Building Better Fish Traps

 

October 24, 2013

©Ines Gomes

 

New fish traps designed by researchers from WCS and the Kenyan Marine and Fisheries Research Institute keep big fish in and let non-target fish out.

 

In coastal fisheries, routine bycatch—small fish that get accidentally trapped with the species targeted—poses an unsustainable tax on fragile reef systems. The result is an unsustainable tax on fragile reef systems. But in a significant breakthrough, scientists from WCS and the Kenyan Marine and Fisheries Research Institute, have built a better fish trap to solve the challenge.

The modified African basket traps are iron-framed with netting and a single tube-shaped opening that leads into the middle of the trap. The built-in escape gaps allow the undersize fish to swim out, while keeping commercially valuable fish in. The escape gaps increase profits and minimize the impact of fishing on coastal reef systems – important developments for fishing communities that rely on the vital marine resources.

The groundbreaking traps were deployed and checked once daily between October 2010 and October 2011. After 41 weeks, the researchers found that the traps with escape gaps retained longer and heavier fish, with less bycatch. The innovative escape gap design was so unique it won top prize for conservation in the 2012 Solution Search: Turning the Tide for Coastal Fisheries sponsored by Rare, in partnership with National Geographic.

Read the press release>>

A Rising Tide - Marine Reserves

Global Ocean Legacy, a project of The Pew Charitable Trusts and its partners, is seeking to establish a new benchmark for the protection of ocean ecosystems: creation of the first generation of great marine parks around the globe by 2022.

In recent years, promising developments have taken place in the designation of large, fully protected marine reserves. In 2012, Australia took the bold step of creating the Coral Sea Marine National Park, fully protecting 502,000 square kilometers (194,000 square miles) of essential coral reefs, atolls, and deep-sea features that offer habitat to 62 nationally threatened and protected species. Three years earlier, the United Kingdom designated the largest marine reserve in the world: the 640,000-square-kilometer (247,000-square-mile) Chagos Marine Reserve in the Indian Ocean, encompassing more than 50 islands and coral atolls. And in 2006, the United States created the 362,000-square-kilometer (140,000-square-mile) Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument. That step ensured protection of more than 7,000 marine species in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, a full quarter of which are endemic to the area.

Despite this progress, the world’s marine ecosystems continue to be seriously degraded by overfishing, pollution, climate change, and other human activities that threaten the livelihoods, food security, and economic futures of many millions of people. The world’s oceans need to be better managed to safeguard the full range of their marine life and critically important ecosystem services.

Depending on how it is measured, 6 to 12 percent of the world’s land has been protected to conserve biodiversity and the ecosystem services they provide to human societies. By comparison, only about 1 percent of the world’s oceans have been similarly protected, as of September 2013. Most marine no-take areas are small and inshore, providing important local conservation benefits in regions that are already heavily fished. However, these places provide relatively limited protection for many wide-ranging species that move through the broader seascape. Large reserves, where ecological processes and functions can operate much as they have for millennia, are virtually missing from the marine conservation and management portfolio.

The world’s great terrestrial parks provide important services, preserving ecosystems and wide-ranging species, and supporting non-extractive industries such as tourism. The world needs to establish similar ocean-scale reserves so we can restore and rebuild our global seascape.

Global Ocean Legacy is working with governments, local communities, and scientists to identify and establish the first generation of very large marine parks. Many of these ecosystems have not been fished intensively, are still relatively intact, and lie within the political jurisdiction of nations with the capability to monitor and enforce protection.
We are convinced that creating a worldwide system of very large, fully protected marine reserves is an essential and long-overdue step that will significantly improve stewardship of the global marine environment.

Supporting Statements

Growing market demand for declining fish stocks means that even isolated and remote locations are likely to lose their de facto conservation status in the near future—unless there is a transformative improvement in the management and governance of marine ecosystems.

The goal of Global Ocean Legacy is to identify and secure protection for additional large marine ecosystems—until recently protected only by their geographic isolation—before significant environmental degradation occurs. The expected benefits of these reserves include:

1. Helping to ensure that top predators such as sharks, swordfish, and marine mammals remain abundant, while preserving intact food webs still free from severe depletion.
2. Providing reference sites for future scientific research and public education.
3. Matching the scale of management to the scale of important ecosystem processes, such as dispersal and migration of many species. Offshore islands and reefs are typically small and relatively isolated from one another compared with continental coastlines. Consequently, marine species at isolated locations have fewer and more distant sources of replenishment. Effective management should protect the entire life cycle of species.
4. Improving resilience to the accelerating impacts of climate change. A growing body of evidence indicates that protecting the structure of food webs and maintaining the ecological function of targeted species is critical for building resilience and preventing regime-shifts, or abrupt, large-scale reorganizations, in degraded ecosystems.
5. Supporting the long-term recovery, conservation, and maintenance of populations of highly mobile and migratory species. Large reserves protect a sufficient expanse of ocean to provide important habitat and refugia for species such as tuna, sharks, seabirds, turtles, and marine mammals.
6. Supporting protection while minimizing social and economic costs. Very large no-take marine reserves are highly appropriate for remote, relatively intact areas because they protect biodiversity, species, and habitat in areas where there are few existing uses and therefore minimal potential conflicts and costs to society.
7. Enhancing the global reputations of managing nations. Countries that create very large no-take areas will be recognized as world leaders in developing new solutions for the stewardship of marine biodiversity.

Conclusion

Globally, there are a relatively small number of intact regions where it is possible to establish, implement, and monitor very large marine reserves. These regions should be an urgent priority for protection, based on strong public and political support.

We, the undersigned, for all of the aforementioned reasons, support the efforts of Global Ocean Legacy. We look forward to working collaboratively to achieve this ocean legacy for future generations and for all humankind.

Callum Roberts, Ph.D.Professor of Marine Conservation, Environment Department, University of York

Terry Hughes, Ph.D.Director, Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, James Cook University; ARC Laureate Fellow (2012-17)

Carl Safina, Ph.D.President, Blue Ocean Institute; Research Professor, School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, Stony Brook University
 

Resource File: A Rising Tide: A Statement of Support by Scientists for the Designation of the First Generation of Great Marine Parks around the Globe (PDF)
 

Marine Ecosystem Depends on the Fate of Pacific Forage Fish

This is a guest post from Lee Crockett, director of U.S. fisheries campaigns for The Pew Charitable Trusts.

My time at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and on Capitol Hill taught me that planning ahead and being proactive pays off when it comes to managing our nation’s fisheries. The Pacific Fishery Management Council could get ahead of the curve in September, when it will weigh the fate of forage fish.

As I’ve discussed previously, these types of small fish, such as sardines and anchovies, serve as an essential source of nourishment for larger fish, including the wild salmon and tuna that are popular with anglers, chefs and consumers. Forage fish also are consumed by other wildlife, from whales to seabirds, making them a vital part of the marine food web.

The Pacific council recently acted to protect an important species of forage fish, Pacific saury, by recommending that NOAA establish interim protection for them. The action sets the stage for the council to begin enacting longer-term protections for these and other forage fish that are not now included in a federal fisheries management plan.

In September, the council has a great opportunity to begin establishing long-term protection for important forage species that are not yet being fished. These species, which include sand lance and various kinds of smelts, are fished extensively elsewhere in the world and are used in a variety of products, such as feed for livestock and farmed fish. Protecting them will give policymakers a chance to analyze the potential impact on marine ecosystems to determine whether industrial-scale fishing can begin.

The Pacific council, which is on record as recognizing the importance of forage fish to marine ecosystems, set a goal of prohibiting unregulated fishing for these species in Pacific waters. I hope that they will now translate that goal into strong regulatory protection. After all, placing vulnerable forage species into an appropriate fishery management plan is the simplest way to prohibit new forage fisheries until the council can evaluate how removing prey would affect larger fish and the overall resilience of marine ecosystems.

Bringing important forage species under management before commercial fishing begins, rather than reacting to problems after the fact, is an approach with widespread public support. Over the past two years, the council heard from organizations representing the commercial fishing industry, sport fishermen, seafood suppliers, eco-tourism businesses, birding organizations, elected leaders and conservation groups from around the region. All called for stronger safeguards for forage species.

The council also received more than 50,000 comments from the general public encouraging protection of forage fish as a crucial food source for salmon, orca whales and other iconic wildlife.

We already know that protecting forage fish works to ensure sustainable fisheries. In the 1990s, regional fisheries managers in Alaska preemptively protected many forage species with the support of the commercial fishing industry. They acted because they understood the importance of these small fish and the local businesses and jobs that depend on them and were concerned about their growing exploitation. Now the Pacific council can extend similar protections along the entire West Coast.
Encourage the council to bring forage fish species under management as soon as possible by submitting an official comment.


Take Action!
Sign this petition to give forage fish the protection they need.


[Source]: care2.com

Federal Law is Recovering Fish Stocks

Federal Law is Recovering Fish Stocks | Brad Sewell's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC

A decade and a half after a fisheries crisis led the U.S. Congress to enact landmark requirements for the rebuilding of fish stocks, two-thirds of the stocks subjected to the requirements have been rebuilt or are making significant rebuilding progress, according to a new report released today by NRDC.
Under the rebuilding requirements added to the federal Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1996, 64 percent of once-struggling, monitored fish stocks nationwide have fully recovered or are well on their way.

From haddock on New England’s Georges Bank, summer flounder in the Mid-Atlantic to lingcod off the Pacific coast, many fish populations are at levels not seen for two decades. And that’s not only great news for the ocean ecosystem, but also for all of us who depend on or look to healthy fisheries for our food, jobs, and recreation.

Many fishermen in New England remember it well. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, some of the region’s most iconic fish stocks—including cod, haddock, and flounder—had crashed. With catch levels set too high, and fishing fleets more efficient with every passing year, 20 out of the region’s 36 managed fish stocks eventually became overfished. For fishermen and coastal communities, this was a disaster, with economic losses in the hundreds of millions annually.

The fisheries crisis was not limited to New England. In the Mid-Atlantic, half of the region’s 12 managed stocks were overfished by 1997 (spiny dogfish was added to the list the following year). The popular sport fish summer flounder dipped to just 15% of target levels in the early 1990s. Another recreational target, scup (also known as porgy), was at 4% in 1995. On the West Coast, a half-dozen species of slow-growing, late-maturing rockfish were similarly in trouble by the late 1990s.

Recognizing the enormous economic and ecologic risk at hand, Congress stepped in, passing the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) in 1996 amending the nation’s federal fisheries law (the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act or MSA for short) to add new requirements that overfished ocean fish stocks be rebuilt as quickly as possible.

The Extinction of a Species - For Soup

For the vast majority of us who have never eaten shark fin soup, or even thought of it, this may seem like a bit of a yawn. In reality, though, it is anything but.

Shark fin soup is a delicacy in China and other Asian countries meant to bring good fortune to those who eat it and to demonstrate the wealth and importance of the host who serves it. But in order to fill the bowls of this supposed delicacy, 70 million sharks are killed, indiscriminately, every year.

 

When the sharks are caught they are hauled into the boat and the fins are cut from its body. The finless shark is then thrown into the ocean, where it either drowns or is eaten by other predators. This is animal abuse of the highest order and from this perspective alone is enough to justify the ban on shark fins everywhere on the planet, but this argument also misses the real point:

When we get into a war of words about what it crueler, killing sharks versus killing pigs, chickens and cows, found in slaughterhouses all over the World, we miss the point. New proposed laws (for any species, not just sharks) are trying to address the fact that we are in the middle of the greatest mass extinction in millions of years and we humans are the cause of the vast majority of those.

If we, as a species, don't do something to protect the sharks then many of the world's shark populations are headed for extinction.

When extinction is a consequence, any tradition, no matter how entrenched in a culture, must change. This seems to demonstrate a strange conflict among us as fellow human beings. Some understand our moral responsibility not to hunt a species to extinction, where others seem totally indifferent to the consequences of killing 70 million sharks per year even when the imminent extinction of a species exists.

My plea to the people who would drive a species to extinction is to ask them to consider what they are doing to sharks and by extension to rhinos, tigers, bears and a myriad of other species that are on the brink of extinction because cultural tradition demands their rampant poaching. In other words, the poaching of endangered species will end only when the demand for those endangered species' body parts ends.

I have a fervent hope that those who currently consume endangered species' body parts will recognize that their tradition will end in one of two ways, either voluntarily while there are still sharks in the ocean, or involuntarily, when there are no more sharks, and therefore no more shark fins to fill bowls of soup.
 

The Surprising Sources of Your Favorite Seafoods

Article provided by: NOAA FishWatch.gov

In 2011, Americans ate 15 pounds of fish and shellfish per person. While our seafood consumption still lags far behind that of poultry, pork, and beef, it does add up to nearly 5 billion pounds of seafood per year, making the United States second only to China in seafood consumption.

In 2011, we imported about 91 percent of the seafood consumed here in the United States. However, a small portion of these imports were caught by American fishermen, exported overseas for processing and then re-imported to the United States. The remaining 9 percent was produced entirely domestically.

About half the seafood we eat is wild-caught; the other half is farm-raised, that is, from aquaculture. There's a bit of a grey area here, too, though—some "wild-caught" seafood actually starts its life in a hatchery. For example, salmon and red drum are often produced in hatcheries and then released to the wild to be caught. The same can be said for some mussel, clam, and oyster populations—in many cases, larval shellfish, or 'spat,' is reared in a hatchery and then planted in a natural setting to be harvested later. On the other hand, some "farm-raised" seafood such as yellowtail is caught as juveniles in the wild then raised to maturity in captivity.

Why does it matter? It's important to know the source of your seafood because not all of them measure up the same. Some seafood is caught or farm-raised under regulations that protect the health of the marine environment, the animals that live within it, and the folks that eat it; however, some is not. By buying seafood from reputable sources, you're helping to conserve our ocean resources and support the economies and communities that ensure our seafood supply is safe, healthy, and sustainable.

Top Ten List:

Shrimp

By far, shrimp remains our favorite type of seafood—Americans ate more than 4 pounds of shrimp per person in 2011. Although our shrimp fisheries are among the largest and highest valued in the United States, over 90 percent of the shrimp eaten in the United States is farmed overseas. In fact, shrimp makes up more than 30 percent of all seafood we import (by value). We mainly import shrimp from Southeast Asian countries like Thailand, Indonesia, and China, followed by Ecuador and Mexico.

Tuna

We eat about 2.6 pounds of canned tuna per person per year, making canned tuna our second favorite seafood and one of our top seafood imports. Canned tuna can include several species of tuna—bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tunas are typically canned as "light" tuna; albacore is canned as "white" tuna. All the tuna that we eat is wild-caught; however, tuna aquaculture is moving from the research stage to the commercially-viable stage as scientists experiment and figure out the production cycle from egg to harvestable fish. More than half the canned tuna we import comes from Thailand, with smaller amounts from the Philippines, Vietnam, Ecuador, and other countries.

Salmon

Rich in omega-3s and flavor, it's no wonder salmon has been one of our top three favorite seafoods for nearly a decade. With increased availability of fresh and frozen farmed, wild, and hatchery-reared salmon, access to this healthy, delicious seafood has increased. We ate nearly 2 pounds of salmon per person in 2011. To feed this demand, we import a half a billion pounds of salmon each year to supplement the supply that comes from our valuable commercial fisheries from Alaska to California and salmon farms in Maine and Washington State. Two-thirds of the salmon we eat is farmed, mainly imported from Norway, Chile, and Canada, with a small amount grown domestically. One-third of the salmon eaten in the United States is wild-caught, primarily in Alaska; and about half of this catch is from hatchery-reared fish released into the wild.

Pollock

We eat about 1.3 pounds of pollock per person—most of this is wild-caught in Alaska. In fact, the Alaska pollock fishery is one of the largest, most valuable fisheries in the world. And it's often considered one of the best managed, too. Pollock is commonly used in surimi (imitation crab) and fried fillet sandwiches, but is also sold as fillets and can be a great substitute for cod.

Tilapia

Americans eat an increasing amount of the mild-tasting, versatile tilapia each year, nearly 1.3 pounds per capita in 2011. There's little to no commercial wild harvest of tilapia today; the tilapia we eat comes from aquaculture. In fact, tilapia is likely the first fish that was ever farmed. China supplies most of the tilapia in our markets, followed by Ecuador, Indonesia, and Honduras. We also farm some tilapia domestically.

Pangasius

A freshwater fish related to catfish, pangasius is climbing the chart of our favorite seafoods, up three spots from its 2010 ranking. We ate 0.6 pounds of pangasius per person in 2010, and demand for this moderately-priced fish is likely to continue to grow. Like U.S.-produced catfish, pangasius are farm-raised in ponds or cages, primarily in Vietnam, although production is growing in China, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand.

Catfish

Farm-raised domestic catfish has been one the top ten most frequently consumed seafood products in the United States for nearly 20 years. Catfish refers to channel catfish, native to the Southeast. U.S. catfish farmers grow this mild, sweet-tasting fish in freshwater ponds, mainly Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Although domestic production of catfish has decreased lately (down to 334 million pounds in 2011), it is still the top aquaculture product grown in the United States. Note that at the market, domestically grown catfish should be identified as a farm-raised product of the United States or a specific U.S. state. Imported catfish should be identified by the country of origin and the acceptable market name for the species of catfish being sold. For example, catfish species commonly raised in Asian countries should be called pangasius, basa, swai, or tra to distinguish it from U.S. farm-raised catfish, which should be marketed as catfish.

Crab

We eat a lot of rich, flavorful crab here in the United States—more than half a pound per person in 2011—and a lot of it is wild-caught in U.S. waters. From the cold waters of Alaska to the warm waters of Florida, U. S. commercial fishermen harvest several different species of crab including blue, Dungeness, king, snow, and stone crabs. The United States is a major producer of crabs with nearly 370 million pounds valued at greater than $650 million in 2011. We also import crab in a variety of forms ranging from whole crab to frozen, pasteurized, and canned, mostly from Canada, Asia, and South America.

Cod

We eat about a half a pound of cod per person every year. Two types of cod come from the United States—Atlantic and Pacific cod are closely related, but Atlantic cod is caught in New England, and Pacific cod is caught in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest. Although they can be used interchangeably, Pacific cod yield larger, thicker fillets, and Atlantic cod taste sweeter. Our Alaska fisheries for Pacific cod account for more than two-thirds of the world's Pacific cod supply. We also import some cod from China, Canada, Russia, Iceland, and Norway, some of which is farmed.

There is one commercial cod farm in the United States and researchers are developing more opportunities for domestic cod farming. Watch a video about teaching fishermen in Maine to farm cod.

Clams

A variety of clam species, both wild-caught and farm-raised in the United States, supply most of the clams we eat here. In the United States, natural production of species including surfclams, quahogs, hard clams, and soft clams remains strong and exceeds demand, and farmed production of species such as littlenecks, Manilas, and geoducks is improving and expanding. We also import clams from Asian countries and Canada, which may be a mix of wild-caught and farmed.

Source: NOAA  http://www.fishwatch.gov/farmed_seafood/index.htm 

Restoring the Urban Sea by Farming It - By Barton Seaver

With 91% of the seafood that we eat in this country imported from foreign waters there is increased interest in restoring local watersheds to full productivity. While much of the dialogue about sustainable seafood focuses on maintaining adequate resources, some forms of aquaculture can actually help to regenerate ecosystems, revitalize economies, and enhance food security.

This is what I term restorative seafood; food systems that provide for our needs while actually increasing the productivity and profit of the waters that sustain us. Shellfish farming in particular — clams, mussels, and oysters — are some of my favorite examples of man’s ability to actually give back to the planet even while providing for our needs....

Read More: Restoring the Urban Sea by Farming It

Are Aquapods the Fish Farms of the Future?

Hawaiian mariculture firm Kampachi Farms’ Velella Project is now raising fish in open-ocean “Aquapods” with virtually no negative environmental effects.

 

Fish farming in estuaries and protected waters may seem to offer a more sustainable alternative to traditional deep-sea fishing, but it still causes effluent accumulation and interactions with wild stocks that can disrupt the surrounding environment. That’s according to Hawaiian mariculture firm Kampachi Farms, whose Velella Project is now raising fish in open-ocean “Aquapods” with virtually no negative environmental effects.

In an effort launched last year, marine biologists at Kampachi Farms have been raising hatchery-reared, native Kampachi fish in a 22-foot Aquapod tethered to a manned sailing vessel in the deep open ocean near the Big Island of Hawaii. The fish are fed a sustainable diet that has replaced significant amounts of fishmeal and fish oil with soy and other sustainable agricultural proteins, the firm says. The setup drifts in eddies off the west coast of the Big Island in Federal waters from three to more than 150 miles offshore and 12,000 feet deep. Marine biologists on board monitor and feed the fish while a GPS system tracks the vessel’s drift and transmits data to land-based research headquarters; the tender vessel’s engines are used minimally to correct course. The results are exciting so far, the fish are healthy, growing well and are where they’re meant to be – in the ocean. This technology has the potential to revolutionize fish farming, making it the most impact-free form of food production on the planet.” The video below explains the effort in more detail:



With support from a wide range of organizations including NOAA, the National Science Foundation, the Illinois Soybean Association, Lockheed-Martin, the International Copper Association and Ocean Farm Technologies, the Velella Project has made its environmental monitoring data available for public access on its site. Sustainability-minded entrepreneurs around the globe: one to get involved in?

Website: www.kampachifarm.com/offshore.html
Contact: info@kampachifarm.com

NE Fish Council Votes For Oversight of Large Trawlers Scooping Up River Herring

The fate of the river herring in Maine and along the Atlantic coast was solidly in the hands of the New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC), who gathered in Portland this week.

By midday Wednesday, they had voted to send a recommendation to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to require strict oversight on large mid-water trawlers working three miles off the coast and up to 200 miles out to sea.

More decisions affecting river herring were expected by late in the day. NMFS is likely to act on the NEFMC recommendations before the end of the summer.Recreational and commercial fishermen, among others, have pointed to the need for strict oversight of the large mid-water trawlers that target Atlantic sea herring inshore but also scoop up marine mammals, haddock, and river herring as unintended bycatch.

Alewives and blueback herring, collectively known as river herring, spend most of their lives at sea and have been on the decline for decades, in spite of efforts to improve habitat and build fish ladders so spawning fish can make their way from the sea to freshwater in the spring.

Fishing for river herring is illegal in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and North Carolina. The fish are currently under review for listing under the federal Endangered Species Act, with a recommendation for or against listing expected this summer.

Like their sea-dwelling cousins, river herring are an important food species in the marine food web, providing food for groundfish, stripers, tuna and others. At sea, river herring often school with Atlantic herring.

Atlantic mid-water trawlers, with a fleet numbering around 40 boats, are among the largest boats fishing in federal U.S. waters today. Mid-water trawlers, such as those operated by O'Hara Corporation in Rockland, tow submerged cone-shaped nets through the midsection of the water column that funnel schooling fish towards the small end of the net, known as the cod end. Working in pairs, with one larger net being pulled behind two boats, trawlers can work an area in a grid pattern, catching up to 1,000,000 pounds of fish in one haul, with the potential to clear out a local river herring population in a day.

There have been no bycatch limits on how many river herring can be caught. Catch caps may be set late Wednesday.

On Wednesday, NEFMC voted to require all mid-water trawlers to carry a scientific observer on board to keep track of bycatch numbers, with industry and the federal government sharing the cost. If NMFS approves this requirement, it is likely to be implemented in spring of 2013.

Source: New England Fishery Management Council

U.S. Fisheries Continue to Improve

The latest numbers on the status of fisheries in the United States, released on Monday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), show continued progress toward ending overfishing.

Credit: Pew Environment Group, Data by NOAA

Six stocks that were previously overfished have been declared rebuilt—having reached a healthy population size—the biggest improvement since NOAA began issuing the reports in 1997. That raises the total number of rebuilt stocks to 27. "This is evidence that we are moving in the right direction and that sacrifices that fishermen have made are paying off," says Lee Crockett of the Pew Environment Group.

All told, 86% of the 258 major stocks reviewed by NOAA are in good shape.

But more remains to be done. Forty-five stocks remain overfished (the population is below the target) and 36 others are still "subject to overfishing," or, in other words, being caught at too high a rate. Both of these metrics, however, improved slightly from the previous year.

In a teleconference, Galen Tromble of NOAA's Office of Sustainable Fisheries credited the gains to the annual catch limits required by federal law and the rebuilding plans implemented by regional fisheries councils.

The six stocks now ready:

• Northeast: Gulf of Maine Haddock
• Mid-Atlantic: Summer Flounder
• Northwest: Widow Rockfish, Chinook Salmon, Coho Salmon
• Alaska: Bering Sea Snow Crab

Source:  National Oceanic and Atmosperic Administration  (NOAA)

Older Reserves Protect Fish Better

A new Simon Fraser University study warns that marine reserves globally may require up to 15 years of protection before the reserves significantly benefit their fish inhabitants, especially large locally fished species.

SFU biologist Isabelle Côté and scientists Phil Molloy and Ian McLean wanted to investigate widespread discrepancies in the reported effectiveness of marine reserves as fish management and conservation tools.

“As the time required for reserves to ‘start producing’ is critical to the development of management plans and community support, resolving this age effect on a global scale is an important task,” the authors write.

However, their key conclusion that the overall effectiveness of marine reserves in enhancing fish densities improves over time is footnoted by several surprising findings that don’t observe this rule.

The authors add, “The magnitude and speed of responses to protection vary with the extent of fishing pressure nearby as well as with various species attributes. Reserve stakeholders therefore need to have realistic expectations and management plans need to incorporate short-term uncertainty and long-term perspective.”

Through statistical analysis, Côté, Molloy—a former SFU postdoctoral fellow—and McLean—a former student of Côté—distilled the results of 33 studies evaluating marine reserve effectiveness. The previous studies had compared fish populations inside and outside of 32 marine reserves worldwide, aged one to 26 years old. The reserves are off Europe, the western United States and Australia, in the Mediterranean and along the Eastern African and Indo-Pacific coastlines.

The trio’s paper— Effects of marine reserve age on fish populations: a global meta-analysis—reports the results of their broad-scale analysis in a new issue of the Journal of Applied Ecology.

As well as being published in this British-based ecological science journal, the paper is covered in an issue of Science for Environment Policy, a publication of the European Commission’s news alert service.

The Science for Environmental Policy, explains Molloy, “is circulated to thousands of environmental policy makers and resource managers throughout Europe. As a result, this research will likely have a direct impact on future marine policy in Europe.”

The SFU-generated study Effects of marine reserve age on fish populations: a global meta-analysis doesn’t include any evaluations of Canadian marine reserves. But John Reynolds, an SFU biologist and the Tom Buell B.C. Leadership Chair in Salmon Conservation, predicts Canada will take note of its global significance.

Source: Simon Fraser University