---
News is that the Marine Stewardship Council is about to certify GOA flatfish as sustainable and green. Unbelieveable! This is an affront to common sense! Flatfish trawling in Kodiak (GOA) is dirty, dirty, dirty...the worst! Crab bottom, halibut bottom, WTF! 28% halibut death for arrowtooth delivered and this from official NMFS records as witnessed by observers! Filthy Mar Pacifico! A nearly worthless flatfish targeted to get the bycatch and in so doing destroying invaluable halibut.
In the infamous video below you can watch crew sort dead and dying halibut to keep a few flatfish. http://www.tholepin.blogspot.com/2009/10/filthy-video-of-halibut-waste.html This is exactly the kind of behavior that MSC is going to certify as sustainable and green. Unbelieveable and worthy of condemnation. Sustainable indeed. How shortsighted can they get? Don't they believe their own eyes?
Obviously this is a $green$ organization. Pay them your $green$ and they will give you anything you want! If these crooks had any conscience, it was purchased long ago. Give it up people...you are totally compromised. I see they are getting this through the door before the observer restructuring can get its legs (although I have serious doubts that we can put an end to the sophisticated gaming that will go on even if it gets restructured).
While I do not have any faith that sense and reason can trump money, let these people know that their British bullshit is just that. We need to pull down the Marine Stewardship Council as corrupt as is the Marine Conservation Alliance, where they probably get some of their money. Certainly MSC is getting their money from the same origins...trawler and processor profits off the destruction of the Gulf of Alaska and elsewhere, where dirty unsustainable fishing practices rule.
Shoot them your emails protesting the certification of GOA flatfish. Outrageous!
objections@msc.org
If you do not send them a message, you can not complain that they did not listen to you. You can be sure that the trawlers will be writing (their bosses will enforce that) as directed by the whitefish trawler association.
Keep yer bloody flippers wet.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Network Releases Report Assessing Needs for At-Sea Observers
---
"The Marine Fish Conservation Network recently released Meeting the Information Demands of 21st Century Fisheries: A Needs Assessment for Fisheries Observer Programs, a report that explains the need for more federally funded at-sea observers. At-sea fisheries observers are a central pillar of the National Marine Fisheries Service's national bycatch strategy and the catch data they collect is critical to the success of efforts to end overfishing. The report shows that significant increases in funding of fisheries observer programs are needed to support the information needs of fisheries managers and it recommends other changes to expand observer coverage and maintain public access to data."
Read it at : http://www.conservefish.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=12&id=136&Itemid=332
Well, it is an okay report, but like so many things written by bystanders to the industry it is full of comfortable half truths. "Observer coverage varies widely by region and fishery, from levels of 30 to 100% in most Alaska groundfish fisheries..." Garbage in, garbage out. Too general, not accurate and completely oblivious to the gaming that goes on within the industry. Frankly, I can't worry about how messed up the other regions are, because right here in the Gulf of Alaska, things are not pretty. 30% observer coverage is a goal, is heavily gamed by players so that the data gained is distorted and inaccurate. That data ends up being used to forecast and regulate and is mostly erroneous. Huge gaps exist in the catch and bycatch data. High-grading and wastage are rampant. If a fish dies in the cod end and there is no one there to see, is it really there? Not according to the NMFS. Only occassionally does a brave soul step forward and record the waste, as has been seen here on these pages.
So Marine Fish Conservation Network, nice try, but no you didn't get it right. The system is far more broken than you can imagine. Please try again. Your brush is far too wide and general to have much use. Put a finer point on it. 100% observer coverage must be part of any real plan to manage fisheries, at least until we really know what the hell is going on out there. Make it a rolling 100% coverage. A couple years for each fishery to ground truth what is really going on. Rumor is just not admissible in court. 'They'll never kill all the buffalo." Think again.
Keep yer flippers wet.
"The Marine Fish Conservation Network recently released Meeting the Information Demands of 21st Century Fisheries: A Needs Assessment for Fisheries Observer Programs, a report that explains the need for more federally funded at-sea observers. At-sea fisheries observers are a central pillar of the National Marine Fisheries Service's national bycatch strategy and the catch data they collect is critical to the success of efforts to end overfishing. The report shows that significant increases in funding of fisheries observer programs are needed to support the information needs of fisheries managers and it recommends other changes to expand observer coverage and maintain public access to data."
Read it at : http://www.conservefish.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=category§ionid=12&id=136&Itemid=332
Well, it is an okay report, but like so many things written by bystanders to the industry it is full of comfortable half truths. "Observer coverage varies widely by region and fishery, from levels of 30 to 100% in most Alaska groundfish fisheries..." Garbage in, garbage out. Too general, not accurate and completely oblivious to the gaming that goes on within the industry. Frankly, I can't worry about how messed up the other regions are, because right here in the Gulf of Alaska, things are not pretty. 30% observer coverage is a goal, is heavily gamed by players so that the data gained is distorted and inaccurate. That data ends up being used to forecast and regulate and is mostly erroneous. Huge gaps exist in the catch and bycatch data. High-grading and wastage are rampant. If a fish dies in the cod end and there is no one there to see, is it really there? Not according to the NMFS. Only occassionally does a brave soul step forward and record the waste, as has been seen here on these pages.
So Marine Fish Conservation Network, nice try, but no you didn't get it right. The system is far more broken than you can imagine. Please try again. Your brush is far too wide and general to have much use. Put a finer point on it. 100% observer coverage must be part of any real plan to manage fisheries, at least until we really know what the hell is going on out there. Make it a rolling 100% coverage. A couple years for each fishery to ground truth what is really going on. Rumor is just not admissible in court. 'They'll never kill all the buffalo." Think again.
Keep yer flippers wet.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Dirtiest Bottom Trawlers 2010...Simply Criminal
***
These are samples from official prohibited species reports available on the NOAA website: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/2010/pscinfo.htm
***
Worst Non Pelagic Trawlers in the Gulf of Alaska for Halibut
No.1: Feb 6, 2010 F/V Coho fishing cod 47% bycatch of halibut, 2 observations
No.2: Mar 27, 2010 F/V Mar Pacifico fishing arrowtooth 28% halibut, 1 observation
No.3: Mar 27, 2010 F/V Golden Fleece fishing cod 24% halibut, 4 observations
No.4: Feb 6, 2010 F/V Hickory Wind fishing cod 15% halibut, 1 observation
All halibut bycatch is dead and all tanner crab too, with more tanner crab not recovered to the deck crushed by the trawl and killed. This is PSC. Prohibited Species Catch. It may not be retained and is thrown overboard. Less than 30% of trawler time has an observer on board. These observers are kept busy with sampling work and often are unaware of the bycatch. So this is only the tip of the iceberg, a hint of the destruction going on in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea.
Worst Trawlers in the Gulf of Alaska for Chinook
No.1: F/V US Intrepid 385 Chinook killed, 17 observations
No.2: F/V Vaerdal 311 Chinook, 20 observations
No.3: F/V Ocean Alaska 284 Chinook, 16 observations
No.4: F/V Sea Mac 245 Chinook, 5 observations
No.5: F/V Leslie Lee 227 Chinook, 8 observations
No.6: F/V Marathon 151 Chinook, 3 observations
These are samples from official prohibited species reports available on the NOAA website: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/2010/pscinfo.htm
***
Worst Non Pelagic Trawlers in the Gulf of Alaska for Halibut
No.1: Feb 6, 2010 F/V Coho fishing cod 47% bycatch of halibut, 2 observations
No.2: Mar 27, 2010 F/V Mar Pacifico fishing arrowtooth 28% halibut, 1 observation
No.3: Mar 27, 2010 F/V Golden Fleece fishing cod 24% halibut, 4 observations
No.4: Feb 6, 2010 F/V Hickory Wind fishing cod 15% halibut, 1 observation
All halibut bycatch is dead and all tanner crab too, with more tanner crab not recovered to the deck crushed by the trawl and killed. This is PSC. Prohibited Species Catch. It may not be retained and is thrown overboard. Less than 30% of trawler time has an observer on board. These observers are kept busy with sampling work and often are unaware of the bycatch. So this is only the tip of the iceberg, a hint of the destruction going on in the Gulf of Alaska and the Bering Sea.
Worst Trawlers in the Gulf of Alaska for Chinook
No.1: F/V US Intrepid 385 Chinook killed, 17 observations
No.2: F/V Vaerdal 311 Chinook, 20 observations
No.3: F/V Ocean Alaska 284 Chinook, 16 observations
No.4: F/V Sea Mac 245 Chinook, 5 observations
No.5: F/V Leslie Lee 227 Chinook, 8 observations
No.6: F/V Marathon 151 Chinook, 3 observations
Getting complicated here, because the latest stats by NMFS have drastically changed since last week. They must be tweaking the data to make it more palatable. Just like the sea lion data that we can't see until Balsinger launders it to make it more acceptable to the players. It is after all, a game. Like Wall Street, NMFS is playing with the numbers and the stats so things don't look as bad as they are. When the whole thing collapses, it won't matter who we blame. The deed will be done.
Keep yer flippers wet.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
What Happened To The Halibut, Dad?
---
Well, Child, people didn't take care of them and they were all killed. It was a sad day when the largest, most magnificent fish in the North Pacific Ocean were destroyed by men who didn't care what they caught in their trawls.
Well, Child, people didn't take care of them and they were all killed. It was a sad day when the largest, most magnificent fish in the North Pacific Ocean were destroyed by men who didn't care what they caught in their trawls.
---
But, Dad, why didn't you stop them?
But, Dad, why didn't you stop them?
---
I tried, Child, but we couldn't get the rule makers to see the importance of taking care of the Ocean and the fish that we depend upon. They let too many baby halibut get killed by the trawlers and didn't see that those little fish were the future. Now all we have left are the pictures of those big flat fish. See that king crab on the wall there? That's what happened to them, too.
I tried, Child, but we couldn't get the rule makers to see the importance of taking care of the Ocean and the fish that we depend upon. They let too many baby halibut get killed by the trawlers and didn't see that those little fish were the future. Now all we have left are the pictures of those big flat fish. See that king crab on the wall there? That's what happened to them, too.
*** 
Trawl bycatch in January 2010 (note size of halibut)
Trawl bycatch in January 2010 (note size of halibut)The eagles are feasting on king salmon, crab legs lie scattered about.
IPHC data shows...
- In the Gulf of Alaska, approximately 80% of halibut bycatch is trawl caught
- Approximately 60% of GOA total halibut bycatch are U32 (under 32 inch)
- This effects the resource in two ways: (see graphs below)
- Loss of spawning potential (lost egg production)
- Reduced yield to directed setline fishery
---------------------
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------
Keep yer flippers wet.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
ADF&G Excuses Trawler Bycatch of King Salmon
Listen to ADF&G's Suzanne Schmidt excuse Kodiak trawler bycatch for the decline of Kodiak king salmon. It's okay, Schmidt, we are used to ADF&G representatives excusing trawler excesses.
www.kmxt.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1697&Item=2
While Kodiak trawlers might not be the only reason for king salmon decline, they are certainly contributing to the low return numbers required for escapement. So far the trawlers have taken three times the escapement goal for the Karluk or twice the Ayakulik. A limit on the amount of king salmon that trawlers can waste needs to be implimented. Remember the numbers of king salmon shown as bycatch are projections based upon very limited observation. The actual numbers of king salmon and other PSC species is likely far higher. Rumors on the waterfront are that some very high catches of king salmon have been taken on the west side and these were unobserved. We need 100% observer coverage for the GOA. King salmon caught around Kodiak Island are from all over the Pacific, so trawler bycatch around Kodiak affects the entire region. But when they are trawling right out in front of the king depleted Karluk, the conclusions seem obvious. If a man comes into the police station covered in blood and reports there has been a murder, wouldn't he be suspect, you think?
Keep yer flippers wet.
www.kmxt.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1697&Item=2
While Kodiak trawlers might not be the only reason for king salmon decline, they are certainly contributing to the low return numbers required for escapement. So far the trawlers have taken three times the escapement goal for the Karluk or twice the Ayakulik. A limit on the amount of king salmon that trawlers can waste needs to be implimented. Remember the numbers of king salmon shown as bycatch are projections based upon very limited observation. The actual numbers of king salmon and other PSC species is likely far higher. Rumors on the waterfront are that some very high catches of king salmon have been taken on the west side and these were unobserved. We need 100% observer coverage for the GOA. King salmon caught around Kodiak Island are from all over the Pacific, so trawler bycatch around Kodiak affects the entire region. But when they are trawling right out in front of the king depleted Karluk, the conclusions seem obvious. If a man comes into the police station covered in blood and reports there has been a murder, wouldn't he be suspect, you think?
Keep yer flippers wet.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Run the Natural Gauntlet and Get Hammered in Trawl
Wiggy,
"Remember that the "499,400 pounds wasted" mainly consists of sublegal halibut. These fish have run the natural gauntlet and won...only to get hammered in a trawl.
"They have made it through the most vulnerable stages of development. They are no longer subject to the high natural predation once they have reached ping pong paddle size and they would have likely made it to legal size if not for the trawlers.
"So...that 499,400 pounds represents a helluva lot more pounds and value if left trawl free. Makes the wasted value even more disgusting."
Signed,
A Fisherman
Keep yer flippers wet.
"Remember that the "499,400 pounds wasted" mainly consists of sublegal halibut. These fish have run the natural gauntlet and won...only to get hammered in a trawl.
"They have made it through the most vulnerable stages of development. They are no longer subject to the high natural predation once they have reached ping pong paddle size and they would have likely made it to legal size if not for the trawlers.
"So...that 499,400 pounds represents a helluva lot more pounds and value if left trawl free. Makes the wasted value even more disgusting."
Signed,
A Fisherman
Keep yer flippers wet.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Halibut and Chinook Wasted This Week
Go to www.fakr.noaa.gov/2010/car120_goa.pdf and see what the trawlers are doing to our precious resources this week. Chinooks are closed to fishing on the famous Kodiak Island rivers (not even catch and release!) but the trawlers have killed 8920 fish since the first of the year, 2049 alone just this last week! Shame and horror. Kiss the king salmon good bye on Kodiak. Thank you Kodiak pollock trawlers. Remember, the Marine Stewardship Council has certified pollock as sustainable...to hell with the king salmon! "No PSC (Prohibited Species Catch) Limits apply to salmon in the Gulf of Alaska," according to the NOAA site. Why the hell not?
The king salmon that would have returned to various southwestern Alaska rivers, would have been high priced prizes for well heeled guided sports fishermen and women. Their commercial value in southwestern Alaska is negligible. But they are hugely valuable to the tourist industry. Their looming extinction in Kodiak rivers is yet another tragedy we can chalk up to the Kodiak trawlers.
Halibut? No problem. Only a half million pounds killed so far, 499,400 pounds wasted. But the good news is only 55,000 pounds wasted last week. I am reminded that that loss of halibut should include their spawning potential. So not only have these fish been wantonly wasted, but their potential progeny have been eliminated as well.
Value of the halibut, about $2,122,450 exvessel wasted so far this year. But only $233,750 this week. Commercial fish value. Sports value, perhaps a bit more. Spawning value, priceless.
Show up at the NPFMC next week and let them know that the Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) is too high. Write a letter to the Anchorage Daily News, call your state and federal representatives, demand real change in the way the trawl industry continues to pound down our resources.
Keep yer flippers wet.
The king salmon that would have returned to various southwestern Alaska rivers, would have been high priced prizes for well heeled guided sports fishermen and women. Their commercial value in southwestern Alaska is negligible. But they are hugely valuable to the tourist industry. Their looming extinction in Kodiak rivers is yet another tragedy we can chalk up to the Kodiak trawlers.
Halibut? No problem. Only a half million pounds killed so far, 499,400 pounds wasted. But the good news is only 55,000 pounds wasted last week. I am reminded that that loss of halibut should include their spawning potential. So not only have these fish been wantonly wasted, but their potential progeny have been eliminated as well.
Value of the halibut, about $2,122,450 exvessel wasted so far this year. But only $233,750 this week. Commercial fish value. Sports value, perhaps a bit more. Spawning value, priceless.
Show up at the NPFMC next week and let them know that the Prohibited Species Catch (PSC) is too high. Write a letter to the Anchorage Daily News, call your state and federal representatives, demand real change in the way the trawl industry continues to pound down our resources.
Keep yer flippers wet.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Trawler Bycatch Closes Kodiak King Salmon Fisheries
The Anchorage Daily News reports that king salmon runs are failing to reach minimum escapement goals on two of the most famous king salmon rivers in Alaska.
www.adn.com/2010/03/20/1192593/poor-returns-shut-2-kodiak-king.html
This should not come as a surprise, as we have reported here that continued unobserved trawler operations in the Gulf of Alaska, the Shelikof Strait, and the Bering Sea are catching tens of thousands of king salmon every year thus depleting the spawning stocks and starving northern Alaska villages. This a perfect opportunity for the sport fishermen of the world to demand 100% observer coverage on all trawling operations in the Gulf of Alaska. While the Bering Sea is already covered, the NMFS and the NPFMC simply turn their backs on their responsibilities to the king salmon resource while allowing continued pollock trawling for giant profits. The fact is that the Kodiak pollock trawlers are out in front of the Karluk River today, cleaning out the feeder kings.
Friends should never allow friends to eat artificial crab, fillet o fish, or any other form of pollock. For whitefish, insist on hook caught fish only.
So not only are the Gulf of Alaska trawlers destroying halibut, purportedly making dirty tows on young halibut simply to destroy what they see as a resource that restricts their growth, but hammering the rising stocks of tanner crab and the depleted king crab, both with bottom trawls and with supposedly mid water or pelagic trawls. How else does X get the belly of his pelagic trawl ripped out with crab pots?
The destruction of king salmon is just another pawn in the game of trawling the Gulf of Alaska to death. Demand 100% rock solid observer data to stop the wholesale destruction of these precious resources.
www.adn.com/2010/03/20/1192593/poor-returns-shut-2-kodiak-king.html
This should not come as a surprise, as we have reported here that continued unobserved trawler operations in the Gulf of Alaska, the Shelikof Strait, and the Bering Sea are catching tens of thousands of king salmon every year thus depleting the spawning stocks and starving northern Alaska villages. This a perfect opportunity for the sport fishermen of the world to demand 100% observer coverage on all trawling operations in the Gulf of Alaska. While the Bering Sea is already covered, the NMFS and the NPFMC simply turn their backs on their responsibilities to the king salmon resource while allowing continued pollock trawling for giant profits. The fact is that the Kodiak pollock trawlers are out in front of the Karluk River today, cleaning out the feeder kings.
Friends should never allow friends to eat artificial crab, fillet o fish, or any other form of pollock. For whitefish, insist on hook caught fish only.
So not only are the Gulf of Alaska trawlers destroying halibut, purportedly making dirty tows on young halibut simply to destroy what they see as a resource that restricts their growth, but hammering the rising stocks of tanner crab and the depleted king crab, both with bottom trawls and with supposedly mid water or pelagic trawls. How else does X get the belly of his pelagic trawl ripped out with crab pots?
The destruction of king salmon is just another pawn in the game of trawling the Gulf of Alaska to death. Demand 100% rock solid observer data to stop the wholesale destruction of these precious resources.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Balsinger is Afraid of Public Response?
Head of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service is apparently afraid to be truthful to the general public-(you)-about the status of the Steller Sea Lion. Yes, that's me and mine. Why? What kind of spin or reconsideration of the scientific facts need to be created to tell the truth?
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kial/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1619391/Local.News/Steller.Sea.Lion.BiOp.delayed
Seriously, we are grownups (some of us) and we are used to the truth (just kidding). Why does Balsinger have to prepare the 'stakeholders' and the 'scientists' anyway. Seems to me you might have that backasswards, sir, don't you mean the scientists and then the steakholders? Get the spin masters to make the right mix of science and fantasy, statistics and voodoo to placate the steakholders and the public at the same time? Sounds like the energy companies preparing an ad campaign to convince us that we have to keep going the same old way...to suck up and destroy the very world we all depend upon in order to be comfortable. FCS!
Keep yer flippers wet.
http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/kial/news.newsmain/article/1/0/1619391/Local.News/Steller.Sea.Lion.BiOp.delayed
Seriously, we are grownups (some of us) and we are used to the truth (just kidding). Why does Balsinger have to prepare the 'stakeholders' and the 'scientists' anyway. Seems to me you might have that backasswards, sir, don't you mean the scientists and then the steakholders? Get the spin masters to make the right mix of science and fantasy, statistics and voodoo to placate the steakholders and the public at the same time? Sounds like the energy companies preparing an ad campaign to convince us that we have to keep going the same old way...to suck up and destroy the very world we all depend upon in order to be comfortable. FCS!
Keep yer flippers wet.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Bycatch News and Analysis-Comment
Bycatch News:
Klas Stolpe, of the Juneau Empire, reports in part, that "fishery managers are still discussing the best way to measure the impact of bycatch and what it means to other harvests in the Northwest Pacific." www.juneauempire.com/stories/030410/loc_570703342.shtml
"'The issue here is, as a result of research during past years' fisheries, we have realized that halibut are moving more than we had assumed they were,' IPHC ED Bruce Leaman said. ' That has meant that impacts of bycatch are now estimated to be more extensive...than we had previously thought. Over the last decade or so, we had been thinking that bycatch was primarily local in its effect but it is more extensive than that. So that tends to make bycatch in US waters have an impact on Canadian waters.'
"The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans provides observer data to the IPHC from Canadian waters. According to the IPHC, the Canadian observer program provides a more stable fishery with less variation in its bycatch rates. Canadian trawlers, for instance, are required to have 100 percent observer coverage on board.
"In the US, observer coverage depends upon vessel size. Vessels above 125 feet are required to have 100 percent coverage. Boats between 60 and 125 feet are required to have 30 percent coverage, and observers aren't required for vessels under 60 feet.
"'The Canadians have a much better system for bycatch control where there are individual bycatch caps for each of the trawlers that are working, for example, in the trawl fishery in BC,' Leaman said. 'Where as in the US it tends to be a global cap of all of that sector. In general it is still not an individual responsibility in the US.'
"The NPFMC would like to see a progress report at the IPHCs interim November meeting, but no firm timeline has been established to define new objectives.'
"'Right now it is a work project in front of the commission staff and working with some of the agencies in the US and Canada,' Leaman said. "Not a lot has changed in terms of the trawl fisheries, but different abundances of target species have an effect on how much bycatch there is.'"
Analysis/Comment:
Fisheries managers "are still discussing the best way to measure the impact of bycatch..." Discussions have been going on for decades over bycatch. Nothing happens. American managers and their political handlers have been so concerned about competition in world markets for fish that they have thrown all caution to the wind in order to harvest as much as possible, often without considering the value of the fish they catch or the destruction to the oceans that follows using trawlers as the primary harvesters.
Bruce Leaman's statements that 'halibut move more than we thought and that impacts of trawl fleet bycatch were primarily local' point up the blatant spin doctoring of his statements or his ignorance. When an entire area, the central Gulf of Alaska, is being hammered to pieces by unconstrained trawler bycatch of course it is going to affect other areas of the North Pacific Ocean. Mr. Leaman, this is called the 'eocsystem.' The implication is that halibut destruction is perfectly acceptable as long as it stays in the central GOA. This is prima facia mismanagement and an outrage. Mr. Leaman should apologise and resign. 'Bycatch in US waters has an impact on Canadian water,' indeed. So all that matters, are Canadian waters? This is completely short sighted, uninformed, and region centric.
In regard to observer coverage and data, it is well known that observers are overworked. Asked to provide far too much junk observation and data, they are frequently off deck, off task, and/or too busy to observe what is really going on. Estimates of 50% reliability of their observations is the most common figure kicked about in discussions with experienced trawler crew. As one reliable trawler crewman told me, 'You'd be surprised how easy it was to hide things from the observer.'
That the Canadians have a much better observer program maybe the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal record of disastrous mismanagement of Canadian fisheries in general. One hundred percent observer coverage and making individual Canadian trawlers responsible for individual bycatch caps are two things that the US should copy from their Olympic hockey champion neighbors, post haste.
But don't hold your breath. "No firm timeline has been established to define new objectives" on US trawler bycatch and halibut destruction. Nothing is going to change until this preventable resource waste and destruction captures the international media's attention, or gets scrutinized by the US and Canadian's as a violation of the International Pacific Halibut Treaty.
The final ill informed remark by Mr. Leaman, "Not a lot has changed in terms of the trawl fisheries, but different abundances of target species have an affect (sic) on how much bycatch there is," reflects his ignorance of the increases in trawler horsepower, new super 58s, hull sponsoning, net size, cod end capacity, and other known and yet uncomputed factors leading to trawlers' greater ability to catch larger breeder halibut by towing the net at higher speeds, holding larger deckloads, increasing the time halibut remain out of the water or under the pressure of tons of fish pressing upon them. This has resulted in millions of pounds of halibut wanton waste. Wake up, Mr. Leaman, the time of smoke and mirrors is ending. Fishery managers must move into a new era of honest concern for the long term health of the fisheries or resign and go to work for the trawlers or the processing industry and leave fishery management to a new and hopefully more informed and transparent group of managers who will answer to the fishermen and the public of the US and Canada for these precious resources that are currently being destroyed.
Are you listening in to this, Mr. Schwaab? Ms. Lubchenco?
Keep yer flippers wet.
Klas Stolpe, of the Juneau Empire, reports in part, that "fishery managers are still discussing the best way to measure the impact of bycatch and what it means to other harvests in the Northwest Pacific." www.juneauempire.com/stories/030410/loc_570703342.shtml
"'The issue here is, as a result of research during past years' fisheries, we have realized that halibut are moving more than we had assumed they were,' IPHC ED Bruce Leaman said. ' That has meant that impacts of bycatch are now estimated to be more extensive...than we had previously thought. Over the last decade or so, we had been thinking that bycatch was primarily local in its effect but it is more extensive than that. So that tends to make bycatch in US waters have an impact on Canadian waters.'
"The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans provides observer data to the IPHC from Canadian waters. According to the IPHC, the Canadian observer program provides a more stable fishery with less variation in its bycatch rates. Canadian trawlers, for instance, are required to have 100 percent observer coverage on board.
"In the US, observer coverage depends upon vessel size. Vessels above 125 feet are required to have 100 percent coverage. Boats between 60 and 125 feet are required to have 30 percent coverage, and observers aren't required for vessels under 60 feet.
"'The Canadians have a much better system for bycatch control where there are individual bycatch caps for each of the trawlers that are working, for example, in the trawl fishery in BC,' Leaman said. 'Where as in the US it tends to be a global cap of all of that sector. In general it is still not an individual responsibility in the US.'
"The NPFMC would like to see a progress report at the IPHCs interim November meeting, but no firm timeline has been established to define new objectives.'
"'Right now it is a work project in front of the commission staff and working with some of the agencies in the US and Canada,' Leaman said. "Not a lot has changed in terms of the trawl fisheries, but different abundances of target species have an effect on how much bycatch there is.'"
Analysis/Comment:
Fisheries managers "are still discussing the best way to measure the impact of bycatch..." Discussions have been going on for decades over bycatch. Nothing happens. American managers and their political handlers have been so concerned about competition in world markets for fish that they have thrown all caution to the wind in order to harvest as much as possible, often without considering the value of the fish they catch or the destruction to the oceans that follows using trawlers as the primary harvesters.
Bruce Leaman's statements that 'halibut move more than we thought and that impacts of trawl fleet bycatch were primarily local' point up the blatant spin doctoring of his statements or his ignorance. When an entire area, the central Gulf of Alaska, is being hammered to pieces by unconstrained trawler bycatch of course it is going to affect other areas of the North Pacific Ocean. Mr. Leaman, this is called the 'eocsystem.' The implication is that halibut destruction is perfectly acceptable as long as it stays in the central GOA. This is prima facia mismanagement and an outrage. Mr. Leaman should apologise and resign. 'Bycatch in US waters has an impact on Canadian water,' indeed. So all that matters, are Canadian waters? This is completely short sighted, uninformed, and region centric.
In regard to observer coverage and data, it is well known that observers are overworked. Asked to provide far too much junk observation and data, they are frequently off deck, off task, and/or too busy to observe what is really going on. Estimates of 50% reliability of their observations is the most common figure kicked about in discussions with experienced trawler crew. As one reliable trawler crewman told me, 'You'd be surprised how easy it was to hide things from the observer.'
That the Canadians have a much better observer program maybe the one bright spot in an otherwise dismal record of disastrous mismanagement of Canadian fisheries in general. One hundred percent observer coverage and making individual Canadian trawlers responsible for individual bycatch caps are two things that the US should copy from their Olympic hockey champion neighbors, post haste.
But don't hold your breath. "No firm timeline has been established to define new objectives" on US trawler bycatch and halibut destruction. Nothing is going to change until this preventable resource waste and destruction captures the international media's attention, or gets scrutinized by the US and Canadian's as a violation of the International Pacific Halibut Treaty.
The final ill informed remark by Mr. Leaman, "Not a lot has changed in terms of the trawl fisheries, but different abundances of target species have an affect (sic) on how much bycatch there is," reflects his ignorance of the increases in trawler horsepower, new super 58s, hull sponsoning, net size, cod end capacity, and other known and yet uncomputed factors leading to trawlers' greater ability to catch larger breeder halibut by towing the net at higher speeds, holding larger deckloads, increasing the time halibut remain out of the water or under the pressure of tons of fish pressing upon them. This has resulted in millions of pounds of halibut wanton waste. Wake up, Mr. Leaman, the time of smoke and mirrors is ending. Fishery managers must move into a new era of honest concern for the long term health of the fisheries or resign and go to work for the trawlers or the processing industry and leave fishery management to a new and hopefully more informed and transparent group of managers who will answer to the fishermen and the public of the US and Canada for these precious resources that are currently being destroyed.
Are you listening in to this, Mr. Schwaab? Ms. Lubchenco?
Keep yer flippers wet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
