Australia Considers Creation of Wilderness Fishing Areas

A recent article published in PerthNow briefly describes the possible creation of wilderness fishing areas in Western Australia. Recreational fishing would be allowed in these areas, but fish could not be transported out of them.

These areas would primarily be for catch and release fishing. Persons fishing within a wilderness zone who wanted to keep fish for eating would be allowed to do so; however, their bag limits would be reduced and they would be required to consume any harvested fish on site, and not take them outside the wilderness zone.

This is a really nice compromise between use of catch and release as a conservation measure and recognition that some species of fish are pursued almost exclusively as food: allowing only catch and release fishing would displace anglers who target these species. Also, allowing consumption of fish, even under restricted conditions, maintains the historic validity of fishing as a means of procuring food. Read more!

Mortality in Lionfish Fishing Tournaments

For once, mortality of captured fish is the point of the events and there is no need for bass tournament-like claims that all captured fish survive.

In an attempt to eradicate invasive lionfish, or at least hold their numbers in check, Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF), a non-profit organization of recreational divers, organized the 1st Annual Florida Keys Lionfish Derby Series.

The inaugural series comprised three events:
Upper Keys Lionfish Derby, Key Largo, FL, held 11 September 2010,
Middle Keys Lionfish Derby, Marathon, FL, held 23 October 2010, and
Lower Keys Lionfish Derby, Key West, FL, held 13 November 2010.

Derby contestants competed for cash and prizes over more than $10,000 ($3,500 per event). Three prizes were awarded in each of three categories: most lionfish captured, largest lionfish captured, and smallest lionfish captured.

The derbies last from sunrise to sundown, and divers, armed with nets or spears attempt to capture and kill as many lionfish as they can. Captured fish are placed on ice and are eaten during the awards banquet.

The Upper Keys Lionfish Derby was the largest of the three events, with 27 registered teams. During the derby 534 lionfish were captured. In the Middle Keys and Lower Keys derbies, a total of 21 and 109 lionfish, respectively, were captured.

Earlier in year, on 6 June, REEF conducted its first Bahamas Lionfish Derby, in which 26 registered teams captured 1,408 lionfish during the one-day event.

Competitive fishing events with a soul. I like it.

Derby photo by Carlos Estape at http://boatermouth.com/.

Read more!

Could Homer Simpson Be the Editor of a Fishery Journal?

I spoke recently with a colleague who described his experiences with one of the editors of a well-respected international fishery journal. My colleague's comments were of considerable interest to me because I and my co-authors have had similar, but more protracted experiences with the same editor.

Rather than name the editor, or the journal, I merely present this x-ray image, which I think it is appropriately diagnostic.

My colleague's experiences are these. He submitted a manuscript, for which revisions were requested. The nature of the editor's reponses were such that he believed he was "in." He revised the manuscript in response to the comments of anonymous reviewers and the editor. He resubmitted the revised manuscript, which the editor returned with additional, trivial comments and instructions for revision. My colleague again revised the manuscript and resubmitted it. The editor again returned it with more, trivial comments and instructions for revision. My colleague then did the right thing. He withdrew the manuscript from consideration by that journal.

I say he did the right thing for this reason: my co-authors and I have had the same experience with this editor, with three exceptions.

First, we are in the fifth round of dealing with his ever changing, often factually-incorrect comments.

Second, he lost one of our revisions, which we had to resubmit. (Our fault, not his!)

Third, one purpose of our manuscript was to clarify a term commonly used in fishery science, but which enjoys no precise meaning. We operationalized the term and put it on firm footing. However, after several revisions, the editor became concerned the term had no clear meaning- our point exactly- and he suggested that we (including he) co-author a paper discussing this matter, which then we could reference in our original manuscript, facilitating its publication. Talk about a novel way to get a publication: hold a manuscript hostage until the authors let you (the editor) in on the game.

My co-authors want to stay the course because we now have four plus revisions and well over a year and a half invested in the manuscript. They believe, this time, we're really, really close. Not like last time when we were merely "really close." I'm not gonna hold my breathe.This is all so unfortunate.

The founding editor of the journal in question has done an excellent job of establishing it as a source of important fishery-related science. The journal's impact factor has climbed steadily in recent years due to his efforts. Based on discussions with colleagues, including those referenced above, there is a growing number of persons who will never (or never again) submit manuscripts to that journal. This cannot possibly contribute in any positive way to the journal's reputation or impact factohere is the rest of it.

Read more!

The Incredible, Sustainable Lake Victoria Nile Perch Fishery

In a recent news release, ironic even by my standards, Naturland a German cooperative of organic farmers, announced it has certified the Lake Victoria Nile perch fishery as sustainable and products from the area will now carry the organization's eco-label.

This is excellent news! Or is it? This certification has a number of implications that warrant consideration.

If one were to list the 10 most significant fishery/ecological disasters of the last century, surely introduction of Nile perch into Lake Victoria would rival depletion of the northwest Atlantic groundfish stocks for the top spot on the list.

But we now can rest easy. The Lake Victoria Nile perch fishery is no longer in danger of overfishing.

Nile perch was introduced into Lake Victoria in the 1950s to increase the production of table fish, according to the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization. Since its introduction, the Nile perch has been responsible for the extinction of literally hundreds of endemic cichlid species.

This affected the local, artisanal fisheries. After the native cichlids disappeared, a substantial portion of the fishery switched primarily to Nile perch, which was harvested for the retail, and increasingly export, market.

Nile perch now is too expensive for most residents of the Lake Victoria region. Well, the locals can purchase Nile perch heads and frames (skeletons) that remain after the fillets have been removed for export to Europe.

Now, recent stock assessments suggest that Lake Victoria Nile perch is overfished.

Enter Naturland, which recognized two problems: overfishing of Nile perch and the absence of any organization to certify artisanal fisheries as "sustainable." Naturland also recognized an opportunity here. There is, in Europe, a premium market for fish that are harvested "sustainably."

Naturland developed a procedure by which artisanal fisheries may be certified as sustainable. (Some information about the cerfitication process is posted on Naturland's website. I have asked for additional details, but, alas, my request went unanswered.)

Naturland recently certified as sustainable that portion of the fishery that included "eight landing sites in the western region of Lake Victoria and involves about 1,000 fishermen, in Bukoba, Tanzania."

This is a start, I guess. The Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization estimates there are about 192,000 fishers on Lake Victoria. One thousand down, one hundred ninety-one thousand to go.

What is the benefit of certifying such a small proportion of the fishery, in one of three countries that border Lake Victoria?

Is this part of a larger attempt by Naturland to set a standard that all fishers will have to follow? Or is this simply a way to allow those willing to pay a premium for fish that are harvested from a "sustainable" fishery to feel good about themselves?

The larger question, one with which everyone in the fishery profession ought to be concerned, is what effect will certifications offered by Naturland and the Marine Stewardship Council have on fishery management?

Will these independent certifications benefit fisheries, by forcing traditional fishery management bodies to actually address sustainability? Or will they negatively affect fisheries, by certifying small proportions of larger fisheries as sustainable, which may be misconstrued as certification that the whole fishery is sustainable?

Is this latter possibility one to be concerned with? Obviously so. If you read the news released cited above, one is given the impression that the entire fishery is sustainable. The reality is that only a negligible portion of the fishery has been certified as sustainable. It is hard to argue this is more than just window dressing.

Read more!

Agency Capture: Two Examples

Regulatory agency capture occurs when an agency ceases to act in the public interest and, instead, acts so as to benefit industry regulated by that agency. Here are two examples of capture.



A Fishy, but Nonfishery, Example

My favorite example of regulatory agency capture is described by Jonathon Turley, a law professor at George Washington Law School, in an opinion piece that was first published in the Los Angeles Times on 20 April 2004. It is reprinted here.

Turley describes the case of Creekstone Farms, a small slaughterhouse located in Arkansas City, Kansas. Most of the meat produced by Creekstone Farms was sold for export to Japan. The discovery of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, or “mad cow disease”) in US herds in the early 2000s became a huge problem for Creekstone.

In Japan, all cattle are tested for BSE, rather than a small (less than 1%) sample as required by the US Department of Agriculture. Consequently, the Japanese market for Creekstone’s product began to disappear.

To address this problem, Creekstone built the first BSE testing lab in a US slaughterhouse, hired biologists and chemists to run the facility, and proposed to voluntarily sample 100% of its herd. Creekstone lacked only one thing to put this plan into place: the necessary testing kits.

By law, these kits are available only through the USDA, which refused to provide kits to Creekstone. The USDA argued that testing every animal was unnecessary, was not cost effective, and that allowing Creekstone to test all its cattle would undermine the USDA’s position that random sampling was adequate for maintaining the public safety.

This, perhaps, is true for purposes of monitoring the presence of BSE. However, sampling all animals was necessary if Creekstone was to maintain its Japanese market.

Was the USDA operating in the best interest of consumers, by not allowing a slaughterhouse to test all of its animals? Or was it operating in the interest of the National Cattlemen’s Association, which opposed Creekstone’s plan because, as stated by its president, it might lead to consumer demands that all slaughterhouses be required to sample all cattle?

(Recently, a Federal Appeals Court ruled the USDA did not have the authority to prevent Creekstone Farms from testing for BSE. See here.)


A Fishery Example

Several years ago, I was invited by a state fishery agency to participate in a panel discussion on the status and future of fishing tournaments. I was invited specifically to address the subject of mortality in largemouth bass fishing tournaments. Speakers included tournament anglers and organizers, nontournament anglers, fishing guides, agency staff, an academic (me), and the local state agency’s chief of fisheries.

At the time, the topic of mortality in fishing tournaments was contentious in the state in which this panel discussion was held.

I was the second to last speaker. I discussed the results of a paper I had published on tournament-associated mortality. I observed that recent studies had shown that slightly more than 25% of largemouth bass captured and released in tournaments died and there were ways to reduce this, which would benefit the fishery.

The fishery chief spoke next and stated that his agency had examined the question of whether tournament-associated mortality impacted fisheries in that state- he said they had found it did not. He also stated that regardless of the magnitude of mortality it would not be an issue with him because, by law, tournament anglers could harvest all fish brought to weigh-in, if they so wished.

Wow! First, the agency had not examined the potential impacts of tournament-associated mortality on largemouth bass fisheries in that state. Second, is this how one protects the interests of the public and the fishery resource? By stating the mortality could be even greater than it is, so the current level cannot possibly be a problem?

This fish chief had been around long enough to know that live-release at tournaments came about in response to public concerns about potential and observed fishery impacts of early tournaments.

Were this fish chief’s comments, truly, in the best interest of the public and the resource? Or did they serve the purposes of a special interest group (tournament anglers)?



Read more!

Can Fishery Management Agencies Be Captured?

Economists have developed a body of literature that describes the processes by which industries and special interest groups attempt to influence the regulatory agencies that regulate them. These ideas form the basis of the aptly named Regulatory Capture Theory. According to this theory, regulatory agencies charged with acting in the public interest over time begin to act, instead, in favor of the special interests that dominate within the agency's domain.


Regulatory capture occurs when the goals of a regulatory agency become those of the industry or special interest group regulated by that agency.

Two conditions are necessary for capture to occur. First, the industry or special interest groups, which have economic or personal interests in the outcome of policies or regulations that are under consideration by the agency, organize and use their resources to encourage the adoption of policies and regulations they prefer. Second, members of the general public, each of whom have only a small individual stake in the policy or regulation, remain uninvolved or act as unorganized individuals.

By state constitution, charter, or statute, fishery management agencies in the United States are given, as a public trust, the responsibility of protecting, conserving, and managing fishery (aquatic) resources for the public good. This generally explicitly includes sport and nongame species (including imperiled species).

Are fishery management agencies vulnerable to capture?

Fishery managers and administrators increasingly describe their “constituents” or “clientele” as comprising recreational anglers and commercial interests (commercial fishers, for-profit organizers of competitive fishing events, etc.). This is not my interpretation- listen to fishery management biologists and administrators when they speak at public events.

Further, the funding for many fishery agencies is tied to license and permit fees required of these “constituencies” and the tenure of many administrators depends on their pleasing these “constituencies.”

Anglers make up only 16% of the US population. The general, non-angling public is neither organized nor active in expressing its interests and, as noted above, is no longer considered among the constituency of some fishery management agencies.

Given these observations the theory of regulatory capture predicts that fishery management agencies are subject to capture by anglers and angler interest groups. I am compiling examples for a later report.

Read more!

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Attempts to Repeat Red Drum Enhancement Success

The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) recently reported the release of 750 hatchery-reared southern flounder into Texas coastal waters. This initial stocking “… like the initial redfish release three decades ago, it harkens a new age of coastal fisheries conservation.” Wow! Is this really what they want?

A bit of history
In response to declining red drum stocks in Texas coastal waters, TPWD began releasing hatchery-reared red drum into Texas coastal waters in the early 1980s. These efforts expanded over the years and TPWD now operates two hatcheries dedicated to production of red drum for release into Texas coastal waters.

In the early 1990’s TPWD began attempts to estimate the contribution of hatchery-released fish to red drum stocks in Texas waters. Initially, TPWD compared lengths of hatchery-released fish (smaller) with those of wild-bred fish (larger) captured in seine samples and found that hatchery-released fish represented up to 20% of the fish in their seine samples. I reviewed the original reports of these studies several years ago, when I worked for TPWD. Among all the bays studied, over a period of several years, the most common proportion of hatchery-reared fish in TPWD seine samples was 0%. Occasionally, hatchery fish were captured and in one instance, in the Upper Laguna Madre, when TPWD sampled the exact area in which hatchery fish had been released one month earlier, they found that 20% of the sample consisted of hatchery-released fish. These results were optimistically, but correctly, reported as evidence that up to 20% of red drum in TPWD samples were hatchery-released fish.

Within days, these results were misreported in the popular media as demonstration that 20% of the Texas red drum population was composed of hatchery-released fish. Once this reporting error was committed, no one, not even TPWD, looked back on it. Twenty-percent it was.

Nevertheless, the red drum in TPWD seine samples were young fish and questions remained as to whether hatchery-released fish contributed to the adult population.

In 2000, TPWD geneticist Rocky Ward reported results of an assessment of the contribution of hatchery-released red drum to the adult stock. This involved use of hatchery-brood fish that were genetically “marked” by their possession an uncommon gene. Over 6000 red drum collected between 1993 and 1997 were collected in monitoring samples and during creel surveys from Texas bays. These fish were genetically examined and showed no evidence of any increase in the genetic marker. In a nutshell, stocking had little, if any, affect on abundance of adult red drum.

A more recent report, published last fall by Texas A&M geneticist John Gold and his colleagues (Karlsson et al. 2008), reported that 11 hatchery-released fish were among the 970 red drum in samples they collected from random locations within Aransas Bay. Similarly, 30 hatchery-released fish were present among 321 fish they collected from Galveston Bay. Karlsson et al. used techniques that allow them to identify the parents of individual fish, thus, their results suggest that hatchery-released red drum accounted for 1% (Aransas Bay) to 9% (Galveston Bay) of adult red drum in these two bays. Combining results for both bays, an estimated 3% of red drum are hatchery-released fish.

Many fishery biologists in Texas, and elsewhere, are skeptical of the contribution of hatcheries to Texas coastal red drum stocks. The studies cited above, and others, consistently have failed to provide evidence that coastal fish stocks have been significantly enhanced by hatchery-released fish. These results have only reinforced the skepticism of fishery biologists and certainly have does nothing to support the almost mythological 20% reported in the early 1990s. Further, many fishery biologists question whether hatchery-releases add to the population, or merely displace wild-bred fish.

In contrast, hatchery biologists actively promote hatchery-releases of red drum and argue that the above referenced studies prove that hatchery releases have enhanced the red drum population.

I’m sure these studies will continue, but for now, it looks as if two multimillion dollar hatcheries account for, perhaps, 3% of the Texas coastal red drum population. No matter which side of the argument you are on, those are some expensive fish.

References

Karlsson, S., E. Saillant, B. W. Bumguardner, R. R. Vega, and J. R. Gold. 2008. Genetic identification of hatchery-released red drum in Texas bays and estuaries. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:1294-1304.

Ward, R. 2000. Genetic marking of red drum. Federal Aid in Sport Fishing Restoration Act, Texas, F-36-R, Project 12. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Austin, Texas.

Read more!