Being a conscientious seafood lover is difficult today. What is sustainable? What is not? We wrote an op-ed published in the Boston Globe yesterday that we hope will help clarify the right choices to make in order to support both local fishermen and fish stocks. Given the ups and downs of fish populations, what matters most is having a management system in place that puts the fishery on a path to long term stability. Read the op-ed.
In a disappointing move for the environment and the fishing industry, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a rider that would effectively ban new federal catch shares for fisheries in the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico.
Thanks in large part to catch shares, many fisheries in the United States have been turning a corner after decades of overfishing, massive job losses and closures. Fish caught in catch shares currently account for about half of the value and over three quarters of the volume of commercial landings in federal waters.
Some fisheries still under conventional management have not yet recovered, causing fishermen to suffer. This misguided rider would thwart progress and take a proven tool off the table for struggling fishermen and regional fishery management councils.
The rider was approved by a vote of 220-191, a smaller margin than when a similar rider was approved last year by a vote of 259-159. More members of Congress have come to oppose a ban because they want to make our oceans more sustainable for the fish and fishermen. Read More
By Jack Sterne, Director of Strategic Initiatives
Jack Sterne, EDF's Director of Strategic Initiatives
Anyone who’s enjoyed fishing in the Gulf of Mexico can share a story about how great the fishing is around an oil rig. Fish love structure, and I know my fishing is always better around these types of hot spots. A downed tree, a dock, a live reef, or an artificial reef – all of these places typically produce great fishing and any fisherman worth his or her salt knows to target them.
That’s why it’s so disconcerting to the Gulf’s recreational fishermen that the Department of Interior has announced its intention to begin enforcing a long-dormant policy requiring the removal of non-producing drilling rigs in the Gulf. Requiring the blanket removal of these rigs threatens to rob the Gulf of some of its favorite fishing spots. In addition, under a balanced management plan, providing for fishing access and designed for population productivity, the non-producing rigs may be useful in enhancing fish stocks in places where habitat is limiting.
Given these facts, the Department of Interior should halt its plan for blanket removal of these rigs. Recent legislation (S. 1555) introduced by Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana would help modify the policy requiring rig removal and create a “Reef Maintenance Fund” that would finance the maintenance of the artificial reefs created by decommissioned rigs. Rig owners would be required to contribute approximately half of the cost they would have incurred in removing the rig had they chosen not to participate in the program. Read More
Tim Fitzgerald, Scientist and Senior Oceans Policy Specialist
If you can choose whether to have tartar sauce with your fish, why not high levels of mercury?
The Washington Post ran a story last week that said fish consumption advisories for pollutants like mercury do more harm than good by discouraging people from eating fish. Tuesday, the newspaper published a letter in response from me and Dr. Lynn Goldman, Dean of The George Washington University’s School of Public Health and Health Services and member of EDF’s Board of Trustees.
Eating seafood is an important part of a healthy diet. However, that does not justify ignoring the fact that some types of fish contain high concentrations of environmental contaminants. Just last week, a new study came out that documented significant losses of IQ points from the American population as a result of elevated blood mercury levels (and other environmental contaminants). Read More
Mislabeled seafood, or seafood fraud, is a hot topic in the fish world these days. Recent exposés by the Boston Globe and Consumer Reports have revealed an alarmingly high rate of seafood deception in restaurants and markets. Conducting DNA testing on fish from local restaurants, the Globe found that about 50% of tested fish were mislabeled. What does this mean? Well, for the average seafood consumer, it means that the fish you pay for is often not the one you actually get.
Seafood fraud can result in adverse health effects, reinforce the market for illegal fishing, and perpetuate false information about the true state of the marine environment.
But unless you’re a marine biologist, fisherman or seafood purveyor, it can be hard to tell the difference between wild and farmed salmon, red snapper and tilapia, or grouper and Vietnamese catfish (aka basa). The FDA has a list of the most commonly substituted seafood items, but good luck finding this posted anywhere that you buy fish. Read More
Atlantic Cod; Photo Credit: NOAA
Yesterday, I recounted the recent history of assessments of the Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod stock that has led to a looming crisis for many New England fishermen, and the management response underway in the form of emergency action. Today, I discuss two major goals that will most effectively use the time before us to potentially change our understanding of cod status, and avoid or minimize socio-economic hardship.
Expand our scientific perspective
Before the 2011 assessment had even been reviewed, a barrage of criticisms began to be levied. To be sure, many decisions made during the assessment could have gone a different direction, including data to include or exclude, values for key parameters, and determination of reference points. Renowned ecologist E.O. Wilson once observed that ecology is far more complex than physics, and fisheries science is a close cousin of ecology. There are few universal rules for how to assess fish stocks, and the discipline relies heavily on experience, professional judgment, vigorous debate, peer review, and trial and error. The GOM cod assessment was not lacking in any of those elements. In my view, the assessment was done right, was done well, and should be commended for achieving what it set out to do. Gerrymandering the assessment to get a more favorable outcome is both bad practice and bad policy. Read More
