No longer doggin’ it
Monday,30 August,2010 08:39:36
Fishery managers are obsessed with overfishing, to the point where fish are wasted, or worse.
For example, there are so many dogfish off New England they have been a nuisance for several years. They drive other fish off their bottom, feed on other stocks with no regard for biomass targets, and they interfere with fishing efforts targeting more valuable species by taking bait, gnawing on hooked fish, and plugging trawls.
NMFS has increased the dogfish quota, though not nearly enough. As a result, the fishery shut down this week until November.
Brian Rothschild, the dean emeritus of the UMass School of Marine Science and Technology, told the Standard-Times newspaper of New Bedford, Mass., that dogfish may have reached the saturation point, and observed, “One has to wonder about an ecosystem that has such a dominant number of small sharks.”
On the brighter side, the proliferation of the once overfished dogfish speaks to the resilience of the oceans, especially when you consider that dogs have the longest gestation period of any vertebrate in the world.
Another species that has surprised many is the swordfish. Tune into the Discovery Channel fish opera “Swords,” and look at the size of the fish being stacked in the fish holds. You’ll come away with a good feeling about the fishery.
And how about those Fraser River sockeyes? Twenty-five million have returned this year in the biggest run since 1913. In light of last year’s 2 million-fish Fraser showing, doomsayers believe it’s a blip. Blip or bounce, it speaks to the ability of the ocean to produce fish.
It should be clear that fishing is but one factor affecting marine ecosystems. That doesn’t mean we should play fast and loose in our management efforts, but it does suggest that failing to maximize the economic benefits of production is as wasteful in its own way as overfishing is.
Thank you for your time.
Jerry Fraser
Editor & Publisher, National Fisherman
www.nationalfisherman.com
Samples and settlements worry gulf fishermen
Monday,23 August,2010 11:12:01
We remain entirely unconvinced that the government’s rosy scenario of disappearing oil in the Gulf of Mexico is likely, and non-governmental research at the very least buttresses our skepticism.
So do the observations of fishermen along the Mississippi coast, who report finding oil or an “oily substance” at sea and believe shrimp season was opened too soon.
They want to see the federal government test Gulf of Mexico waters. Meanwhile, they have sent samples out for analysis on their own.
“We hope it’s not oil, but that’s what it appears to be,” fisherman Mark Stewart told WLOX-TV in Biloxi.
Ironically, says Stewart, “With your eyes you really can’t see anything ’til you put something down there to actually catch the oil with and absorb it, or what appears to be oil.
“Whatever it is, it is some type of oily substance, and you get it on your hands, and your skin doesn’t feel the same.”
Stewart is articulating the findings of researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who are reporting a 22-mile-long plume of oil 3,000 to 4,000 feet beneath the surface of the gulf.
“The water samples when we were right in the plume look like spring water,” Richard Camilli, the lead author of the group’s report, told New York’s Daily News. “You certainly didn’t see any oil droplets and you certainly didn’t smell it.”
The Woods Hole research supports the observations of fisherman James “Catfish” Miller. “We’re not fighting surface oil anymore,” he told WLOX. “We’re fighting oil and dispersants mixed together under the water.”
Stewart says seafood is safe — with a caveat.
“What seafood’s alive probably is safe. There’s some critters out there that this stuff got to [that are] dead. The ones that’s alive is just coming out of the bays and bayous and estuaries, and they’re not affected ’til they get out into the waters.
“Some shrimp came out a couple of weeks ago and they disappeared immediately… they vanished.”
Stewart says there is “no way” BP has done right by fishermen and he won’t be signing any long-term settlement deal in the foreseeable future. "I won't sign it,” he told the TV station. “No way. They’re not going to know the extent of the damages around here for years to come.”
My fear is that grim economic realities will eventually compel Stewart and fishermen throughout the gulf region to grasp for straws in the form of settlement offers they may regret signing just a few years from now.
Thank you for your time.
Jerry Fraser
Editor & Publisher, National Fisherman
www.nationalfisherman.com
All SeafoodSource blogs >
Farewell to the father of fisheries policy
Monday,16 August,2010 08:24:20
In a generation known as the greatest, Ted Stevens was one of the standouts.
"My motto," he famously said, "has always been 'to hell with politics, just do what's right for Alaska.'"
As it turns out, of course, Stevens did right by a lot more than Alaska. He served his country in war and peace, raised a family, and as readers of National Fisherman know very well, was the visionary architect of U.S. fisheries policy.
He was a force behind the 1976 200-mile limit, which was the linchpin of the first blueprint for U.S. fisheries management that would bear his name. At the time, the 200-mile limit was not universally embraced (count National Fisherman among the "undecided").
Among others, the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the American Fisheries Act, Alaska's Community Development Quota Program and successive iterations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act all bear enduring witness to Stevens' fishery management vision.
Whether we think he got everything right or not is beside the point. His comprehension of the intersection of fisheries and public policy was second to no one's, and as much as we might wish otherwise, we are unlikely to see his equal.
Thank you for your time.
Jerry Fraser
Editor & Publisher, National Fisherman
www.nationalfisherman.com
Oh me of little faith
Tuesday,10 August,2010 14:01:35
Remember that "giant sucking sound" Ross Perot predicted we'd hear if we passed the North American Free Trade Agreement?
I'm hearing it again. Only this time it's not jobs headed to Mexico, it's the hot air that's being blown around by the folks who insist that the tens of millions of barrels of oil that boiled out of the seafloor into the Gulf of Mexico are evaporating, dispersing and otherwise disappearing on their own — but don't worry, they're going to clean up whatever doesn't clean itself up.
To put a fine point on it, the U.S. government says only 26 percent of the oil that spilled remains. You can believe this or not, but I recommend you reflect on the government's decidedly minimalist estimates on how much oil was flowing into the gulf in the first place before you bet the family farm on this figure.
Nor would I wait for BP to set the record straight.
As Paul Sammarco of the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium told the Times-Picayune of New Orleans, "The oil might not be easy to see, but there's still a lot of it out there."
I am reminded of President George W. Bush's "mission accomplished" declaration in Iraq, and I ask myself, "Is this when things really go to hell?"
So maybe that's why I'm a little more in line with Jefferson Parish, La., Councilman Chris Roberts, who said, "I hope the report is accurate, but I wonder why all of a sudden there's so much interest in wrapping this up, putting a bow on it and declaring victory."
Amen. Fact is, if you want somebody to believe, believe Willie Davis, harbormaster over in Pass Christian, Miss. "I'm losing trust in the whole system," he told the Associated Press. "If they don't get up off their behinds and do something now, it's gonna be years before we're back whole again."
Thank you for your time.
Jerry Fraser
Editor & Publisher, National Fisherman
www.nationalfisherman.com