Archive for the View from the Ocean Category

Jan 27 2012

What Obama’s Government Reform Proposal Means for Our Oceans

Making Sure NOAA Stays Strong During Federal Reorganization

 

The Oscar Dyson, an NOAA vessel, headed to summer feeding grounds off the Alaskan coast to study whales that have been teetering on extinction for decades. - AP/ NOAA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Jan 25 2012

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.

 

 

Jan 24 2012

Where do you think your food comes from?

In this 2008 file photo, a Vietnamese woman works at a fish market in Nha Trang, Vietnam. About 85 percent of the fish Americans eat is imported.

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.

 
Nov 29 2011

Partnership Preserves Livelihoods and Fish Stocks

Stevie Fitz leases a fishing permit from the Nature Conservancy. He reports his catches as part of the group's effort to manage fish stocks in Half Moon Bay. (Peter DaSilva for The New York Times)

By 

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.

Nov 24 2011

Unidentified floating objects are squid boats


On Sunday, these lighted boats appeared off the coast of San Clemente, harvesting squid to be marketed as calamari. (FRED SWEGLES, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER)

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.

 

 

 

 

Nov 23 2011

Squid and sardine fishing is no danger to species in Monterey Bay

By D.B. Pleschner

Special 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. 

Nov 21 2011

Another Banner Year for Market Squid

'Squid' photo (c) 2011, Toshiyuki IMAI - license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

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.

Oct 31 2011

Clean Water Act failing in new climate

BY RYAN P. KELLY & MARGARET R. CALDWELL

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently gave California some tough love in the form of a ghastly report card on water quality along our coasts and in our rivers and streams: The state’s water pollution seems to have gotten much worse, with the number of polluted water bodies skyrocketing between 2006 and 2010.

Some of this change is due to more aggressive testing; the blame for the rest is solely our own. And while this news is bad enough on its own, what’s often not discussed is that all of that polluted water ends up downstream in the coastal ocean, already hard hit by decades of abuse.

This is killing the goose that lays the golden state’s egg. Californians depend upon our coastal oceans more than you might realize. As of 2000, over three-quarters of Californians lived in coastal counties, and the state’s coastal economy accounted for $42.9 billion and 700,000 jobs. These numbers have surely risen since 2000, but we’ve failed to be the stewards of these waters that their value – economic, aesthetic and otherwise – deserve.

And the threats to ocean resources keep coming, from climate change to the collapse of so many fisheries stocks worldwide. One challenge we are just beginning to understand is ocean acidification, a consequence of the fact that the oceans absorb a large fraction of the carbon dioxide we continue to pump into the atmosphere. This has changed the chemistry of the entire world’s ocean, making it more acidic. Because this increased acidity dissolves the hard shells of many of the world’s marine creatures (e.g., oysters, mussels, and many forms of plankton), these creatures and the food webs of which they are a part face a difficult future.

The horrible air quality of the 1970s is an obvious analogy to the state of California’s waters today. While the state still has severe air quality problems in places – Bakersfield, the Central Valley, and the Los Angeles region stand out – three decades of concerted effort to clean up our air has led to significantly improved air quality for most of our state. And the benefits of such action are enormous: An EPA report earlier this year showed the direct benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments dwarfed the costs of implementation by a 30-to-1 ratio. This month’s final EPA report on water quality only confirms what we already know, that California must do better when it comes to our coastal ocean.

Read the rest of the opinion from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Oct 6 2011

An interview with ICES guest instructor Ray Hilborn

Ray Hilborn

All about Bayesian inference in fisheries science

​ICES Training Programme recently offered Introduction to Bayesian Inference in Fisheries Science, conducted by Ray Hilborn and Samu Mäntyniemi. It was attended by 26 students from 17 countries.

Ray Hilborn, one of today’s leading experts on fisheries, is a professor in the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, specializing in natural resource management and conservation. He serves as an advisor to several international fisheries commissions and agencies as well as teaching graduate and undergraduate courses in conservation, fishery stock assessment, and risk analysis. He is author of Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment, with Carl Walters, and The Ecological Detective: Confronting Models with Data, with Marc Mangel.

What is Bayesian statistics?

Bayesian statistics is one variety of statistics. Depending on how you divide it, you could say there are three primary schools. Beginning statistics courses centre on the concept of the null hypothesis and whether the data support rejection of the null hypothesis; usually, statistics are reported so that the probability of the null hypothesis is false. Then, there is the probability that you can reject the null hypothesis, and that’s often called Frequentive statistics. Finally, there’s another school, the Likelihoodist, that deals primarily with the extent to which the data support competing hypotheses. It’s a more interesting statistic because it realizes that you often have multiple different hypotheses, which is interesting to the extent that the data support the different hypotheses.

Bayesian statistics is, in a sense, much like the Likelihoodist, but it goes the additional step of actually assigning probabilities to competing hypotheses. The reason that’s so important is that, when you are giving advice to decision-makers, they want to know what’s the chance that something will happen. It turns out that Bayesian statistics is the only form of statistics that philosophically claims that they are probabilities. Going back – I guess I first ran into Bayesian statistics about 35 years ago – you find that Bayesian statistics really dominated business schools because they were built around decision-making.

Read the rest here.


Sep 15 2011

South Coast ocean closures not approved by state’s law office

Written by Ed Zieralski

In what is a blow to environmental groups who seek fishing closures off the coast of California, the marine protected areas called for by theMarine Life Protection Act’s South Coast Region have been disapproved by the state’s Office of Administrative Law (OAL).

The third set of marine protected areas established by the MLPA process will be delayed by months or more, according to a high-ranking Department of Fish and Game official who requested anonymity. The OAL has ordered the Department of Fish and Game and the MLPA Initiative team to correct what it calls deficiencies in the MLPA’s final documents. The flaws must be fixed before the closures are approved, according to a document released Friday by the OAL.

The OAL listed several reasons it did not approve the closures. Included among them is the MLPA staff’s failure to provide reasons for rejecting alternative proposals for closures. Another reason listed is the MLPA’s Initiative team’s failure to adequately respond to all of the public comments regarding the proposed closures.

The ruling came 17 days before the entire process will be on trial in San Diego Superior Court. Bob Fletcher, a former state Fish and Game assistant director and one-time president of the Sportfishing Association of California, and the Partnership for Sustainable Oceans sued the MLPA Initiative team for what the suit calls a mishandling of the process. The trial is set for Sept. 26.

Read the rest on SignOnSanDiego.com.