[Fishlink] ~~>FISHLINK SUBLEGALS 1/18/02<~~
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
bit-bucket@straylight.primelogic.com
Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:26:22 EST
--part1_17f.27c055c.297f956e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
##########################################################
~~>FISHLINK SUBLEGALS 1/18/02<~~
##########################################################
A WEEKLY QUOTA OF FISHERY SHORTS CAUGHT AND
LANDED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES
AND THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S
ASSOCIATIONS
VOL. 5, NO. 3 18 JANUARY 2002
##########################################################
See our archive of past issues at www.sublegals.net
"If you can't fly, run. If you can't run, walk. If you can't walk, crawl.
Whatever it takes, just keep moving forward."...........Martin Luther
King, Jr.
##########################################################
THIS ISSUE.......
SEAFOOD LABELING TO PROTECT FOOD SOURCE CALLED
FOR IN LETTER TO OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY. 5:03/01.
AFTER FIVE YEARS, NMFS ADOPTS FINAL RULE
FOR ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT. 5:03/03.
FARMED SALMON POSE DANGER TO WILD SALMON
STOCKS, SAYS MARINE FISH EXPERT. 5:03/05.
CALIFORNIA GOES BACK TO THE DRAWING
BOARD ON STATE MPAS. 5:03/15.
EFFICACY OF MPAS FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT
QUESTIONED BY MARINE SCIENTIST. 5:03/17.
AND MORE.......
##########################################################
5:03/01. CALL FOR INFORMATIONAL LABELING OF ALL
SEAFOOD PRODUCTS IN WAR ON TERRORISM: Responding to
the need for increased homeland security, representatives from the
Monterey Bay Aquarium (MBA), the Institute for Fisheries Resources
(IFR) and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
(PCFFA) sent a joint letter to Governor Tom Ridge, Director of
Homeland Security, raising significant questions regarding U.S. food
security. In their 7 January letter, the group urges U.S. governmental
support of mandatory informational seafood labeling as a means to
ensure the safety of the nation's food supply. "The current federal
system is inefficient, inconsistent and ineffective. There is a serious lack
of documentation identifying the actual sources of seafood that reaches
the plates of millions Americans each year," the letter states. In the past
year IFR, PCFFA and MBA have been involved in efforts to increase
public awareness of the need for properly labeled seafood and have been
actively pursuing adoption of informational labeling of seafood in this
country. MBA also publishes a consumer sustainable fish "Seafood
Guide" (go to: www.montereybayaquarium.org). The group
recommends a labeling regulation to strengthen traceability and boost
consumer choice, similar to that just adopted by the European Union
(see Sublegals, 4:17/01), to accurately describe to seafood consumers the
products: (1) species, (2) where it was caught and (3) the production
method (wild-caught or farmed).
In an investigative television piece aired in December by NBC news,
it was reported that 12 different agencies are responsible for policing the
U.S. food supply. Jurisdiction assignments are cloudy and in many cases
do not make sense. Milk cows fall under the jurisdiction of the Food &
Drug Administration (FDA) whereas beef cows fall under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Eggs are
under the FDA, while chickens are under the USDA. And, seafood
products, under FDA jurisdiction, are mostly exempt from any kind of
labeling for retail sale. The current U.S. government system in place to
ensure food security, the letter warns, is fraught with gaps and overlaps
that may be easily targeted. Informational seafood labeling is one of the
many systems that Homeland Security, the USDA and FDA must work
together to develop and implement to ensure America's safety, say the
letter's authors. The letter cited a number of reasons for the U.S. to adopt
mandatory seafood labeling, including: (1) food security; (2) consumer
right-to-know; (3) distinguishing domestically produced seafood
products; (4) health safety (allowing consumers concerned with certain
trace contaminants, such as mercury levels, or cholesterol levels to
choose whether or to what extent to consume a particular seafood
product); (5) traceability (to help track any seafood product linked to a
food borne disease or that may have been caught illegally); and (6)
sustainability (i.e., whether the fish comes from a sustainable fishery).
To view the entire letter, go to: www.pcffa.org.
5:03/02. BUSH ADMINISTRATION WEAKENS U.S.
WETLANDS PROTECTIONS, PUTS FISHERIES AT FURTHER
RISK: On 14 January, the Administration of U.S. President George W.
Bush adopted rules to weaken key protections under the Clean Water
Act (CWA) that control the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (COE)
issuance of permits affecting development in wetlands. At issue is the
CWA program for blanket "nationwide general permits" authorizing the
Corps to issue blanket permits for the discharge of fill or dredged
material into wetlands and streams. Under previous standards those
permits could be issued only if the activities would have no more than
"minimal adverse environmental effects," both individually and
cumulatively. Activities performed under a nationwide permit do not
require public notice or comment, and they undergo a much less
stringent environmental review, if any, by the Corps than do individual
permits. However, in the past these permits were used to allow
extraordinarily destructive activities, including mountaintop removal
coal mining and development of sensitive estuaries.
In March of 2000, following years of public comment and debate, the
Clinton Administration adopted rules for new nationwide permits
designed to ensure better environmental protection than earlier permits.
However, developers have long chafed at requirements to protect
wetlands, and lobbied hard with the new Bush Administration to
overturn those restrictions. The new nationwide permit rules issued by
the Bush Administration allow the Corps to waive many of the earlier
environmental conditions meant to limit the use of these permits,
especially in floodplains and other environmentally sensitive waters,
including in essential fish habitat. "The new nationwide permits are
illegal and irresponsible. They guarantee the widespread destruction of
streams and wetlands and ensure that the destruction will not be
mitigated," according to a spokesperson for American Rivers. Among
the changes included in the Corps' weakened nationwide permits that
will affect fisheries include: (1) allowing the Corps to waive the 300-foot
limit on stream destruction for intermittent streams, meaning a developer
could dig or fill a mile (or more) of intermittent stream under a general
permit that is only supposed to allow minimal adverse effects; (2)
bypassing the minimum requirement that there be at least one acre of
wetlands protected or created for every acre destroyed (1:1 acreage
mitigation).
Wetlands are essential for the nation's commercial fisheries, with
almost three-quarters of all seafood landings derived from wetlands
dependent species, and in the Gulf of Mexico this figure rises to more
than 95 percent. For the implications for commercial fisheries, see the
1998 report, "Fisheries, Wetlands and Jobs," available at:
http://www.pcffa.org/wetlands.htm. The U.S. has already lost about 55
percent of its wetlands and the losses continue unabated. The damage to
coastal estuaries has been the greatest, and much of the remaining fish
habitat in coastal wetlands has been seriously damaged. For more
information on the impact of these changes contact: Ken Goldman at
(202) 667-4500 or Melissa Samet at (415) 482-8150.
5:03/03. NMFS ISSUES FINAL RULE ON ESSENTIAL FISH
HABITAT: Three days after the Bush Administration issued rules
weakening U.S. protection of wetlands, the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) on 17 January published its final rule implementing the
essential fish habitat (EFH) mandates of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of
1996. EFH are those waters and substrates on which fish are dependent
to reach maturity and reproduce. Some examples of EFH are
mangroves, coral reefs and wetlands. The rule provides guidance on
how to identify EFH, establishes a coordination process for NMFS to
work with other agencies to protect necessary fish habitats and provides
guidelines for fisheries councils to incorporate habitat protection into
fisheries management plans. Since December of 1997, an interim rule
has been in effect that has allowed NMFS to save sandbank habitats
important to sharks in Delaware and to modify an excavation project
along an oil and gas well in Texas to reduce the impact on white shrimp,
brown shrimp and red drum habitats. PCFFA Executive Director Zeke
Grader welcomed the news, saying it's time for the rule to become
permanent, "For 25 years, west coast fishermen have been clamoring for
fish habitat protection. Now after five years, numerous revisions and
270 days of public comments, NMFS has taken every effort to involve
everyone affected by their decision and have made a fair rule that will
help protect fish habitats." For more information on the EFH rule, go to:
www.conservefish.org.
5:03/04. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PROTECTIONS FOR
ENDANGERED FAIRY SHRIMP: The past week has been a mixed one
for developers, associations of homebuilders, the timber industry and
agribusiness. The Bush Administration weakened wetland protections at
the behest of developers, but NMFS finally adopted its rule on essential
fish habitat, which development interests opposed. On 14 January,
developers were also dealt a setback when the U.S. Supreme Court
refused to hear an appeal of a District Court decision upholding the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service's (USFWS) listing of three species of shrimp -
Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, and vernal pool
tadpole shrimp - as endangered under the federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA). The shrimp, which are not commercially harvested, are
found in California's central valley and in Oregon. The case was
Building Industry Association of Superior California v. Norton (Case
No. 01-620).
5:03/05. FARMED SALMON ENDANGER WILD STOCKS SAYS
STANFORD RESEARCHER: In an address 16 January at Western
Washington University, Dr. Rosamund Naylor, a senior fellow at
Stanford's Center for Environmental Science & Policy, warned that
farmed salmon production threatens wild salmon stocks as well as
commercial fishermen, the Bellingham Herald, reports. Escaped farmed
fish compete with wild fish for food and spawning areas and could
interbreed with wild fish, Naylor said. Farmed fish are also prone to
disease and may be able to pass on those diseases to wild fish. Already,
this year, on 2 January, 8,000 Atlantic salmon escaped fish pens
damaged by storms in Clayoquot Sound near Tofino, on Vancouver
Island, raising concern about how those fish might interfere with the
Province's prized wild stocks. Atlantic salmon have been found as far
north as the Bering Sea, even though Alaska has banned all fish farming
in its waters, Naylor said. To see the complete Herald article, go to:
http://news.bellinghamherald.com/stories/20020117/LocalState/84975.s
html.
5:02/06. B.C. FISH FARM MORATORIUM WILL BE LIFTED,
SAYS MINISTER: British Columbia's provincial government is still
committed to lifting the current moratorium on salmon aquaculture
expansion, said Agriculture, Food & Fisheries Minister John van
Dongen recently, but the industry should be policing its members'
escape-prevention procedures as well. The minister's comments followed
escapes from Pacific National Aquaculture (PNA) sites on the west coast
of Vancouver Island earlier in January. Some 8,000 mature Atlantic
salmon were estimated to have escaped from a PNA site at Saranac
Island on 2 January when strong winds and tides dragged net cages over
rocks, tearing a hole. An unknown number of smaller 600 gram fish
were believed to have escaped from a hole in a net on MacIntyre Bay on
4 January.
The David Suzuki Foundation and the Friends of Clayoquot Sound
said the escapes were further proof that the industry is unsustainable and
that escape-prevention measures don't work. The Suzuki Foundation's
Lynn Hunter said it was unbelievable that van Dongen should talk about
lifting the moratorium while fish escapes were happening. "(The)
industry has consistently demonstrated their inability to manage these
kinds of crises," Hunter said. Giving credence to her position is a recent
article in the 11 January Vancouver Sun, "DFO Unable to Assess
Salmon Farm Risk," about in internal DFO audit report that says the
fisheries depart is "long overdue" for a fundamental overhaul of its
policies in dealing with B.C. aquaculture and lacks basic data to assess
the real risks. For the Vancouver Sun article see:
http://www.canada.com/search/site/
story.asp?id=32E3D045-9043-4AF0-8DA3-0B13D34CE642.
5:03/07. MEETING ON AQUACULTURE'S EFFECTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT: The American Society of Limnology &
Oceanography is sponsoring a special session, "SS 1-01: Assessing the
Potential Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture," at its annual
conference, to be held this year, 10-14 June, in Victoria, British
Columbia. For more information go to conference information at:
http://www.aslo.org.
5:03/08. WHIRLING DISEASE PATHOGEN FOUND IN
WASHINGTON STREAMS: Associated Press reported 18 January that
the pathogen causing "whirling disease" in salmon and trout has now
been found in five northeastern Washington streams, though no
instances of the disease itself have yet been verified. The pathogen
causes spinal deformities that cause fish to swim in circles until they die
of exhaustion and starvation, and has been devastating trout populations
in Montana and Colorado. Wild fish are partially resistant, but farmed
and some hatchery fish can become a reservoir for the disease and spread
it to wild salmon and steelhead populations, many of which are now
listed as threatened or endangered in the Northwest (See Sublegals
5:02/11). An outbreak of the disease has already occurred in Oregon,
traced to a fish farm operation (see Sublegals 4:26/09). Fish pathologists
from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Washington
Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) found the pathogens during a
fish health survey last summer in Washington's Pend, Oreille, Ferry and
Stevens counties. The new detection significantly expands the known
range of the parasite. For more info see:
http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/do/jan02/jan1702b.htm.
5:03/09. POISONED FISH MEAL RECALL IN EUROPE, ORIGIN
IN TAINTED FARM SHRIMP: Reuters reported 16 January that health
authorities in Germany, Denmark, Poland and Romania are frantically
trying to trace and confiscate tainted fish meal, used primarily as animal
feed, that is laced with an antibiotic that can halt the production of
human blood cells, and that tons of the fish meal may have already
gotten into the human food chain. German federal and state authorities
are investigating the importation late last year of feed ingredients from
the Netherlands tainted with chloramphenicol, used to treat such
life-threatening diseases as anthrax and typhoid. The antibiotic is
restricted to such serious infections because of the risk of it causing a
potentially lethal form of anemia. Officials in Germany said
contaminated farmed shrimp imported into the Netherlands from Asia
had become part of a consignment of 188 tons of fish scraps
subsequently shipped to a feed plant in Lower Saxony.
5:03/10. ASIAN OYSTERS TO BE INTRODUCED TO
CHESAPEAKE BAY?: The 4 January Baltimore Sun reports a plan to
introduce a hardy (and some say dangerous) Asian bivalve (Crassostrea
ariakensis) into Chesapeake Bay to replace the Bay's less hardy and now
depleted native Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica). The Asian oyster
grows twice as fast and appears resistant to MSX and Dermo, two
diseases that, together with widespread pollution in the Bay, have nearly
wiped out native shellfish. Scientists say there are serious risks with the
introduction of an exotic species to the Bay, and that the MSX parasite
itself that has so devastated native oysters came to the region as a result
of the introduction of yet another Asian species years ago which failed to
survive but left viable parasites. Oysters are being brought back to the
Bay to filter pollution as part of an environmental cleanup program. For
more see:
http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.horton04jan04.column.
5:03/11. NMFS SLAPPED BY FEDERAL COURT FOR POOR
FISHERIES MANAGEMENT: On 28 December, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia ruled that the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) failed to prevent overfishing and decrease bycatch in
the New England groundfish fishery as required by law. The lawsuit
charged NMFS with jeopardizing the long-term ecological and economic
health of the fishery and fishing-dependent communities by violating the
federal Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. It also charged the agency
with failing to obey its own regulations, which mandate the use of
overfishing standards to rebuild fish populations and prevent the
overfishing of cod and other groundfish off the New England coast. The
court noted that the fisheries service had a statutory duty to comply with
the Act by February 1999, yet it ignored the deadline. The suit,
Conservation Law Foundation v. Evan (US Dist. Court DC, Civil Action
No. 00-1134(GK)) was filed by Oceana on behalf of the Conservation
Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon
Society and The Ocean Conservancy. The case may set a national
standard for management councils in other regions of the country, many
of which have been slow to prevent damage to fisheries under their
jurisdiction. For more see:
http://www.oceana.org//index.cfm?sectionID=4&fuseaction=press.detail
&pressreleaseID=12. The full court decision itself is at:
http://www.oceana.org/uploads/Framework_33_Decision.pdf.
5:03/12. 60-DAY NOTICE SERVED ON STATE AND FEDERAL
WATER AGENCIES FOR ESA VIOLATIONS OVER OPERATIONS
OF DELTA PUMPS: On 14 January, a coalition of environmental, sport
and commercial fishing groups, including PCFFA, filed a 60-day notice
of intent to sue the California State Department of Water Resources
(CDWR) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for a violation of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that is threatening listed Sacramento
winter-run chinook salmon over the operation of the state and federal
pumping plants in California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Plaintiffs
are represented in the action by Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund. The
winter-run, the first Pacific salmon to be listed under the ESA, were
categorized as endangered in 1994. As part of the program to protect
and recover the winter-run, the pumping operations are curtailed when
the fish are present in the Delta on their migration from the upper
Sacramento River to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. In the
past seven years, the water projects have exceeded their allowable take
of winter-run in four of those years, and exceeded their take limit last
year by 170 percent. For more information, contact Earthjustice's John
McManus at: jmcmanus@earthjustice.org.
5:03/13. OREGON'S SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM ONE STEP
CLOSER TO REMOVAL; CORPS WAFFLES ON ELK CREEK
DAM: The 12 January Salem Statesman Journal reports that the Oregon
Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) granted 3 million dollars of
state salmon restoration funds to begin the removal of Savage Rapids
Dam and to construct it's replacement with pumps. This moves Oregon
one step closer to freeing the Rogue River and restoring a salmon and
steelhead fishery worth an estimated $5 million/year. The funding helps
implement a settlement agreement in a suit in which PCFFA was a party
(see Sublegals 4:15/06) requiring removal of the dam by 2005 - if the
full amount of $20 million for removal and mitigation can be obtained.
The state funding makes obtaining the federal share much more likely.
In the last Congress, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced "The
Savage Rapids Dam Act of 2000 (S. 3227)" to provide the federal funds,
but has not yet introduced an equivalent bill in the 107th Congress. For
more see: http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=35859.
In response to heavy lobbying by a local elected official who still
backs the dam, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), meanwhile, is
doing flip-flops on its plan to notch Oregon's Elk Creek Dam. Notching
is a remedy already funded by Congress. Instead, the Corps is deferring
the demolition program for "more study," in spite of numerous past
studies that say the unfinished dam is unnecessary and blocks an
important run of endangered coho salmon. Moreover, the Corps' stance
conflicts with a 24 August 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) Biological Opinion (BiOp) finding that retaining the dam in its
current state constitutes "jeopardy" under the federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA). The Corps no longer wants the dam finished, and was
reportedly prepared to bid out the contract for "notching" the dam with
dynamite to allow fish passage in February. PCFFA and a number of
other groups brought suit against the COE in 2000 to force removal and
require fisheries restoration, a case that is still in court. The COE's
current incidental take permit, issued prior to the NMFS BiOp, expires
in June 2002 and would not be renewed by NMFS except in accordance
with its BiOp. For more, see the 12 January Medford Mail Tribune
article at: http://newslink.org/cgi/goto.cgi?2=002430.
5:03/14. OREGON POLICY COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER
MARINE PROTECTED AREAS: On 31 January - 1 February, the
Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC) will host a two-day
"dialog" meeting about the possible establishment of marine protected
areas (MPAs) in Oregon's state ocean waters. During this meeting,
experts on Oregon's marine ecosystem will discuss the state of Oregon's
ocean and unique ecological areas off of Oregon's coast. Members of
the fishing industry are encouraged to attend, and public comments will
be heard each afternoon of the two-day meeting. The first day of the
meeting will feature a panel of fishermen, ocean recreational interests,
and other marine experts, and the following day will include marine
biologists, zoologists, oceanographers, and other scientific experts in the
discussion. The meetings will be held at the Agate Beach Best Western
Hotel, Newport, Oregon, starting 0800 HRS to 1700 HRS on 31 January,
and resuming on 1 February at 0830 HRS to 1730 HRS. For an agenda
and more information about OPAC see: http://www.oregonocean.org.
5:03/15. CALIFORNIA TO GO BACK TO DRAWING BOARD ON
ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE PROGRAM FOR MPAS: At a 17
January hearing in Sacramento (see Sublegals 5:02/03), the California
Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) announced it was essentially
starting over on its Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process of
establishing a system of marine protected areas (MPAs) in state ocean
waters. For the past 18 months the Department sequestered a group of
scientists to discuss among themselves sites for MPAs and then went out
for a series of public workshops with tentative maps developed by the
scientists without benefit of experts who know the coastal ocean areas
(e.g., commercial fishermen). The process established by CDFG was
nearly opposite of what PCFFA (which had worked on the MLPA)
proposed of bringing fishermen, other marine experts and scientists
together to pool their knowledge and experience in developing
recommendations for MPA sites. Following complaints from nearly all
involved - commercial and sport fishermen, environmental groups,
scientists - CDFG Director Robert Hight stepped in and ordered a
change of course. The Legislature had already extended the time limit
for implementation by 16 months. The new process, announced by
Hight, calls for the establishment of four regional panels with a
cross-section of experts to assist the Department with the development
of the MLPA master plan. The Thursday hearing in Sacramento, where
Hight made the announcement, brought together representatives from the
sport and commercial fisheries, environmentalists and harbor districts
testifying before the Joint Committee on Fisheries & Aquaculture;
PCFFA Vice-President Dave Bitts represented the Federation. For more
information on the new MLPA process, go to:
www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/index.html.
5:03/16. CANADA'S HOUSE OF COMMONS PASSES MARINE
PROTECTED AREAS BILL: On 27 November, Canada's House of
Commons passed the "Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act
(Bill C-10)" which, if finally adopted by the Senate, would establish a
system of 29 marine conservation areas in Canada's coastal waters.
Within five years of the establishment of a conservation area, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage would prepare a management plan
including provisions for ecosystem protection, human use and zoning.
Plans would be reviewed every five years. The bill can be viewed at:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-1
0/C-10_1/90137bE.html.
5:03/17. EFFICACY OF MPAS QUESTIONED: In the
December-January MPA News (Vol.3, No.6), Dr. Mark Tupper, an
assistant professor at the University of Guam and coordinator of the
Marine Protected Areas Research Group at the University's Marine
Laboratory, wrote an article, "Putting No-Take Marine Reserves in
Perspective," where he questioned claims made for MPAs in a recent
article by Roberts et al., in the magazine Science. "Although the
examples discussed by Roberts et al. demonstrate the potential benefits
of marine reserves to fisheries, the fact is that the great majority of them
have not succeeded in meeting their management objectives, even in
tropical coral reef systems. Indeed it is rather surprising that the fairly
abysmal performance of MPAs has been the basis for a global movement
towards marine reserves for fisheries management. Current estimates
place the number of 'paper parks' at over 80-90% in some countries, and
rich nations have fared no better than poor ones. Rather than charging
ahead to create hundreds of new MPAs, it makes sense to determine (1)
whether or not a no-take marine reserve is the best management strategy
for a particular fishery, and (2) how we can better implement and
manage current MPAs so that they reach their stated objectives," wrote
Tupper. For more information, contact Dr. Mark Tupper at:
mtupper@guam.uog.edu.
NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items,
comments or any corrections to Allison Vogt, Editor at:
ifrfish@pacbell.net or call the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a
source at either: (415) 561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000
(Northwest Office).
##########################################################
"Sublegals" are a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink. To
find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed and you
can subscribe yourself automatically at:
http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/fishlink
If you have any trouble subscribing or unsubscribing, contact
PCFFA/IFR directly at: <fish1ifr@aol.com>.
##########################################################
"Fishlink" is a registered trademark of the Institute for Fisheries
Resources. All rights to the use of this trademark are reserved to IFR.
This publication, however, may be freely reproduced and circulated
without copyright restriction. If you are receiving this as a subscriber,
please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues. Subscribers who wish
to post or circulate hard copy of Sublegals or have no access to the
Internet may receive fax subscriptions by faxing their request, with their
fax number to: (415) 561-5464. Thanks!
##########################################################
--part1_17f.27c055c.297f956e_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>##########################################################
<BR> ~~>FISHLINK SUBLEGALS 1/18/02<~~
<BR>##########################################################
<BR> A WEEKLY QUOTA OF FISHERY SHORTS CAUGHT AND
<BR> LANDED BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FISHERIES RESOURCES
<BR> AND THE PACIFIC COAST FEDERATION OF FISHERMEN'S
<BR> ASSOCIATIONS
<BR>
<BR>VOL. 5, NO. 3 18 JANUARY 2002
<BR>##########################################################
<BR> See our archive of past issues at www.sublegals.net
<BR>
<BR>"If you can't fly, run. If you can't run, walk. If you can't walk, crawl.
<BR>Whatever it takes, just keep moving forward."...........Martin Luther
<BR>King, Jr.
<BR>##########################################################
<BR>
<BR>THIS ISSUE.......
<BR>
<BR>SEAFOOD LABELING TO PROTECT FOOD SOURCE CALLED
<BR>FOR IN LETTER TO OFFICE OF HOMELAND SECURITY. 5:03/01.
<BR>
<BR>AFTER FIVE YEARS, NMFS ADOPTS FINAL RULE
<BR>FOR ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT. 5:03/03.
<BR>
<BR>FARMED SALMON POSE DANGER TO WILD SALMON
<BR>STOCKS, SAYS MARINE FISH EXPERT. 5:03/05.
<BR>
<BR>CALIFORNIA GOES BACK TO THE DRAWING
<BR>BOARD ON STATE MPAS. 5:03/15.
<BR>
<BR>EFFICACY OF MPAS FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT
<BR>QUESTIONED BY MARINE SCIENTIST. 5:03/17.
<BR>
<BR>AND MORE.......
<BR>##########################################################
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/01. CALL FOR INFORMATIONAL LABELING OF ALL
<BR>SEAFOOD PRODUCTS IN WAR ON TERRORISM: Responding to
<BR>the need for increased homeland security, representatives from the
<BR>Monterey Bay Aquarium (MBA), the Institute for Fisheries Resources
<BR>(IFR) and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations
<BR>(PCFFA) sent a joint letter to Governor Tom Ridge, Director of
<BR>Homeland Security, raising significant questions regarding U.S. food
<BR>security. In their 7 January letter, the group urges U.S. governmental
<BR>support of mandatory informational seafood labeling as a means to
<BR>ensure the safety of the nation's food supply. "The current federal
<BR>system is inefficient, inconsistent and ineffective. There is a serious lack
<BR>of documentation identifying the actual sources of seafood that reaches
<BR>the plates of millions Americans each year," the letter states. In the past
<BR>year IFR, PCFFA and MBA have been involved in efforts to increase
<BR>public awareness of the need for properly labeled seafood and have been
<BR>actively pursuing adoption of informational labeling of seafood in this
<BR>country. MBA also publishes a consumer sustainable fish "Seafood
<BR>Guide" (go to: www.montereybayaquarium.org). The group
<BR>recommends a labeling regulation to strengthen traceability and boost
<BR>consumer choice, similar to that just adopted by the European Union
<BR>(see Sublegals, 4:17/01), to accurately describe to seafood consumers the
<BR>products: (1) species, (2) where it was caught and (3) the production
<BR>method (wild-caught or farmed).
<BR>
<BR> In an investigative television piece aired in December by NBC news,
<BR>it was reported that 12 different agencies are responsible for policing the
<BR>U.S. food supply. Jurisdiction assignments are cloudy and in many cases
<BR>do not make sense. Milk cows fall under the jurisdiction of the Food &
<BR>Drug Administration (FDA) whereas beef cows fall under the
<BR>jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Eggs are
<BR>under the FDA, while chickens are under the USDA. And, seafood
<BR>products, under FDA jurisdiction, are mostly exempt from any kind of
<BR>labeling for retail sale. The current U.S. government system in place to
<BR>ensure food security, the letter warns, is fraught with gaps and overlaps
<BR>that may be easily targeted. Informational seafood labeling is one of the
<BR>many systems that Homeland Security, the USDA and FDA must work
<BR>together to develop and implement to ensure America's safety, say the
<BR>letter's authors. The letter cited a number of reasons for the U.S. to adopt
<BR>mandatory seafood labeling, including: (1) food security; (2) consumer
<BR>right-to-know; (3) distinguishing domestically produced seafood
<BR>products; (4) health safety (allowing consumers concerned with certain
<BR>trace contaminants, such as mercury levels, or cholesterol levels to
<BR>choose whether or to what extent to consume a particular seafood
<BR>product); (5) traceability (to help track any seafood product linked to a
<BR>food borne disease or that may have been caught illegally); and (6)
<BR>sustainability (i.e., whether the fish comes from a sustainable fishery).
<BR>To view the entire letter, go to: www.pcffa.org.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/02. BUSH ADMINISTRATION WEAKENS U.S.
<BR>WETLANDS PROTECTIONS, PUTS FISHERIES AT FURTHER
<BR>RISK: On 14 January, the Administration of U.S. President George W.
<BR>Bush adopted rules to weaken key protections under the Clean Water
<BR>Act (CWA) that control the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (COE)
<BR>issuance of permits affecting development in wetlands. At issue is the
<BR>CWA program for blanket "nationwide general permits" authorizing the
<BR>Corps to issue blanket permits for the discharge of fill or dredged
<BR>material into wetlands and streams. Under previous standards those
<BR>permits could be issued only if the activities would have no more than
<BR>"minimal adverse environmental effects," both individually and
<BR>cumulatively. Activities performed under a nationwide permit do not
<BR>require public notice or comment, and they undergo a much less
<BR>stringent environmental review, if any, by the Corps than do individual
<BR>permits. However, in the past these permits were used to allow
<BR>extraordinarily destructive activities, including mountaintop removal
<BR>coal mining and development of sensitive estuaries.
<BR>
<BR> In March of 2000, following years of public comment and debate, the
<BR>Clinton Administration adopted rules for new nationwide permits
<BR>designed to ensure better environmental protection than earlier permits.
<BR>However, developers have long chafed at requirements to protect
<BR>wetlands, and lobbied hard with the new Bush Administration to
<BR>overturn those restrictions. The new nationwide permit rules issued by
<BR>the Bush Administration allow the Corps to waive many of the earlier
<BR>environmental conditions meant to limit the use of these permits,
<BR>especially in floodplains and other environmentally sensitive waters,
<BR>including in essential fish habitat. "The new nationwide permits are
<BR>illegal and irresponsible. They guarantee the widespread destruction of
<BR>streams and wetlands and ensure that the destruction will not be
<BR>mitigated," according to a spokesperson for American Rivers. Among
<BR>the changes included in the Corps' weakened nationwide permits that
<BR>will affect fisheries include: (1) allowing the Corps to waive the 300-foot
<BR>limit on stream destruction for intermittent streams, meaning a developer
<BR>could dig or fill a mile (or more) of intermittent stream under a general
<BR>permit that is only supposed to allow minimal adverse effects; (2)
<BR>bypassing the minimum requirement that there be at least one acre of
<BR>wetlands protected or created for every acre destroyed (1:1 acreage
<BR>mitigation).
<BR>
<BR> Wetlands are essential for the nation's commercial fisheries, with
<BR>almost three-quarters of all seafood landings derived from wetlands
<BR>dependent species, and in the Gulf of Mexico this figure rises to more
<BR>than 95 percent. For the implications for commercial fisheries, see the
<BR>1998 report, "Fisheries, Wetlands and Jobs," available at:
<BR>http://www.pcffa.org/wetlands.htm. The U.S. has already lost about 55
<BR>percent of its wetlands and the losses continue unabated. The damage to
<BR>coastal estuaries has been the greatest, and much of the remaining fish
<BR>habitat in coastal wetlands has been seriously damaged. For more
<BR>information on the impact of these changes contact: Ken Goldman at
<BR>(202) 667-4500 or Melissa Samet at (415) 482-8150.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/03. NMFS ISSUES FINAL RULE ON ESSENTIAL FISH
<BR>HABITAT: Three days after the Bush Administration issued rules
<BR>weakening U.S. protection of wetlands, the National Marine Fisheries
<BR>Service (NMFS) on 17 January published its final rule implementing the
<BR>essential fish habitat (EFH) mandates of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of
<BR>1996. EFH are those waters and substrates on which fish are dependent
<BR>to reach maturity and reproduce. Some examples of EFH are
<BR>mangroves, coral reefs and wetlands. The rule provides guidance on
<BR>how to identify EFH, establishes a coordination process for NMFS to
<BR>work with other agencies to protect necessary fish habitats and provides
<BR>guidelines for fisheries councils to incorporate habitat protection into
<BR>fisheries management plans. Since December of 1997, an interim rule
<BR>has been in effect that has allowed NMFS to save sandbank habitats
<BR>important to sharks in Delaware and to modify an excavation project
<BR>along an oil and gas well in Texas to reduce the impact on white shrimp,
<BR>brown shrimp and red drum habitats. PCFFA Executive Director Zeke
<BR>Grader welcomed the news, saying it's time for the rule to become
<BR>permanent, "For 25 years, west coast fishermen have been clamoring for
<BR>fish habitat protection. Now after five years, numerous revisions and
<BR>270 days of public comments, NMFS has taken every effort to involve
<BR>everyone affected by their decision and have made a fair rule that will
<BR>help protect fish habitats." For more information on the EFH rule, go to:
<BR>www.conservefish.org.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/04. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS PROTECTIONS FOR
<BR>ENDANGERED FAIRY SHRIMP: The past week has been a mixed one
<BR>for developers, associations of homebuilders, the timber industry and
<BR>agribusiness. The Bush Administration weakened wetland protections at
<BR>the behest of developers, but NMFS finally adopted its rule on essential
<BR>fish habitat, which development interests opposed. On 14 January,
<BR>developers were also dealt a setback when the U.S. Supreme Court
<BR>refused to hear an appeal of a District Court decision upholding the U.S.
<BR>Fish & Wildlife Service's (USFWS) listing of three species of shrimp -
<BR>Conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, and vernal pool
<BR>tadpole shrimp - as endangered under the federal Endangered Species
<BR>Act (ESA). The shrimp, which are not commercially harvested, are
<BR>found in California's central valley and in Oregon. The case was
<BR>Building Industry Association of Superior California v. Norton (Case
<BR>No. 01-620).
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/05. FARMED SALMON ENDANGER WILD STOCKS SAYS
<BR>STANFORD RESEARCHER: In an address 16 January at Western
<BR>Washington University, Dr. Rosamund Naylor, a senior fellow at
<BR>Stanford's Center for Environmental Science & Policy, warned that
<BR>farmed salmon production threatens wild salmon stocks as well as
<BR>commercial fishermen, the Bellingham Herald, reports. Escaped farmed
<BR>fish compete with wild fish for food and spawning areas and could
<BR>interbreed with wild fish, Naylor said. Farmed fish are also prone to
<BR>disease and may be able to pass on those diseases to wild fish. Already,
<BR>this year, on 2 January, 8,000 Atlantic salmon escaped fish pens
<BR>damaged by storms in Clayoquot Sound near Tofino, on Vancouver
<BR>Island, raising concern about how those fish might interfere with the
<BR>Province's prized wild stocks. Atlantic salmon have been found as far
<BR>north as the Bering Sea, even though Alaska has banned all fish farming
<BR>in its waters, Naylor said. To see the complete Herald article, go to:
<BR>http://news.bellinghamherald.com/stories/20020117/LocalState/84975.s
<BR>html.
<BR>
<BR> 5:02/06. B.C. FISH FARM MORATORIUM WILL BE LIFTED,
<BR>SAYS MINISTER: British Columbia's provincial government is still
<BR>committed to lifting the current moratorium on salmon aquaculture
<BR>expansion, said Agriculture, Food & Fisheries Minister John van
<BR>Dongen recently, but the industry should be policing its members'
<BR>escape-prevention procedures as well. The minister's comments followed
<BR>escapes from Pacific National Aquaculture (PNA) sites on the west coast
<BR>of Vancouver Island earlier in January. Some 8,000 mature Atlantic
<BR>salmon were estimated to have escaped from a PNA site at Saranac
<BR>Island on 2 January when strong winds and tides dragged net cages over
<BR>rocks, tearing a hole. An unknown number of smaller 600 gram fish
<BR>were believed to have escaped from a hole in a net on MacIntyre Bay on
<BR>4 January.
<BR>
<BR> The David Suzuki Foundation and the Friends of Clayoquot Sound
<BR>said the escapes were further proof that the industry is unsustainable and
<BR>that escape-prevention measures don't work. The Suzuki Foundation's
<BR>Lynn Hunter said it was unbelievable that van Dongen should talk about
<BR>lifting the moratorium while fish escapes were happening. "(The)
<BR>industry has consistently demonstrated their inability to manage these
<BR>kinds of crises," Hunter said. Giving credence to her position is a recent
<BR>article in the 11 January Vancouver Sun, "DFO Unable to Assess
<BR>Salmon Farm Risk," about in internal DFO audit report that says the
<BR>fisheries depart is "long overdue" for a fundamental overhaul of its
<BR>policies in dealing with B.C. aquaculture and lacks basic data to assess
<BR>the real risks. For the Vancouver Sun article see:
<BR>http://www.canada.com/search/site/
<BR>story.asp?id=32E3D045-9043-4AF0-8DA3-0B13D34CE642.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/07. MEETING ON AQUACULTURE'S EFFECTS ON THE
<BR>ENVIRONMENT: The American Society of Limnology &
<BR>Oceanography is sponsoring a special session, "SS 1-01: Assessing the
<BR>Potential Environmental Impacts of Aquaculture," at its annual
<BR>conference, to be held this year, 10-14 June, in Victoria, British
<BR>Columbia. For more information go to conference information at:
<BR>http://www.aslo.org.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/08. WHIRLING DISEASE PATHOGEN FOUND IN
<BR>WASHINGTON STREAMS: Associated Press reported 18 January that
<BR>the pathogen causing "whirling disease" in salmon and trout has now
<BR>been found in five northeastern Washington streams, though no
<BR>instances of the disease itself have yet been verified. The pathogen
<BR>causes spinal deformities that cause fish to swim in circles until they die
<BR>of exhaustion and starvation, and has been devastating trout populations
<BR>in Montana and Colorado. Wild fish are partially resistant, but farmed
<BR>and some hatchery fish can become a reservoir for the disease and spread
<BR>it to wild salmon and steelhead populations, many of which are now
<BR>listed as threatened or endangered in the Northwest (See Sublegals
<BR>5:02/11). An outbreak of the disease has already occurred in Oregon,
<BR>traced to a fish farm operation (see Sublegals 4:26/09). Fish pathologists
<BR>from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Washington
<BR>Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) found the pathogens during a
<BR>fish health survey last summer in Washington's Pend, Oreille, Ferry and
<BR>Stevens counties. The new detection significantly expands the known
<BR>range of the parasite. For more info see:
<BR>http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/do/jan02/jan1702b.htm.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/09. POISONED FISH MEAL RECALL IN EUROPE, ORIGIN
<BR>IN TAINTED FARM SHRIMP: Reuters reported 16 January that health
<BR>authorities in Germany, Denmark, Poland and Romania are frantically
<BR>trying to trace and confiscate tainted fish meal, used primarily as animal
<BR>feed, that is laced with an antibiotic that can halt the production of
<BR>human blood cells, and that tons of the fish meal may have already
<BR>gotten into the human food chain. German federal and state authorities
<BR>are investigating the importation late last year of feed ingredients from
<BR>the Netherlands tainted with chloramphenicol, used to treat such
<BR>life-threatening diseases as anthrax and typhoid. The antibiotic is
<BR>restricted to such serious infections because of the risk of it causing a
<BR>potentially lethal form of anemia. Officials in Germany said
<BR>contaminated farmed shrimp imported into the Netherlands from Asia
<BR>had become part of a consignment of 188 tons of fish scraps
<BR>subsequently shipped to a feed plant in Lower Saxony.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/10. ASIAN OYSTERS TO BE INTRODUCED TO
<BR>CHESAPEAKE BAY?: The 4 January Baltimore Sun reports a plan to
<BR>introduce a hardy (and some say dangerous) Asian bivalve (Crassostrea
<BR>ariakensis) into Chesapeake Bay to replace the Bay's less hardy and now
<BR>depleted native Eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica). The Asian oyster
<BR>grows twice as fast and appears resistant to MSX and Dermo, two
<BR>diseases that, together with widespread pollution in the Bay, have nearly
<BR>wiped out native shellfish. Scientists say there are serious risks with the
<BR>introduction of an exotic species to the Bay, and that the MSX parasite
<BR>itself that has so devastated native oysters came to the region as a result
<BR>of the introduction of yet another Asian species years ago which failed to
<BR>survive but left viable parasites. Oysters are being brought back to the
<BR>Bay to filter pollution as part of an environmental cleanup program. For
<BR>more see:
<BR>http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-md.horton04jan04.column.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/11. NMFS SLAPPED BY FEDERAL COURT FOR POOR
<BR>FISHERIES MANAGEMENT: On 28 December, the U.S. District Court
<BR>for the District of Columbia ruled that the National Marine Fisheries
<BR>Service (NMFS) failed to prevent overfishing and decrease bycatch in
<BR>the New England groundfish fishery as required by law. The lawsuit
<BR>charged NMFS with jeopardizing the long-term ecological and economic
<BR>health of the fishery and fishing-dependent communities by violating the
<BR>federal Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. It also charged the agency
<BR>with failing to obey its own regulations, which mandate the use of
<BR>overfishing standards to rebuild fish populations and prevent the
<BR>overfishing of cod and other groundfish off the New England coast. The
<BR>court noted that the fisheries service had a statutory duty to comply with
<BR>the Act by February 1999, yet it ignored the deadline. The suit,
<BR>Conservation Law Foundation v. Evan (US Dist. Court DC, Civil Action
<BR>No. 00-1134(GK)) was filed by Oceana on behalf of the Conservation
<BR>Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon
<BR>Society and The Ocean Conservancy. The case may set a national
<BR>standard for management councils in other regions of the country, many
<BR>of which have been slow to prevent damage to fisheries under their
<BR>jurisdiction. For more see:
<BR>http://www.oceana.org//index.cfm?sectionID=4&fuseaction=press.detail
<BR>&pressreleaseID=12. The full court decision itself is at:
<BR>http://www.oceana.org/uploads/Framework_33_Decision.pdf.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/12. 60-DAY NOTICE SERVED ON STATE AND FEDERAL
<BR>WATER AGENCIES FOR ESA VIOLATIONS OVER OPERATIONS
<BR>OF DELTA PUMPS: On 14 January, a coalition of environmental, sport
<BR>and commercial fishing groups, including PCFFA, filed a 60-day notice
<BR>of intent to sue the California State Department of Water Resources
<BR>(CDWR) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for a violation of
<BR>the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that is threatening listed Sacramento
<BR>winter-run chinook salmon over the operation of the state and federal
<BR>pumping plants in California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Plaintiffs
<BR>are represented in the action by Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund. The
<BR>winter-run, the first Pacific salmon to be listed under the ESA, were
<BR>categorized as endangered in 1994. As part of the program to protect
<BR>and recover the winter-run, the pumping operations are curtailed when
<BR>the fish are present in the Delta on their migration from the upper
<BR>Sacramento River to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. In the
<BR>past seven years, the water projects have exceeded their allowable take
<BR>of winter-run in four of those years, and exceeded their take limit last
<BR>year by 170 percent. For more information, contact Earthjustice's John
<BR>McManus at: jmcmanus@earthjustice.org.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/13. OREGON'S SAVAGE RAPIDS DAM ONE STEP
<BR>CLOSER TO REMOVAL; CORPS WAFFLES ON ELK CREEK
<BR>DAM: The 12 January Salem Statesman Journal reports that the Oregon
<BR>Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) granted 3 million dollars of
<BR>state salmon restoration funds to begin the removal of Savage Rapids
<BR>Dam and to construct it's replacement with pumps. This moves Oregon
<BR>one step closer to freeing the Rogue River and restoring a salmon and
<BR>steelhead fishery worth an estimated $5 million/year. The funding helps
<BR>implement a settlement agreement in a suit in which PCFFA was a party
<BR>(see Sublegals 4:15/06) requiring removal of the dam by 2005 - if the
<BR>full amount of $20 million for removal and mitigation can be obtained.
<BR>The state funding makes obtaining the federal share much more likely.
<BR>In the last Congress, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced "The
<BR>Savage Rapids Dam Act of 2000 (S. 3227)" to provide the federal funds,
<BR>but has not yet introduced an equivalent bill in the 107th Congress. For
<BR>more see: http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=35859.
<BR>
<BR> In response to heavy lobbying by a local elected official who still
<BR>backs the dam, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), meanwhile, is
<BR>doing flip-flops on its plan to notch Oregon's Elk Creek Dam. Notching
<BR>is a remedy already funded by Congress. Instead, the Corps is deferring
<BR>the demolition program for "more study," in spite of numerous past
<BR>studies that say the unfinished dam is unnecessary and blocks an
<BR>important run of endangered coho salmon. Moreover, the Corps' stance
<BR>conflicts with a 24 August 2000 National Marine Fisheries Service
<BR>(NMFS) Biological Opinion (BiOp) finding that retaining the dam in its
<BR>current state constitutes "jeopardy" under the federal Endangered Species
<BR>Act (ESA). The Corps no longer wants the dam finished, and was
<BR>reportedly prepared to bid out the contract for "notching" the dam with
<BR>dynamite to allow fish passage in February. PCFFA and a number of
<BR>other groups brought suit against the COE in 2000 to force removal and
<BR>require fisheries restoration, a case that is still in court. The COE's
<BR>current incidental take permit, issued prior to the NMFS BiOp, expires
<BR>in June 2002 and would not be renewed by NMFS except in accordance
<BR>with its BiOp. For more, see the 12 January Medford Mail Tribune
<BR>article at: http://newslink.org/cgi/goto.cgi?2=002430.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/14. OREGON POLICY COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER
<BR>MARINE PROTECTED AREAS: On 31 January - 1 February, the
<BR>Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC) will host a two-day
<BR>"dialog" meeting about the possible establishment of marine protected
<BR>areas (MPAs) in Oregon's state ocean waters. During this meeting,
<BR>experts on Oregon's marine ecosystem will discuss the state of Oregon's
<BR>ocean and unique ecological areas off of Oregon's coast. Members of
<BR>the fishing industry are encouraged to attend, and public comments will
<BR>be heard each afternoon of the two-day meeting. The first day of the
<BR>meeting will feature a panel of fishermen, ocean recreational interests,
<BR>and other marine experts, and the following day will include marine
<BR>biologists, zoologists, oceanographers, and other scientific experts in the
<BR>discussion. The meetings will be held at the Agate Beach Best Western
<BR>Hotel, Newport, Oregon, starting 0800 HRS to 1700 HRS on 31 January,
<BR>and resuming on 1 February at 0830 HRS to 1730 HRS. For an agenda
<BR>and more information about OPAC see: http://www.oregonocean.org.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/15. CALIFORNIA TO GO BACK TO DRAWING BOARD ON
<BR>ESTABLISHMENT OF STATE PROGRAM FOR MPAS: At a 17
<BR>January hearing in Sacramento (see Sublegals 5:02/03), the California
<BR>Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) announced it was essentially
<BR>starting over on its Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process of
<BR>establishing a system of marine protected areas (MPAs) in state ocean
<BR>waters. For the past 18 months the Department sequestered a group of
<BR>scientists to discuss among themselves sites for MPAs and then went out
<BR>for a series of public workshops with tentative maps developed by the
<BR>scientists without benefit of experts who know the coastal ocean areas
<BR>(e.g., commercial fishermen). The process established by CDFG was
<BR>nearly opposite of what PCFFA (which had worked on the MLPA)
<BR>proposed of bringing fishermen, other marine experts and scientists
<BR>together to pool their knowledge and experience in developing
<BR>recommendations for MPA sites. Following complaints from nearly all
<BR>involved - commercial and sport fishermen, environmental groups,
<BR>scientists - CDFG Director Robert Hight stepped in and ordered a
<BR>change of course. The Legislature had already extended the time limit
<BR>for implementation by 16 months. The new process, announced by
<BR>Hight, calls for the establishment of four regional panels with a
<BR>cross-section of experts to assist the Department with the development
<BR>of the MLPA master plan. The Thursday hearing in Sacramento, where
<BR>Hight made the announcement, brought together representatives from the
<BR>sport and commercial fisheries, environmentalists and harbor districts
<BR>testifying before the Joint Committee on Fisheries & Aquaculture;
<BR>PCFFA Vice-President Dave Bitts represented the Federation. For more
<BR>information on the new MLPA process, go to:
<BR>www.dfg.ca.gov/mrd/mlpa/index.html.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/16. CANADA'S HOUSE OF COMMONS PASSES MARINE
<BR>PROTECTED AREAS BILL: On 27 November, Canada's House of
<BR>Commons passed the "Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act
<BR>(Bill C-10)" which, if finally adopted by the Senate, would establish a
<BR>system of 29 marine conservation areas in Canada's coastal waters.
<BR>Within five years of the establishment of a conservation area, the
<BR>Minister of Canadian Heritage would prepare a management plan
<BR>including provisions for ecosystem protection, human use and zoning.
<BR>Plans would be reviewed every five years. The bill can be viewed at:
<BR>http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/government/C-1
<BR>0/C-10_1/90137bE.html.
<BR>
<BR> 5:03/17. EFFICACY OF MPAS QUESTIONED: In the
<BR>December-January MPA News (Vol.3, No.6), Dr. Mark Tupper, an
<BR>assistant professor at the University of Guam and coordinator of the
<BR>Marine Protected Areas Research Group at the University's Marine
<BR>Laboratory, wrote an article, "Putting No-Take Marine Reserves in
<BR>Perspective," where he questioned claims made for MPAs in a recent
<BR>article by Roberts et al., in the magazine Science. "Although the
<BR>examples discussed by Roberts et al. demonstrate the potential benefits
<BR>of marine reserves to fisheries, the fact is that the great majority of them
<BR>have not succeeded in meeting their management objectives, even in
<BR>tropical coral reef systems. Indeed it is rather surprising that the fairly
<BR>abysmal performance of MPAs has been the basis for a global movement
<BR>towards marine reserves for fisheries management. Current estimates
<BR>place the number of 'paper parks' at over 80-90% in some countries, and
<BR>rich nations have fared no better than poor ones. Rather than charging
<BR>ahead to create hundreds of new MPAs, it makes sense to determine (1)
<BR>whether or not a no-take marine reserve is the best management strategy
<BR>for a particular fishery, and (2) how we can better implement and
<BR>manage current MPAs so that they reach their stated objectives," wrote
<BR>Tupper. For more information, contact Dr. Mark Tupper at:
<BR>mtupper@guam.uog.edu.
<BR>
<BR>NEWS, COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS: Submit your news items,
<BR>comments or any corrections to Allison Vogt, Editor at:
<BR>ifrfish@pacbell.net or call the IFR/PCFFA office with the news and a
<BR>source at either: (415) 561-FISH (Southwest Office) or (541) 689-2000
<BR>(Northwest Office).
<BR>##########################################################
<BR>"Sublegals" are a weekly fisheries news bulletin service of Fishlink. To
<BR>find out more about Fishlink, list information can be viewed and you
<BR>can subscribe yourself automatically at:
<BR>
<BR>http://straylight.primelogic.com/mailman/listinfo/fishlink
<BR>
<BR>If you have any trouble subscribing or unsubscribing, contact
<BR>PCFFA/IFR directly at: <fish1ifr@aol.com>.
<BR>##########################################################
<BR>"Fishlink" is a registered trademark of the Institute for Fisheries
<BR>Resources. All rights to the use of this trademark are reserved to IFR.
<BR>This publication, however, may be freely reproduced and circulated
<BR>without copyright restriction. If you are receiving this as a subscriber,
<BR>please feel free to pass this on to your colleagues. Subscribers who wish
<BR>to post or circulate hard copy of Sublegals or have no access to the
<BR>Internet may receive fax subscriptions by faxing their request, with their
<BR>fax number to: (415) 561-5464. Thanks!
<BR>##########################################################
<BR></FONT></HTML>
--part1_17f.27c055c.297f956e_boundary--