New Zealand hoki, fishery success story or not?

Hoki populations are increasing around New Zealand, testing the predictions of many who care about fish and fishing.

The hoki fishery, certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, has been under fire because hoki declined after being certified. The declines were cited as proof of unsustainable fishing.

But fishery managers reduced quotas and now hoki are recovering. That addresses one of the major complaints made against the fishery.

Will hoki fishery critics concede the point? I haven't seen it yet.

Tweet

Are fisheries crashing or not?

Here's a fascinating debate over the status of the world's fisheries, spawned by a provocative op-ed saying things are (mostly) just fine. Read for yourself as knowledgeable experts weigh in on all sides. Here's an editorial note introducing the debate:

Editor’s note: The following discussion, which more than one participant called “extraordinary”, began after Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington published an op-ed “Let us eat fish” in the New York Times on 14 April 2011, and John Bruno of the University of North Carolina (and my Co-Editor at SeaMonster) replied here at SeaMonster. John’s post was emailed to a list of experts in fisheries and marine ecology, and quickly sparked a wide-ranging online conversation remarkable for its combination of careful argument, thoughtfulness, diversity of perspectives, breadth of expertise, and—perhaps most noteworthy—collegiality. The conversation grew to include many leading scientists and the email exchanges allowed a give-and-take among participants in near real time that would be impossible in the print journals where such discussion traditionally occurs. For all of these reasons, there was broad agreement that the discussion should be made publicly available. And so, here it is.

Emmett Duffy
Forum Editor, www.theseamonster.net

Thanks to a fantastic new blog, SeaMonster.

Tweet

More about "collapsing" Alaska pollock fishery

Are Alaska pollock in trouble in the Bering Sea? Are they "collapsing" as some suggest? The best evidence says "NO."

Here at blogfish we looked at recent good news for pollock, and a 20 year history and concluded that pollock are low but improving. But guess what? An astute blogfish reader suggested a look back to the 1960's might be informative. OK, let's go a back 45 years.

The situation looks a bit different based on a draft analysis provided to blogfish, which should be publicly released soon. In the 1960's, before substantial fishing began, pollock in the Bering Sea were less abundant than today. In fact, there were less pollock in the mid-1960's than during recent lows that led some to say the fishery was "collapsing."

Wow, that was a helpful look back. It looks like the fish go up and down, and there is no obvious decrease in the amount of pollock in the Bering Sea since big fisheries began to catch a lot of pollock.

What does the future hold? I hear that climate change may cause pollock to shift northwards, and fishing may have to move to keep catching the fish. And that might cause some to say "collapse" if only looking at certain areas.

It's easy to find fault or success in fishing with selective use of data. But not so helpful.

Of course fishing for pollock takes a lot of fish out of the sea. But so far, I'm not worried that the fishery is collapsing. Do some animals suffer from fishing that takes a lot of pollock out of the ocean? Probably, since some animals eat pollock and have to compete with fishing.

Pollock fishing has become such a political football that it's hard to know what to think these days. Things were looking a bit troubling recently for the pollock fishery, but that trend is now reversing and things are looking pretty good. The pollock fishery in Alaska is certainly one of the better managed big fisheries in the world. But I would still like to see just a bit more concern for the animals that compete with humans for pollock.

Tweet

Orange roughy & hoki madness

More orange roughy will be caught by fishermen this year. Hoki catch limits are going up. Is this a sign of disaster or success?

Forest and Bird, an environmental group from New Zealand says we still shouldn't eat orange roughy.

Not surprisingly, the Ministry of Fisheries see it differently, increased fishing for hoki and orange roughy is a result of good management.

At least one supermarket recently decided not to sell hoki and orange roughy because they're not fished sustainably.

It's sustainable seafood madness, as claims and counter-claims cloud the waters and threaten to make everyone say "WTF?" All because we can't agree on what exactly is "sustainable." How embarrassing for sustainability advocates.

If the sustainable seafood movement works, we should expect to see increased fishing for troubled species someday. Are enviros willing and able to back off on claims that people should avoid eating a species? Or will we keep species on the "do not eat" list forever, because we're stuck in a rut? I don't know enough about these fishing increases to know whether or not they're appropriate. But I worry that some people will never say "yes" to eating orange roughy or hoki once they've started saying "no."

Tweet

Salmon and political drama

Fraser River sockeye salmon are not just a fish. They're also the centerpiece in an ongoing political drama over endangered species, sustainable fishing, salmon farm parasites, etc., etc.

One thing that might get overlooked in the struggle is the actual fish. How are they doing? Here's one place to go for up-to-date information on how many salmon are coming home to spawn in the Fraser watershed.

Some information that we can kick around for a while, no doubt. Let's just hope the principals don't take a dive and call foul quite so easily as a World Cup footballer.

Tweet

What is success in sustainable fishing?

New Zealand hoki is a shining example of success or failure in fishery management, depending on who you ask. Mostly because of a decline in catch in the last decade.

There are other issues that matter, like bycatch of sharks and seabirds, and habitat impacts from trawling. But the most interesting part of the success/failure argument is the significance of the decline in hoki catch that happened in the last decade.

What does it mean when we see a decrease in the amount of a fish caught? Is this a sign of a collapsing fishery? Or is it a sign that managers are doing the right thing? People will claim both, and it's important to look at the details.

When a fishery is virtually unregulated, then declining catches are likely a sign of problems, such as a collapsing fish population. But when less fish are caught because managers reduce fishing limits, in response to scientific advice, then the shrinking catch may be a signal that sustainable management is responding to changing conditions.

A story in the New York Times presents a case for failure, but the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership presents a case for success. All based on the same set of facts about hoki.

Rather than speculate, I'll wait another year to see if hoki numbers increase or decrease. If the fishery is failing, then we should see further declines in the amount of fish. If management is sustainable, then the fishing decline should allow the fish to rebuild.

The latest sign is that managers claim hoki have already recovered to healthy levels. If that's true, then I lean more towards success as the correct story for hoki.

Tweet