae are not yielding results. Some scientists think that the increasing acidity of the mud, due partly to the increased carbon dioxide being absorbed from the atmosphere, is making conditions unsuitable for shellfish larvae to form, well, shells. We may not yet be able to quantify the damage ocean acidification will cause in New England waters – although researchers are trying. But we don’t want to sit on our hands and wait to see how bad it will get.

• May 18 – “Fish Talk in the News – Friday, May 18” – This week’s interesting fishing and seafood-related stories: the ethics of seafood; NOAA’s annual status of the stocks report; making sure funding for ocean programs stays in the federal budget; CLF’s Peter Shelley talking about seafood on WGBH; and what local seafood to keep and eye out for at the market this summer.

The Gulf of Maine (Northern) shrimp season ends today (Photo credit: Aldric D'Eon, courtsey of the NEFSC).

• February 13: “A behind the scenes peek at the Gulf of Maine cod stock assessments” - What really happened to Gulf of Maine cod? Heather Goldstone of Climatide investigated last week by talking to Liz Brooks and Mike Palmer, two of the scientists at the Northeast Fisheries Science Center who were involved in producing the 2011 Gulf of Maine cod stock assessment.

• February 14: “To help GOM cod, NMFS should not touch closed areas” - It’s been widely reported that at its February meeting, the New England Fishery Management Council voted to ask the National Marine Fisheries Service to take emergency action on Gulf of Maine cod for the 2012 fishing year. The measures proposed, including a mere 3-13% reduction in the catch limit, were notable largely for their failure to address the condition of the depleted cod stock. But there is an aspect of the proposed package that has received little attention, which is troubling, because it would have NMFS open up five of the six existing areas currently closed to groundfishing.

• February 17: “Fish Talk in the News” - A weekly roundup of stories we think will interest readers. This week: news and opinion on Gulf of Maine cod regulations and fisheries science, the end of this year’s Gulf of Maine shrimp season.

This blog was originally published on TalkingFish.org.

It’s been widely reported that at its February meeting, the New England Fishery Management Council voted to ask the National Marine Fisheries Service to take emergency action on Gulf of Maine cod for the 2012 fishing year. The measures proposed, including a mere 3-13% reduction in the catch limit, were notable largely for their failure to address the condition of the depleted cod stock. But there is an aspect of the proposed package that has received little attention, which is troubling, because it would have NMFS open up five of the six existing areas currently closed to groundfishing. The areas at issue serve a myriad of functions for managed commercial species including protection of their habitat and spawning areas and providing a buffer against excessive fishing effort on certain species. Several of these areas have been in place for over fifteen years and have taken on important and positive functions and values that are currently being studied but are not yet entirely understood.

A map of the Gulf of Maine showing the groundfish closed areas (Photo credit: NOAA).

That’s one of the many reasons why the Council’s action is so incomprehensible. It came one day after the Council announced that it was only one year away from completing an eight-year process of collecting data and developing a highly scientific model by which it believes it can identify the best and most vulnerable habitat to protect. So, just when a lengthy scientific process is about to render answers as to what areas should be open and which closed, the Council urged action to open areas and did so without any scientific support. What’s more, many of these closures were imposed in order to comply with a court order to protect habitat from fishing gear, and several of these areas were chosen precisely because they are habitat for Gulf of Maine cod. Giving fishermen access to these areas will increase the likelihood that catch limits on cod will be exceeded and that catch will be discarded, increasing the mortality of this stock and undermining the very purpose of the emergency measure.

There is also the question of the legalities of opening these areas with this action. Many of the areas that the Council has put on the chopping block were originally designated in order to comply with a requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act that essential fish habitat must be protected from fishing to the extent practicable. Any elimination of these closed areas risks undoing the Council’s means of complying with this requirement of federal fisheries law. The Service’s action will also be limited by the need to analyze the environmental impacts of reopening closures in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Just such an analysis is currently ongoing with the Council’s groundfish technical team. This analysis can, and with the Service’s help would, be completed in time for the 2013 fishing year, but is not ready as part of this emergency action.

The Service should take this opportunity to invest resources in the essential fish habitat process and the analysis of the groundfish closed areas already underway in order to ensure that it will be completed in time for what will inevitably be an even more restrictive 2013 fishing year. If the Service instead chooses to randomly reopen closed areas through the Council’s requested emergency action, it risks leaving Gulf of Maine cod and other fish stocks more vulnerable to overfishing than before, a blow to the fishery and exactly the opposite of the emergency action’s intended effect.

River herring. Photo credit: Chris Bowser, NY State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Alewife and blueback herring, collectively known as “river herring,” are a linchpin of the Atlantic ecosystem and key prey species for countless marine and freshwater animals. But today, where millions of these fish once swam, they now number in the thousands, or even mere hundreds. In August, because of the perilous status of this important species, the Natural Resources Defense Council filed a petition with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to have alewife and blueback herring listed as a “threatened species” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This would mean that without substantial intervention, river herring are likely to become endangered and eventually extinct throughout all or significant portions of their ranges.

In response to the petition, NMFS agreed that a “threatened” listing may be warranted, and it will now take the next twelve months to conduct a scientific review that will determine the next course of action. If river herring are listed under the ESA, they will be better protected against bycatch in ocean fisheries, which studies estimate kills roughly 12 million fish annually, and they will also be better protected against water pollution, dams and other harms.

In order to ensure that NMFS undertakes a comprehensive and fully-independent scientific review and does not cut corners or cave to outside pressures, we need you to reach out to NMFS and ask that its review of the status of river herring be based on the best available science.

Click here to send your comments to NMFS and help protect river herring!

In arguments made today before Federal Judge Rya W. Zobel on the federal lawsuit regarding the New England fisheries management system known as Amendment 16, Conservation Law Foundation senior counsel Peter Shelley defended the process in which the new rules were developed and agreed upon at the New England Fishery Management Council and re-affirmed CLF’s support for the Amendment.

Shelley stated, “This lawsuit is not so much about the specific merits of Amendment 16, but more about the integrity of the process by which the new rules were developed and vetted and set into motion. The process, which involved all of the fishing interests, including some who today decry it and the outcome it produced, was fair, rational and legal. New Bedford’s interests were directly represented in those lengthy deliberations and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts participated actively in both the Amendment 16 science decision-making and the policy development. This is the New England Council’s plan, not a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) plan.”

“CLF supports the Council’s approval of Amendment 16 not because it is perfect, but because it represents a reasonable decision, reached after an extended transparent public debate that reasonably meets the Magnuson Stevens Act and National Environmental Policy Act requirements while attempting to provide additional flexibility for fishermen in the region to fish more efficiently and profitably if they want to. The related issues of consolidation and fairness in access to fish are on the Council’s plate now and should be carefully analyzed and debated.”

After the hearing, Shelley observed, “What we have learned over the past fifteen years is that strong and effective management of this important public resource, coupled with some degree of luck with Mother Nature, can restore fish populations to high levels and support a vital and stable domestic fishing industry. Amendment 16 is designed to accomplish that objective and is consistent with the Magnuson Act.”

Read the text of Peter’s full argument here.