A fisherman’s enormous catch recently ignited a debate over whether fishers should be allowed to keep bycatch that is caught and landed without the proper permit, which would have allowed the fishing vessel to legally keep or sell the catch. Unfortunately, small-government advocates pounced and argued that the seizure was yet another example of federal government overreach and mismanagement. However, small-government advocates are either naive or are ignoring a plethora of facts and issues.
Basically, if commercial fishing vessels fish in state or U.S. federal government waters, then these fishing vessels are required to hold a permit. The permit allows the fishing vessels to use certain gear, in certain areas, to fish for, catch, land and sell certain species. For example, a fishing vessel with a groundfish permit to catch cod, haddock, and certain flounder species with a bottom trawl net can’t keep a bluefin tuna, an endangered, pelagic species, that is caught with the fishing vessel’s bottom trawl net — unless, for some reason, the permit authorizes the fishing vessel to keep the tuna. The purpose of utilizing permits is to control the number and types of fish caught in order to avoid overfishing and the economic collapse of fisheries.
Recently, a bottom trawler owned by Carlos Rafael landed a bluefin tuna weighing an incredible 881 pounds. However, since his fishing vessel’s permit didn’t allow him to keep the bluefin tuna, which was caught in his bottom trawl, the boat owner, unfortunately, had to surrender his tuna over to the feds. The commercial fishing vessel, apparently, did have a permit to keep a bluefin tuna caught and landed on a rod and reel.
Of course, debate ensued regarding whether the fishing vessel should have been forced to surrender its valuable catch, which was sold for “less than $5,000.” I believe that Monica Allen, the deputy director at NOAA Fisheries public affairs, put it best:
“We’re leaders among 45 countries in the conservation of this fish. Failure to enforce the regulations would damage our credibility internationally,” Allen said. There are not enough bluefin for those fishermen who target it as their sole focus, she added. “If trawl fishermen were allowed to keep bluefin, even when caught accidentally, that would create an incentive. If the stocks are rebuilt, this could actually become a way to catch them.”
Rafael, however, dismissed this logic out of hand. “That makes no sense, and I think that shows what they know about these fish,” he said.
Of course, seizing the bluefin tuna makes sense. If one fisher, who doesn’t have the proper permit, is allowed to keep a bluefin tuna, then more fishers would want to keep a tuna that was caught and landed without the proper permit. Furthermore, it would be a nightmare for enforcement and for efforts to conserve species that are severely depleted. Also, allowing a fisher to keep a tuna, if he or she doesn’t have the proper permit to do so, would make a mockery of the regulatory system. Obviously, such a move would also be unfair to fishers that have had their catches seized in the past or who have been fined in the past or who have had to discard bycatch overboard in the past.
No one, I imagine, wants to regulate commercial fishing, but the practice is inherently unsustainable, so regulations and plans are required. It’s true that there are many fishers that are conservation-minded, but it still takes cooperation between fishers, fishery managers, fishery observers, regulators (and regulation), and scientists to produce a sustainable fishery. No group can do it alone.
In a fishery, which can mean many things, fishers target certain species for personal consumption or for market. However, sometimes, fishers catch other species in addition to the species that they’re targeting. These non-target species are known as bycatch, and even though bycatch might be illegal to keep, to consume, to target, or to market, bycatch may still be incidentally caught in some fisheries.
Therefore, if the fisher doesn’t have a permit to keep certain species or if the species is illegal to keep, it’s simply wastefully discarded overboard. Bycatch isn’t wasted, however, if a fisheries observer is onboard to scientifically sample the species or if the fishers keep the specimen to turnover to scientists for research. As a result, bycatch can yield valuable data about a species and its interaction with commercial fishing gear.
Due to being incidentally caught, some species, in particular, are at risk. For example, populations of endangered species, valuable species, or species that are easily caught as bycatch in certain fisheries suffer from illegal fishing or from fisheries that are inefficient or dirty. However, fisheries research can result in improvements that mitigate or even eliminate bycatch of certain species (thus making the fishery cleaner), so cooperative research is important in ensuring continued seafood production and in making fisheries more sustainable.
Directed fishing for bluefin tuna in the Gulf has been prohibited since the early 1980s, however bluefin are caught incidentally by longline fishermen who target other species. The Gulf of Mexico is the only known spawning area for the western stock of Atlantic bluefin tuna, a historically overfished species. Many bluefin die from the stress endured in this incidental capture in warm water even if fishermen release them.
“NOAA worked with longline fishermen from the Gulf to test the weak hook carefully over the last three years,” said Eric Schwaab, assistant NOAA administrator for NOAA’s Fisheries Service. “Our cooperative scientific research with fishermen is showing that this new technology can protect bluefin tuna in the Gulf while still allowing fishermen to target yellowfin tuna and swordfish.”
The weak hook is a circular hook constructed of thin gauge wire, and is designed to straighten when a large fish, such as bluefin tuna, is hooked, releasing it but holding on to smaller fish. The average size of bluefin tuna landed in the Gulf of Mexico longline fishery is 485 pounds, while the average for yellowfin tuna is about 86 pounds.
Yellowfin tuna and swordfish are valuable commercial fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, supporting fishing jobs on approximately 50 vessels as well as jobs on shore. The two species bring longline fishermen annual dockside earnings of $7 million. Research showed that the weak hook could result in some reductions in target catch while some longline fishermen have reported weak hooks did not hurt their businesses.
“During our tests, we used regular hooks for half our hooks and half were the new weak hooks,” said Capt. Mike Carden, a longline fisherman from Panama City, Fla. who took part in the cooperative research. “We were so happy with the weak hooks we quit using the heavy hooks. The weak hook releases fish we don’t want to catch. Because it’s smaller and lighter, we catch more yellowfin tuna on the weak hook. There’s several of us who have gone to the weak hook.”
The agency release included a supporting comment from a captain of one of the 50 or so commercial longline vessels in the fishery:
“During our tests, we used regular hooks for half our hooks and half were the new weak hooks,” said Capt. Mike Carden, a longline fisherman from Panama City, Fla., who took part in the cooperative research. “We were so happy with the weak hooks we quit using the heavy hooks. The weak hook releases fish we don’t want to catch. Because it’s smaller and lighter, we catch more yellowfin tuna on the weak hook. There’s several of us who have gone to the weak hook.”
The Pew Environmental Trusts, which has been tracking the issue closely, gave a very mixed review to the move. Here’s a statement e-mailed to me by Dave Bard, a spokesman, followed by a video the group has produced on bluefin and the gulf:
Pew is pleased that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has recognized the major bycatch problem with bluefin tuna in the Gulf of Mexico, the fish’s only known spawning area in the western Atlantic Ocean. The agency has issued a short-term solution requiring the use of “weak” hooks starting May 5, 2011. Pew is also pleased that NMFS has left the door open to consider long-term solutions including time and area closures. But, a year-round prohibition on surface longlines is the only way to provide effective long-term protection for bluefin tuna and other rare and beautiful species in the Gulf. This prohibition would still allow fishermen in the Gulf to catch swordfish and yellowfin tuna; they would just be required to use more selective alternatives to wasteful surface longlines.
Here’s the video report:
You can continue reading more about this story at Dot Earth.
The two nominees — John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco — cleared the committee in a unanimous vote this afternoon as part of an unannounced, closed-door markup, a committee aide said. The panel’s approval sends the nominees to the Senate floor, where they should pass by unanimous consent within the coming week, according to leaders of the committee from both sides of the aisle.
“They’re going to be confirmed,” said Commerce ranking member Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas). Hutchison said there are no Republican holds on the nominees.
At issue are the confirmations of Harvard University physicist John Holdren, picked to head the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco, in line to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Both positions could play key roles in the administration’s policies on climate change, marine conservation and other environmental issues.
. . .
Lubchenco and Holdren had a smooth hearing in the Commerce Committee last month, but their confirmations have been delayed by anonymous holds in the Senate. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have said the holds were not a direct objection to the nominees but an attempt to gain leverage on separate issues.
Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said today that the holds — at least all of those he knew of — have been released and the nominees should advance in the coming days.
. . .
Lubchenco, a conservationist and zoologist, has focused much of her research on climate change, ecosystems and marine reserves and placed considerable emphasis throughout her career on advocacy and public policy. As NOAA’s leader, Lubchenco would oversee a $4 billion agency whose responsibilities include a large portion of the federal government’s climate change research as well as marine issues.
Holdren was a driving outside force for more attention to climate change issues during the Clinton administration. As a leader of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, he helped focus more government and industry attention on climate change-related technology and international clean energy initiatives, as well as on a federal program to develop a hybrid-electric car that was later dismantled by the Bush administration.
Who in the Senate is upholding the approval of White House science adviser John Holdren and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) head Jane Lubchenco? From TPMDC:
To bring folks up to speed, it appeared initially that Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) was the sole lawmaker standing in the nominees’ way, thanks to an unrelated dispute with Democratic leaders over the Cuban trade embargo. But that obstacle is no longer operative, leaving the situation murky as Commerce Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) references multiple holds on the nominees.
Yesterday we ruled out two GOP suspects, Sens. David Vitter (LA) and Mel Martinez (FL). Today we can strike two more likely suspects from the list: Sens. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and John Barrasso (R-WY) both strongly oppose Holdren’s pro-regulation stance on climate change, but both told me they’re not behind the holds.
Inhofe couldn’t confirm that the holds weren’t coming from his environment committee, but he said flat out: “It’s not me, though.”
The delay isn’t about the scientists’ credentials, but is being used by Sen. Robert Menendez (D–N.J.) as a bargaining chip to gain his colleagues’ support on a matter related to Cuba, according toThe Washington Post, citing an unidentified source. It’s not clear from the story what that matter is, but as the Nature blog The Great Beyond notes, Menendez has previously criticized the Castro regime. Menendez, who is Cuban-Americans, alsoopposes Senate legislation that would ease travel restrictions to the island nation.
The full Senate must vote on the nominees, and any senator can place a hold on the votes. If Menendez doesn’t drop his objection, Senate leaders could force a vote to break the hold. Both have already been through confirmation hearings. Holdren, a 64-year-old physicist, has pushed for aggressive action to stop global warming, and marine biologist Lubchenco, 61, has criticized NOAA for not doing enough to prevent overfishing. Holdren is on leave from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, where he most recently was director of the program on science, technology, and public policy. Lubchenco is a professor of marine biology and zoology at Oregon State University.
The reasons for the delay are murky: Any senator can put a hold on a confirmation vote, and for a time it looked as if the culprit was Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. But late last week, Menendez’s office told Talking Points Memo that the senator was no longer standing in the way. So who is?
Lubchenco has faced some criticism from Eastern fishing interests, but it’s Holdren who has generated the most controversy. Some worry that Holdren holds extreme views on the global climate crisis, and that science policies might be slanted to fit those views. That’s made him a lightning rod for commentators sounding the alarm about a “Democrat War on Science.”
Mooney addressed those worries in a Science Progress blog posting in December and is keeping an eye on the controversy. In Mooney’s view, the opposition is a political reaction to the years of criticism that Bush faced on the integrity issue. “What could be more obvious than to try to do a 180 and flip it, and say, ‘No, it’s Obama who’s trying to get political’?” Mooney said.
For whatever reason, Holdren’s appointment remains on hold – and thus Obama’s plan for improving scientific integrity may have to be put on hold as well.
A fisherman’s enormous catch recently ignited a debate over whether fishers should be allowed to keep bycatch that is caught and landed without the proper permit, which would have allowed the fishing vessel to legally keep or sell the catch. Unfortunately, small-government advocates pounced and argued that the seizure was yet another example of federal government overreach and mismanagement. However, small-government advocates are either naive or are ignoring a plethora of facts and issues.
