ICCAT 2012: gains and losses with no help from Canada

ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, recently convened in Morocco for its annual evaluation of catch limits.  This is a group that for many years seemed to be turning a deaf ear to the calls of conservationists and even its own scientific advisers as to the diminishing bluefin tuna population (read prior posts here & here).  Year after year, catch limits were set way above any recommended number that could potentially provide sustainability.

This year, the ICCAT awoke slightly from its deep, dark slumber and established catch levels that were in line with limits prescribed by marine scientists: maintaining the current level of 13,500 tons annually, along with an improved management and control process.

It still leaves the Atlantic bluefin tuna on a razor's edge with extinction a distinct possibility.  A complete moratorium would be the most sensible environmental solution but the economic influence of the tuna fishing industry makes that a slim possibility - although it could occur if continued observation and management shows that tuna stocks are not improving.

That was the wake up call this time around: that after 30 years of setting catch levels that were considered sufficient, the ICCAT realized that was just not the case.  Now the big concern is whether this new effort will be sufficient to give the bluefin tuna a fighting chance.

The ICCAT also establishes quotas for its member nations with regard to sharks.  This year there was a proposal from the EU to limit catches of shortfin mako and a complete ban on the porbeagle shark.  The poor porbeagle.  This is a shark that has truly been hammered by the shark fishing industry.  Authorities do not question the fact that the population of porbeagle sharks has declined by 90% since the 1960s.  Where once there were ten, there is now only one - and it only took five decades to do it.

Unfortunately, the EU's proposals were tabled due to some political maneuvering by a few dissenting members.  To accommodate some of the dissenters, like Canada, there were rumored discussions about allowing Canada an exemption.  With that, other dissenting members demanded equal treatment which was sufficient to knock the wind out of the sails of the entire proposed platform.

Often when we think of the overfishing of tuna or sharks, many turn to Asian markets as the primary villains.  While it may be true that that is where most of the demand is coming from, we must also consider the nations that support that demand.  At the ICCAT meeting this year, Canada turned out to be a disappointing supporter; one of the pushers supplying the junkie's habit.

The Canadian contingent had actually requested an increase to 2,000 tons in the bluefin tuna catch limit, but they were soundly defeated by the majority.  However, they doubled their efforts when it came to resisting the shark limits, even though the Canadian government is considering listing the porbeagle shark as an endangered species under its Species at Risk Act.

“I think it is fair to say that there was a general feeling across the meeting that [Canada’s tuna proposal] was out of step, that there was very clear scientific advice that said maintain the quotas,” said Amanda Nickson, director of the U.S.-based Pew Environmental Group’s global tuna conservation program.

Basic supply and demand principles work fine for manufactured or grown products.  It can be a seesaw of price vs. demand and demand vs. production, but it works most of the time.  Where it does not work is when you have a finite resource like tuna or sharks.  Demanding consumers and the producers that blindly support that demand with product, both are responsible parties to what could be the collapse of an industry and, sadly, the extinction of important ocean species.  Scientists and conservationists must be relentless in their efforts to halt overfishing of the bluefin tuna, shortfin makos, porbeagle sharks, and many others.

Source: GozoNews.com
Source: The Globe and Mail                       

Pacific Shark Populations In Decline: new study provides hard numbers on pelagic species

The results of a recent study published in Conservation Biology paints a disturbing picture of ongoing decline of sharks in the Pacific Ocean.  Now, to many who are familiar with the subject of shark finning and overfishing, this does not necessarily sound, unfortunately, like anything new - it is what many of us have been fighting about for some time.  However, it's an important report because it covers a wide period of time, has specific numbers, and notes that some areas in shark conservation that receive considerable public support may not be as effective as hoped.

The study by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community in New Caledonia, headed up by Dr. Shelley Clark, covers a fifteen-year period, examining catch records from several fisheries throughout the Pacific, and shows significant declines in the catch rates for blue, mako, oceanic whitetip sharks, along with declining average size in oceanic whitetip and silky sharks (following the same fate of tuna and billfish).  These are all, basically, pelagic or open water sharks that operate outside of most national ocean boundaries in international waters.

Oceanic whitetips were shown to be declining annually at a rate of 17%.  Based on just that number alone, that would mean that oceanic whitetips in Pacific waters have 5-6 years left.  Unfortunately, that could be accelerated because of how animal populations can reach a "tipping point" where their declining numbers can no longer be supported by any means of natural reproduction and the population suddenly collapses and they plummet to oblivion.

Blue sharks were also reported to be declining at a rate of 5% in the North Pacific.  Blue sharks are a bit more abundant and more productive, but they, along with the oceanic whitetip are highly sought after by commercial shark fishing operations.  Physically, these two species have particularly large pectoral fins so, quite literally, fishermen get more bang for the buck with a shark with large fins, in open international waters and, at least with the blue shark, are slightly more abundant.

The New Caledonia study goes on to report that, in international waters, shark fishing for fins or the entire carcass, has proved to be a difficult practice to regulate due to insufficient enforcement, complex laws regarding fin-to-carcass ratios (the result of compromises by international agencies to commercial interests), and no follow-through enforcement or prosecution at the domestic level.  And then there is the impact of illegal fishing or longline fishing where numbers of sharks are caught but were not necessarily targeted.  Time and time again, we find that laws or regulations that are in place mean nothing if there is insufficient enforcement and prosecution.  Pardon the pun, but too often the laws have no teeth.

As reported in a recent press release, Sonja Fordham, president of Shark Advocates International, had this to say about the report and the current state of regulations, "These findings underscore conservationists' messages that most finning bans are not properly enforced, and alone are not sufficient to reverse shark population declines.  Prohibitions on at-sea removal of shark fins not only bolster finning ban enforcement, but also facilitate collection of species-specific fisheries data that are key to refining population assessments and informing the establishment of urgently needed shark catch limits."

This is why it is critical for all shark conservationists to focus some of their interest, energy, and passion into prodding and supporting those organizations that work on behalf of sharks in the international arena.  It may seem a bit removed and you may feel a bit ineffectual compared to regional efforts like state or local shark finning or fishing bans, but, remember, most of the ocean is in international jurisdiction.  If we do not pressure these worldwide agencies to act responsibly, based on current scientific information, then we will find ourselves putting band aids on our local waters, while the open oceans are hemorrhaging badly.

Source: PRNewsire       

The Future of Coral Reefs: all but lost or capable of being saved?

Writing this blog over the course of the past few years, I have touched on a variety of environmental issues and challenges facing a variety of ecosystems, many of which are ocean-related.  I must admit, there are times when I find myself writing about one bad situation after another and begin to think, "Well, we're screwed."  My prescription for those moments of cynicism is to write about something positive, fun or even silly.  Change the mood; take a break; put your head in a better place.

I thought of that when I read Roger Bradbury's New York Times Op-Ed, A World Without Coral Reefs.  Bradbury is an ecologist with the Australian National University and in his writing he took the position that if coral reefs are threatened with extinction in the next 20-30 years, the three main forces that are threatening the reefs - overfishing, ocean acidification, and pollution - cannot be sufficiently arrested in time to make a noticeable difference within that time frame.  Therefore, coral reefs are doomed.

"It's past time to tell the truth about the state of the world’s coral reefs, the nurseries of tropical coastal fish stocks. They have become zombie ecosystems, neither dead nor truly alive in any functional sense, and on a trajectory to collapse within a human generation. There will be remnants here and there, but the global coral reef ecosystem — with its storehouse of biodiversity and fisheries supporting millions of the world’s poor — will cease to be."

Bradbury examines the three main threats and lists some measures of improvement but contends that such progress, whether real or proposed, is incapable of reducing the effects of overfishing, acidification, and pollution enough to make a measurable difference in the ultimate degradation of the coral reefs.  There just isn't enough time but, contends Bradbury, governments, environmentalists, and scientists won't accept the inevitable and continue to cling to hope.

"But by persisting in the false belief that coral reefs have a future, we grossly misallocate the funds needed to cope with the fallout from their collapse. Money isn’t spent to study what to do after the reefs are gone — on what sort of ecosystems will replace coral reefs and what opportunities there will be to nudge these into providing people with food and other useful ecosystem products and services. Nor is money spent to preserve some of the genetic resources of coral reefs by transferring them into systems that are not coral reefs. And money isn’t spent to make the economic structural adjustment that communities and industries that depend on coral reefs urgently need. We have focused too much on the state of the reefs rather than the rate of the processes killing them."

The following day, another op-ed appeared in the New York Times to try and balance the gloom and doom of Bradbury's position.  In Reefs in the Anthropocene - Zombie Ecology?, Andrew Revkin quoted several marine scientists who, while not disputing the direness of Bradbury's reporting, did make the case that all is not necessarily lost.  Revkin quoted John Bruno, marine ecologist with the North Carolina University at Chapel Hill:

"It is scary, but is it true? I don’t think so. I have been called a pathological optimist, but on the other hand, I’ve watched reefs change radically from the dangerous wild places I experienced as a kid in the Florida Keys, to simplified systems with few corals and fewer predators. And this is in just 30 years. 

We have many examples of places where local threats like fishing and pollution have been reduced or reversed and in some cases like the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, with great success.  We also have some — though not many — reefs even in the Caribbean that have a lot of healthy coral and are patrolled by sharks, grouper, snapper, barracuda, and other large carnivores.

The challenge for my generation of scientists is to increase the number of these “quasi-pristine” coral reefs (I’d like to see a tenfold increase) and to halt the decline of the other 90 percent of the world’s reefs.  Are this optimistic goals? Sure.  But the science suggests this is doable and I’m far from ready to give up on reefs."

Revkin also received some feedback from renown marine scientists, conservationist, and author, Carl Safina.  Safina recognizes the extant of the problem and concedes that many reef areas will be permanently altered.  But he also recognizes that there is quantifiable progress taking place and that it is not yet time to throw in the towel.

"Bradbury seems to suggest giving up and spending money on ways to replace the values (for example, fish) that coral reefs have provided. But what would giving up look like? Overfishing is old news, and plenty of people are, in fact, spending money trying to raise fish. Some are making money. Overpopulation: also old news and crucial to everything from water supplies to prospects for peace. One doesn’t need to certify future coral reef destruction to realize that overpopulation is bad for human health and dignity, not to mention a catastrophe for wild living systems. These problems have caused the losses to date and they continue. Warming and acidification are also building. 

But to accept that reefs are doomed implies that the best response is to give up hope, thus give up effort. That means we give up on curbing overfishing and allowing rebuilding (yet these two goals are in fact are increasingly working in many places, specifically because people have not given up, and because letting fish recover can work). It means we give up on controlling pollution (in the U.S., the Clean Water Act brought great improvement to rivers so polluted that they actually caught fire multiple times; developing nations deserve to do no less for themselves). It means we give up on population, whose most effective solving strategy is to teach girls to read and write. 

Giving up, while reefs still flourish in many places, means accepting what is unacceptable, and abandoning work on situations that can likely be improved. It means deciding to be hopeless. It means giving up on the reefs, the fishes, and the people, who need all the combined efforts of those who both know the science best—and who, while life exists, won’t give up. 

The science is clear that reefs are in many places degraded and in serious trouble. But no science has, or likely can, determine that reefs and all their associated non-coral creatures are unequivocally, equally and everywhere, completely doomed to total non-existence. In fact, much science suggests they will persist in some lesser form. Bleak prospects have been part of many dramatic turnarounds, and, who knows, life may, as usual—with our best efforts—find a way."

Bradbury's op-ed is a worthwhile read, sobering as it is.  However, so is Andrew Revkin's as his take serves not just as a Pollyanna, all-things-are-rosy response.  There is a thoughtful counter-argument to the idea that coral reefs are beyond salvation.  The biggest challenge may not be in what we do as much as when we get the worldwide determination to do it.  No one argues with the fact that the clock is ticking.

Source: Roger Bradbury's New York Times Op-Ed
Source: Andrew Revkin's New York Times blog post

Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park: a success story and model for Mexican conservation

At the southeastern tip of Baja California, along a dusty coastal dirt road is located the small town of Cabo Pulmo. East of the popular and sometimes wild Cabo San Lucas, Cabo Plumo has a success story of its own: the Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park.

At 27 square miles, the Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park is small; tiny when compared to some of the expansive marine parks or sanctuaries established in the South Pacific and elsewhere. But it is a great example of what can occur when local citizens and conservation organizations come together to re-orient the local economy to support the park.

According to Octavio Aburto Oropeza, a post-doctoral researcher at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California, populations of groupers, sharks, and other top predators have begun to flourish once again, after being heavily depleted by the commercial fishing and sportfishing. The park was established in 1995 and in the succeeding years, the overall biomass has increased dramatically. From 1999 to 2009, it saw a 463% improvement. And apex predators like large groupers, tiger sharks, bull sharks, and other reef-dwelling shark species have skyrocketed by over 1,000 percent.

North of the marine park, in the Gulf of California, there are areas that show a definite decline in the number of fish and the overall health of the reef ecosystems, and that is due primarily to overfishing by commercial operations or even local fishermen. Also, a considerable amount of illegal fishing of protected species takes place in the Gulf which has contributed to a not so stellar conservation image for Mexico. Because of this, the Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park serves as a model for the Mexican government to duplicate throughout the Gulf.

However, it wasn't an easy transition for the locals. Having restricted or "no-take" zones initially met with some resistance and there certainly were some economic adjustments that needed to be made. But over time, the shift from commercial fishing activities to tourism and diving successfully took place, as evidenced by the development of several resorts, scuba diving/snorkeling outfitters, and ecotourism operations.

"It's a very good example of how many benefits can be produced by coastal communities once you pick an area and leave it to that point that the recovery ... produces other benefits," said Aburto.

Aburto has recently been studying the return of the Gulf Grouper within the park; the fish reaching sizes twice that (up to 4 feet) of those caught outside of the park. He will soon be turning his focus on whether or not the positive effects of the park are spilling out beyond its borders. In California, with its system of MPAs (marine protected areas), researchers have seen fish populations increase outside of the MPAs' boundaries (boundaries that are totally unknown to the fish themselves). This is one of the benefits that many fishermen, who initially were MPA opponents, have come to realize. Soon, there will be a complete chain of MPAs along the California coast and it is hoped that the spillover effect will help to boost fish populations over a much wider area.

This is something that Octavio Aburto Oropeza would like to see happen in Mexico, throughout the Gulf of California and beyond. "This is very important to show that if we create bigger areas, and maintain or protect them for all these years, the benefits will be huge."

The Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park is a prime example of what can happen when we preserve rather than plunder our ocean resources. Nature has a remarkable resiliency, an ability to recover - if given the chance. There's a lesson to be learned here.

Learn more about the Cabo Pulmo National Marine Park.
Read a Baja Life Magazine article about Cabo Pulmo.
Source: North County Times.

Oceans On the Edge of Extinction: international scientific panel issues report that demands our attention

A story is moving quickly through the news media like an Arizona wildfire - from England to India, from the New York Times to Al Jazeera. It's not the latest scandal by a self-indulgent politician or the embarrassment of a foul-mouthed entertainer. It's something that many of us who love and respect the oceans have been wrestling with for some time: multiple man-made stresses on the oceans are threatening marine life with inevitable extinction.

The International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) has released a summary of a study undertaken by a group of world renown scientists who examined all of the solid data on the condition of the oceans. Presented at the United Nations on June 20th, the summary's conclusions have been picked up by hundreds of media outlets and for good reason: the prognosis does not look good if things continue as they currently are, with a "high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history."

"The findings are shocking,"" said Alex Rogers, scientific director of IPSO. "As we considered the cumulative effect of what humankind does to the ocean, the implications became far worse than we had individually realised. This is a very serious situation demanding unequivocal action at every level. We are looking at consequences for humankind that will impact in our lifetime, and worse, our children's and generations beyond that."

The summary report concludes with four case studies that focus on several of the key issues. Climate change and acidification, loss of coral reefs, pollution, and overfishing are highlighted not only as activities that are threatening the oceans but also activities that mankind can actually do something about.

I could go on detailing the findings of the IPSO but, instead, I would suggest you read the report yourself - it's available in a long version and shorter version. And I would recommend you read through the IPSO website as it discusses the findings and includes several enlightening videos from many of the scientists involved in the study. These are not just names on a document, hiding behind pronouncements that were destined for oblivion on a library shelf; these are concerned individuals willing to be front and center in announcing that things must change for the better and they must change right now if we expect to have any kind of natural marine resource left for future generations. Visit the State of the Ocean.org website.
Dan Laffoley, of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), said, "The world's leading experts on oceans are surprised by the rate and magnitude of changes we are seeing. The challenges for the future of the oceans are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to happen. The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent."

Read about the report at State of the Ocean.org.

Tuna in the Eastern Pacific: can scientists and fishermen at sea improve sustainability?

Tuna. Many of us grew up with our mother's weekly tuna casserole or that fragrant tuna fish sandwich that we could never trade for extra Oreos in the school cafeteria. For decades it truly was, to borrow a brand name, the "Chicken of the Sea."

But the once vast populations of tuna are now a shadow of their former selves, and the fate of this powerful pelagic predator is unclear at best.

However, scientists are trying to improve the methods by which tuna are hunted and caught - not to increase the commercial tuna fishing fleet's take, but to bring it to levels that will allow for long-term sustainability of the tuna.

The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) - a collaboration between scientists, the fishing industry, and the World Wildlife Fund - is working with a leading tuna industry association, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, to come up with techniques that will both help preserve tuna stocks at acceptable levels and reduce the enormous amount of bycatch that the tuna boats generate through the use of seine nets.

Departing from Ecuador, members of ISSF will spend two months aboard a tuna seine net vessel in the eastern Pacific to observe and study, ultimately with the idea of making recommendations on improved techniques that will enable tuna boats to harvest at levels that will allow for their economic survival while better managing the take of tuna and unintended bycatch.

"The problem and its scope have been identified," said Susan Jackson, President of ISSF. "Now it's time to get on the water and make significant improvements alongside industry that help them to remain viable without jeopardizing the world's tuna resources and the ocean's complex marine ecosystem." "In reality all fisheries have trade-offs and a certain level of environmental impact. Some have advocated for abandoning these fisheries, a move that industry has warned us would cut the world's tuna supply in half, lead to thousands of job losses and additional financial strain on developing economies. Rather than walking away and giving up, we must help a willing industry improve its practices."

If I may interject some personal commentary, based on what I have heard and read from a variety of knowledgeable sources regarding the present condition of the tuna populations, "walking away" may be our best option at this point. A moratorium on tuna would not be giving up, it would be a rational step in allowing the tuna stocks to recover (there are many scientists who fear that the tuna have been so heavily impacted by commercial fishing that a moratorium may be too little, too late).

Would a moratorium produce economic hardship for the tuna fishing fleet? To a noticeable extant, yes. Some fishermen could be re-trained to work in tuna aquafarming; others perhaps could shift to other more sustainable species. And others would have to leave the industry all together. One way or the other, it would not be easy. However, having listened to all the arguments coming from past international meetings, like those of the ICCAT (International Commission on the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna), it is my opinion that the tuna stocks are reaching - or in some areas of the world, have reached - perilous levels of depletion. And at these low levels there is no degree of fishing activity that would not push the tuna further towards extinction.

The ISSF's initial cruise will be followed by additional expeditions in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and what improvements are ascertained will be incorporated into teaching workshops for other fishermen. According to Dr. Victor Restrepo, Chair of the ISSF Scientific Advisory Committee, "This cruise will help our team of scientists and collaborators improve the educational workshops already being conducted with fishing crews around the world. As scientists identify new solutions, we will incorporate the findings into workshops so that skippers and vessel captains can provide real-time feedback. If something isn't realistic or fishers have an idea on how to improve it, we'll have the ability to take the idea back onto the water."

I wish the ISSF much success in their undertaking, I truly do. But I have my doubts about sustainable tuna fishing and, indeed, any commercial venture that harvests fish in the wild. Nature never intended for tuna and other sealife to be harvested at the levels we do now to feed an expanding world population. True sustainable seafood will be that which is grown and harvested by man - just like the chicken, the tuna's commercial namesake.

Read about the ISSF's expeditions in the Canadian Business Network.

Predators and Prey: study finds important changes in behavior from overfishing

When explaining the impact of commercial overfishing (or, for that matter, terrestrial hunting) on the predator-prey relationships in an ecosystem, conservationists will often talk in terms of changes in population of various species and it is often portrayed as a domino-like effect. This may make it easier for the layperson to understand - a singular, straight line chain of events - but scientists know that the reality of it is a lot more complex. They will speak in terms of a cascade effect, a bit like a nuclear chain reaction, where one event impacts several others, each impacting several others, and so on.

Because of that complexity, there is still a lot that we do not know as to what happens to an entire marine ecosystem when key predators are eliminated through overfishing. We have a tendency to look at just population numbers, but a recent paper in Ecology documented evidence of changes in prey foraging behavior and how this can have a pervasive effect across an entire reef system.

Researchers focused on the northern Line Islands in the South Pacific and studied the foraging behavior patterns of numerous species, using one pristine reef as a baseline for comparison to other areas that were impacted in various degrees by a loss of key predators through local fishing.

The predator-prey relationship is much more than "the big fish eats the little fish." Fundamentally, that may be true but there are also factors such as when and where prey forage that enter into the equation. Some animals maintain certain depth ranges or preferred areas around the reef, or they had particular times of day when they would venture out to feed - all offering a certain level of risk and effecting behavior designed to give them the best chance of survival.

The researchers in the Line Islands found that, with the loss of a predator, prey behavior changed over multiple species, and this, in essence, really upsets the applecart of ecological balance. In fact, the article proposed that, while there can certainly be changes in population numbers of various prey species (which can include predators of smaller species - remember, just about everybody is eating somebody else in the ocean), the changes in foraging behavior could be the more important issue with its effects rippling through the entire complex web of relationships that help to make up a healthy marine ecosystem.

We live in a very complex world, but we have a tendency to prefer our answers or solutions to be neat and simple. Unfortunately, nature hasn't successfully evolved over millions of years in a straight "A + B = C" fashion. With each day, scientists are learning more about that complexity and what profound effects we are having on it.

You can order the complete article from Ecology.

Marine Protected Area Benefit: study shows drfiting larvae aid fish and fisheries

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are often viewed by commercial and sport fishing interests as a total invasion of the rights of fishermen to harvest bounty from the sea where ever and when ever they can find it. Thought of as a bureaucratic intrusion, compliments of fish-hugging environmentalists, MPAs have actually proven not only to repair and improve the health of the marine ecosystems within their boundaries, but have also shown spillover effects that actually can prove beneficial to sustainable fisheries.

Scientists have known for some time that as fish stocks improve within a marine protected area, the population also begins to improve within the surrounding area. Larger fish establish larger territories, often well outside the boundaries of the MPA (after all, they're not interested in arbitrary borders set by us humans).

Now researchers from Oregon State University have concrete evidence that fish larvae, emanating from within an MPA, can travel distances of over 100 miles and thereby increase stocks of fish well outside of the protected area.

The researchers worked with the MPAs that were established in the late 90's around the big island of Hawaii. Their study focused on the yellow tang, a popular reef fish in the aquarium trade and one whose numbers were declining - not good for commercial interests and certainly not good for the yellow tang. Since the inception of the Hawaiian MPAs, the population of yellow tangs has improved. But there was also seen an increase in numbers many miles outside of the protected areas. Could this be due to a spillover effect from more yellow tangs venturing outside of the protected zone? That would appear to be the case except for one fly in the ointment: yellow tangs are sedentary and settle into an area on the reef not much greater than a half mile in diameter.

To solve the puzzle, the researchers used the same techniques used by police detectives and paternity suit lawyers - DNA. By taking tissue samples from various groups of yellow tangs both within the MPA and beyond, they were able to establish direct relationships with yellow tangs that were as much as 114 miles apart. Only the transportation of larvae, aided by ocean currents, could explain the familial connection.

"This is similar to the type of forensic technology you might see on television, but more advanced," said researcher and lead author of the study, Mark Christie. "We're optimistic it will help us learn a great deal more about fish movements, fishery stocks, and the genetic effects of fishing, including work with steelhead, salmon, rockfish and other species here in the Pacific Northwest."

Oregon State University marine biology professor, Mark Hixon, added, "Tracking the movement of fish larvae in the open ocean isn't the easiest thing in the world to do. It's not like putting a radio collar on a deer. This approach will provide valuable information to help optimize the placement of reserves, identify the boundaries of fishery stocks, and other applications."

One area of concern that grew out of the study was the importance of having good breeding stock by which to provide sufficient and healthy larvae yields. Larger fish are often the target of commercial fishing but these fish have a much greater capacity to produce larvae than smaller ones. Previous studies at the university had shown, as an example, that a single two-foot vermillion rockfish produces more eggs than 17 females that are 14 inches long.

While we continue to establish Marine Protected Areas across the world - some small, some covering many tens of thousands of square miles - the total coverage is but a mere sliver, approximately 1 percent of the world's oceans. And yet, as minuscule as they currently are in size, they have a tremendous impact on the overall health of countless marine species.

Read the Oregon State University news release on EurekAlert!.

Aquafarming: salmon and shrimp highlight risks and potential

Aquafarming, also known as aquaculture. To some it holds the key to truly sustainable seafood; to others it represents an ecological threat. On the one hand, aquafarming shifts the burden off wild fish populations but it also introduces potential ecological imbalances with excess antibiotic use, concentrated fish waste, and an unattractive ratio of the amount of feed required for a pound of fish.

Long time readers of this blog know what my position is. I favor aquafarming as I believe it holds the best potential, the best alternative to today's industrial fishing. As I see it, the concept of sustainable seafood indeed does relieve some of the pressure off declining fish populations, but it is only postponing the inevitable. So long as mankind interjects itself as a predator in a naturally balanced marine ecosystem, that system will ultimately suffer. Any seafood taken from the wild is "bushmeat" as Dr. Sylvia Earle describes it and, on land, we stopped taking bushmeat to feed the bulk of the population centuries ago.

While I am a supporter, I will also be the first to say that current aquafarming is beset with major problems that need to be addressed to protect surrounding waters and/or improve the quality of the end product. Take, for example, farmed salmon.

Genetically-Altered Salmon
While most of the salmon that is sold in markets is farmed, it is not done in the most efficient manner. It takes approximately 3 pounds of feed (usually fish meal products, which cuts into the populations of those fish used as feed) to produce 1 pound of salmon. Being sensitive to these types of imbalances (like the large amounts of CO2 produced to generate a gallon of CO2-reducing ethanol), researchers have been using gene-splicing to produce variants that grow faster - as much as twice as fast - thereby requiring less feed to reach a commercially marketable size. TIME magazine listed the new salmon as one of the top 50 best inventions of the year.

But would you consume genetically-altered salmon (or "Frankenfish" as its critics have dubbed it)? Well, we have been consuming genetically altered plants, like rice and corn for some time. And it would appear that the fast-growing salmon will likely gain approval for sale from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); open hearings have now concluded but there are still some FDA committees that are looking into health issues such as allergies to the new salmon.

Some environmentalists opposed to genetically-engineered seafood are focusing arguments on the impact to wild populations if the new salmon were to be accidentally introduced into open water. Farmed salmon is usually raised on land but the potential is there for it to be inadvertantly introduced and the fear is that the new salmon would quickly come to dominate and eradicate the wild species. There has been talk of a "Trojan Gene" effect, used to describe the genetic advantage of the new salmon to take over.

This is being hotly contested, coming from an unusual source: the scientist first responsible for proposing the Trojan Gene hypothesis. The Los Angeles Times reported that Professor William Muir of Purdue claims his work on the Trojan Gene is being misrepresented. His original hypothesis was based on a genetically-altered salmon that grew faster and bigger, with size giving it a potentially distinct advantage. But the salmon that has been developed does not grower larger, simply faster.

According to the Times, "Muir told the FDA Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee evaluating the GE salmon that 'the data conclusively shows that there is no Trojan Gene effect as expected. The data in fact suggest that the transgene will be purged by natural selection. In other words the risk of harm here is low.'”

Exaggeration or misrepresentation, like negative politics, always succeeds in clouding the issue, so I suspect it will take some time before it is sorted out by the FDA and a decision is rendered as to whether genetically-altered fish will be available to the consumer. And then it will need to prove itself in the open marketplace.

Shrimp: Wild Caught or Farmed
The market demand for shrimp is another example of how aquafarming holds great potential but must address some serious issues. Shrimp is some of the most popular and affordable seafood in the world; but the two primary methods for harvesting shrimp leave much to be desired. For one, shrimp is caught in the wild using bottom trawling nets which rake across the ocean floor catching the bottom-dwelling shrimp but also a wide range of bycatch - from fish to sharks and rays to sea turtles. In the process, this fishing technique leaves behind a shattered and leveled seafloor, making it one of the must destructive fishing techniques currently used.

The other technique, typically found in Asian countries, is aquafarming shrimp in large but densely packed ponds. The possibility of disease in this situation is extremely high and so a variety of antibiotics get introduced - many of which can pose a threat to humans. The use of antibiotics has been a major issue throughout all of aquafarming because of the potential for diseases to develop drug-resistant strains.

The website ShrimpSuck.org takes the position that consumers should choose not to purchase or consume shrimp at all because of the dangerous or destructive outcomes of either shrimp fishing with bottom trawling nets or aquafarming. That would seem to be a logical position at first blush. However, with demand high and cost cheap, it is likely that the market for shrimp will remain for some time. Therefore, I would propose that efforts be concentrated on improving shrimp aquafarming as there does not seem to be another viable and effective method for catching wild shrimp that excludes bycatch or damage to the seafloor. Larger ponds, better water filtration, different or lower dosage antibiotics - there are many steps that could be researched.

Aquafarming: fraught with serious issues that need to be addressed if it is to be a viable alternative to destructive commercial over-fishing or to seafood bans, whether voluntary or imposed by species extinction. Economics and the need to feed a growing populace compels us to get aquafarming on a productive and environmentally-safe track.

Read about inventions in TIME.
Read about genetically-altered salmon in the Los Angeles Times.
Read about shrimp at ShrimpSuck.org.

Sea Jellies: a summer swarm in Monterey!

Imagine slipping into the cool, late summer waters of Monterey Bay in central California, expecting to settle to the bottom and film kelp beds and the sealife associated with this unique marine ecosystem. As you descend into the Bay's emerald green water laden with nutrients, you find yourself surrounded, engulfed by sea jellies reaching two feet in length. An invasion of sea jellies is in full assault in Monterey Bay.



But it's not as hostile as it seems. Aggregations of sea jellies have occurred around the world, to the extant that scientists were able to see cyclical patterns. But now they are beginning to scratch their heads as more and more population outbreaks of various species are happening worldwide. The potential for a sea jelly to become an invasive species is always there, possibly transported in the bilges of international freighters as has been the case for some species of algae and seaweed. And their increased presence can destabilize local fish populations as fish seek locations free of the sea jellies' stinging tentacles.

But marine biologists are also considering man-made factors like climate change and ocean pollution. Increasing water temperatures due to climate change can stimulate sea jelly growth. And sea jellies also thrive in areas of low oxygen as a result of pollutants.

Additionally, you have the impact of overfishing on some of the sea jellies' natural predators, whether they are a commercially sought species or not. The loss of tuna and sea turtles, among others, removes an important control mechanism to sea jelly populations. And in turn, swarms of sea jellies can envenom and spoil entire commercial catches.

Sea jelly invasions. It's a topic that raises more questions than there are definitive answers at this time. Some scientists are hesitant to correlate human actions with sea jelly populations, while others pose the possibility that sea jellies could become the dominant species in the ocean. And in several Asian countries, sea jellies are already on the menu; an indication that their increasing numbers could prove a viable food source (I'll pass, if you don't mind.)

One thing is for sure; to be in the midst of thousands of these fascinating invertebrates, slowly weaving along with the currents, is an awesome sight. That is until you feel the burning, itching sensation around your unprotected face and you give leeway to these gelatinous invaders.

Video produced for Google Earth's Ocean layer.

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.

Bottom Trawling: ROV used to study effects in California's soft sediment

Clear-cutting the Amazon that denudes acres of vital rain forest; strip mining that gouges deep into the hillside with discarded rubble filling valleys and streams - these are some of the industrial harvesting techniques that have a dubious if not villainous reputation with many conservationists and environmental scientists. In the oceans, bottom trawling has a similar reputation.

The technique of bottom trawling involves large nets that scrape along the ocean floor, catching bottom-dwelling fish and other animals like shrimp. The drawbacks to this technique are two-fold: there can be a tremendous amount of unwanted animals caught, known as bycatch, and the scouring motion can be very destructive to the ocean bottom, much like clear cutting and strip mining, leaving behind crumbled reef structures that took decades to build - a marine ecosystem totally disrupted, its recovery in question.

But a more prudent use of bottom trawling in soft, sandy bottom areas may be proved viable. At least that is the hope of fishermen along the Central California coast who are watching the ongoing efforts of researchers from the California State University Monterey Bay in conjunction with the Nature Conservancy. They are conducting a three-year study to determine the long-term effect of bottom trawling on the soft sediment that makes up 70 percent of the Continental shelf along California.

In an area of 3.8 million acres that is currently listed as an "essential fish habitat" through an arrangement with the Nature Conservancy and the Pacific Fishery Management Council, tests are being conducted where a portion of the sea floor is bottom trawled and then 2 weeks later an ROV does a fly-over to survey conditions, followed by a 6-month and one-year checkup. The use of the ROV provides a better picture of how the ocean floor is recovering and to document what interactions are taking place, compared to other sampling techniques.

“An ROV allows us to have our eyes underwater, looking at everything that’s going on.” said CSUMB professor James Lindholm said.

This research is confined to soft-sediment environments and Lindholm makes no projections as to what the final analysis and results, which are years away, will show. “There’s just a handful of people doing trawl-related research worldwide and outside of really charismatic habitats, we don’t know very much,” said Lindholm. “If there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s to not make any judgment based on what we see live when we’re flying over the bottom.”

But local fishermen are hoping that the research could help fisheries regulators develop management techniques that would allow limited bottom trawling in very specific areas. “Fishermen have always said that grounds that are trawled are better fishing than non-trawled grounds — a lot of the organic nutrients get stirred up and reintroduced to the ecosystem,” said one local fisherman.

Bottom trawling will remain controversial as it has proven itself to be very destructive in many of the ocean environments where it has been used. Even with this ongoing California research, there is still the issue of bycatch - ranging from unwanted bottom creatures to open water animals like turtles and sharks. If the California studies show a sustainable level of recovery in soft sediment areas, there are still other serious ecological issues that must be addressed before regulators should endorse bottom trawling in any form.

Read more about this research in the High Country News.

Coral Reefs vs. Poisonous Seaweed: overfishing gives dangerous seaweed an edge

Regarding coral reefs, it has been said that when water conditions are less than optimal and algae is allowed to run rampant - often the result of runoff and pollutants high in nitrogen - then corals can be pushed out or overtaken. A recent study, reported by SeaWeb, cites the danger to coral reefs from species of seaweed that are capable of poisoning the coral. The seaweed is normally kept in check by feeding fish, but when overfishing reduces the population of these important herbivores, then the corals are at risk.

Overfishing Allows Seaweed to Flourish, Killing Corals

Overfishing of herbivorous fish is allowing seaweed species (such as this green seaweed Chlorodesmis fastigiati, center) to thrive, killing corals with which they come into contact. Mark Hay

Researchers have found that several species of common seaweed contain chemicals that kill corals. In the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Douglas Rasher and Mark Hay of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta report that five of seven seaweed species caused bleaching, declines in photosynthesis and death of coral tissues when they came into direct contact with Porites [stony] corals off the Caribbean coast of Panama. Three of eight seaweed species had similar effects on Porites corals off Fiji.

The researchers noted that only the areas of the coral that came into direct contact with the seaweed were affected. Attempts to replicate the effect with plastic seaweed models did not produce the same results. However, when extracts from seaweed tissue were embedded in gel strips and placed on the corals, the results almost precisely replicated those from the seaweeds themselves, suggesting strongly that chemicals within the seaweeds were responsible for the damage.

The researchers note that when seaweeds were placed on corals in a marine protected area off Fiji, herbivorous fish that were prevalent within the area rapidly consumed them. However, when placed on an adjacent reef where fishing took place only 1,000 feet (more than 300 meters) away, the seaweeds were consumed far more slowly, if at all. They write that their study shows that in healthy reef systems, coral are protected from the impacts of seaweeds, and that even relatively small amount of fishing of species that graze on those seaweeds could have potentially disastrous effects on coral reefs.

Source: Rasher, D.B., and M.E. Hay. 2010. Chemically rich seaweeds poison corals when not controlled by herbivores. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Contact: Mark Hay, Georgia Institute of Technology. E-mail: mark.hay@biology.gatech.edu

G-20 Summit: Mission Blue, TED, and Oceana take on overfishing

After the disastrous March CITES conference, where conservation groups made heartfelt arguments for protecting tuna, sharks, and other critically important marine species - only to have well-oiled political machines representing commercial interests successfully block all proposals for protection - another opportunity for sensible conservation is presenting itself in June.

The G-20 Summit will be held in Toronto, Canada and several major conservation and think tank groups are working together to make up for lost ground. The Mission Blue project, a arm of the Sylvia Earle Foundation and supported by TED (Technology, Entertainment, and Design) - an innovation think tank - will be focusing on the government subsidizing of commercial fisheries and how that has exacerbated overfishing. With government support, commercial fisheries have pushed themselves into overcapacity, propping up an industry that is no longer economically feasible by perpetuating overfishing in a vicious cycle.

According to a press release from Oceana, who is also working with Mission Blue in preparation for the conference:

“'We believe that the G-20 nations have a powerful opportunity this summer to halt the practice of fishing subsidies and put the world’s fisheries back on a path to recovery and towards an abundant future,' said Chris Anderson, TED curator. 'Nearly all of the world’s fisheries are in jeopardy from overfishing and could be beyond recovery within decades if current trends continue.'

Despite international consensus on the dire state of the oceans, many governments continue to provide major subsidies to their fishing sectors. These subsidies promote overfishing by pushing fleets to fish longer, harder and farther away than would otherwise be economically feasible. The fleets are overcapacity – as much as 2.5 times what is needed to fish at sustainable levels. Destructive fisheries subsidies are estimated to be at least $20 billion annually, an amount equal to approximately 25 percent of the value of the world catch.

'Governments are paying companies to overfish our oceans,' said Andrew Sharpless, chief executive officer of Oceana and Mission Blue participant. 'It’s taxpayer-financed ocean depletion and it’s crazy. Cutting government subsidies that produce overcapacity in the world’s fishing fleets is the silver bullet to restoring our world’s fisheries.'"

You can learn more about Mission Blue at their web site and Facebook page. TED is a fascinating organization with conferences and online videos that cover a plethora of subjects. And of course, Oceana is one of the leading ocean conservation organizations.

The G-20 Summit in late June - another opportunity to get policy makers attuned to the reality of many threats facing our oceans and the urgency needed to address them.

Read Mission Blue press release about Mission Blue/TED strategy.

Omega-3: beneficial fatty acid has an ecological downside

We have all heard of the benefits of seafood; in particular the omega-3 fatty acids that are found in oily fish like salmon, mackerel, and sardines. In fact, according to a recent article in TIME magazine, the market for omega-3 supplements has doubled since 2006, reaching $1 billion in sales.

One fish in particular, the menhaden, plays an important role in the production of omega-3. But its popularity has equated to overfishing and that has produced some definite negative consequences on water quality and other industrial fish populations.

Not a typical fish for the dinner table, the menhaden is a filter feeder and acquires its omega-3 potential by feeding on omega-3-rich algae. In addition to a general filtering of the water (up to 7 gallons per minute!), the menhaden helps to keep the level of algae in check. Algal blooms deplete oxygen, adding to the production of "dead zones" in the ocean. While the populations of menhaden being fished within its Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico range, have not necessarily reached a critical status, their reduced numbers have produced impacts that have been felt in other fisheries, like the Chesapeake Bay which wrestles with declining commercial fish populations due to dead zones.

But are there alternatives? One possible alternative being developed is the industrial production of the omega-3-rich algae on which menhaden feeds. Makes sense - just go to the source. As part of the emerging field of algae production (also an alternative to corn-based ethanol), it's been shown that omega-3 can be derived from algae in addition to flax seed and canola oils.

For fishermen who have been bringing in menhaden for years (it's also used for fishmeal for feeding poultry and farmed-raised salmon), a shift from commercial fishing boats to high-tech algae farms is not an easy or likely transition. This is part of the economic dilemma that we face when we consider what steps are necessary to protect species or the environment. As has been experienced in the automotive industry and other collapsed fisheries, important as these changes are, they are not without their major hurdles.
Click here to read the TIME magazine article by Tim Padgett.

ACT TODAY: last day for U.S. comments on CITES tuna & shark protections

A last minute reminder from Oceana: today is the last day for U.S. citizens to submit comments to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the upcoming CITES convention. At the 2010 meeting, scheduled for March, several ocean species will be considered for protection under CITES' Appendix I, II, or III listings.

Under consideration are:

• Bluefin Tuna - heavily over-fished in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean.
• 8 Sharks - spiny dogfish, porbeagle, oceanic whitetip, dusky, sandbar, and the scalloped, smooth, and great hammerhead sharks.
• Red & Pink Corals - harvested for jewelry.

CITES has taken significant steps in the past to curb the trade in endangered species like rhino horns and elephant tusks. Here is an opportunity to make significant progress with several important aquatic species.

Again, this is the last day for U.S. public comments to reach Dr. Rosemarie Gnam, the U.S. representative for the CITES meeting. If you're a U.S. citizen, let your voice be heard!

Click here to send a message via Oceana (if the link does not work properly, go to the Oceana web site and sign up for their Wavemaker e-activist program).