By Ryan Prior
CNN

Alaska has been in the throes of an unprecedented heat wave this summer, and the heat stress is killing salmon in large numbers.

Scientists have observed die-offs of several varieties of Alaskan salmon, including sockeye, chum and pink salmon.

Stephanie Quinn-Davidson, director of the Yukon Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, told CNN she took a group of scientists on an expedition along Alaska's Koyokuk River at the end of July, after locals alerted her to salmon die-offs on the stream.

She and the other scientists counted 850 dead unspawned salmon on that expedition, although they estimated the total was likely four to 10 times larger.They looked for signs of lesions, parasites and infections, but came up empty. Nearly all the salmon they found had "beautiful eggs still inside them," she said. Because the die-off coincided with the heat wave, they concluded that heat stress was the cause of the mass deaths.

Quinn-Davidson said she'd been working as a scientist for eight years and had "never heard of anything to this extent before."

"I'm not sure people expected how large a die-off we'd see on these rivers," she said.

The heat wave is higher than climate change models predicted

The water temperatures have breaking records at the same time as the air temperatures, according to Sue Mauger, the science director for the Cook Inletkeeper.

Scientists have been tracking stream temperatures around the Cook Inlet, located south of Anchorage, since 2002. They've never recorded a temperature above 76 degrees Fahrenheit. Until now.

On July 7, a major salmon stream on the west side of the Cook Inlet registered 81.7 degrees.
Mauger said she and her team published a study in 2016, creating models outlining moderate and pessimistic projections for how climate change would drive temperatures in Alaska's streams.

"2019 exceeded the value we expected for the worst-case scenario in 2069," she said.
Mauger said that the warm temperatures are affecting salmon in various ways, depending on the stream.

"Physiologically, the fish can't get oxygen moving through their bellies," Mauger said. In other places in the state, the salmon "didn't have the energy to spawn and died with healthy eggs in their bellies."

Salmon under threat

Salmon populations are under stress from other angles as well.

Overfishing is threatening salmon further south in southwestern Canada and northwestern Washington. Orca whales, which are themselves endangered, feed on salmon.

With fewer salmon to eat, populations of orca whales have steadily declined over the past decades.

And last week the Environmental Protection Agency told staff scientists it would no longer oppose a mining project in Alaska that had the potential to devastate one of the world's most valuable wild salmon fisheries, just after President Trump met with Alaska's Gov. Mike Dunleavy.

But in other areas, things are looking up. "Salmon are very resilient. They've overcome a lot," said Mary Catharine Martin, a spokeswoman for the non-profit Salmon State.

Alaska's Bristol Bay, the largest sockeye salmon fishery in the world, is annually seeing boom times for salmon returns, and in 2016 celebrated the 2 billionth salmon caught in its waters, after more than a century of commercial fishing.
​
"That's very good," she said. "Salmon have sustained the way of life of the people of Alaska for thousands of years."​

By Gloria Dickie 
HAKAI MAGAZINE

​In 2013, a mass of unusually warm water appeared in the Gulf of Alaska. Over the next three years, the Blob, as it became known, spread more than 3,200 kilometers, reaching down to Mexico. This freak marine heatwave, combined with a strong El Niño, drastically affected the Pacific Ocean ecosystem killing thousands of animals and changing the distribution of species along the coast.

It’s been three years since the Blob dissipated, and researchers are taking stock of its long-term impacts on fish and other wildlife.

Last month, Laurie Weitkamp, a fisheries biologist with the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, and her colleagues released a report detailing how the Blob affected species found in the northern California Current ecosystem, which runs from the Canadian border to southern Oregon. The report shows that the mass of warm water helped some and hurt others. Between 2013 and 2017, for instance, the populations of animals accustomed to warm water, such as mackerel, squid, hake, and rockfish, ballooned. Many jellyfish species also had a strong showing.

One of the strongest effects of the Blob was the explosion of California market squid along the Oregon coast. In 2018, fishers in Oregon landed more than three million kilograms of market squid, shattering the previous record of a mere 1.2 million kilograms in 2016. Meanwhile, fewer squid swam in the waters off California, their usual stronghold.

Troy Buell, the fisheries management program leader at the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, says the boom was likely the result of more squid being born in Oregon waters rather than animals moving up from the Golden State. Squid fishers, however, did migrate north to cash in.

But other species have struggled in the wake of the Blob. “When fish hatch out of their eggs, they absorb their yolk sac and have to start feeding,” says Weitkamp. But if their food isn’t there, “they’re screwed.” For many young fish, their favorite food was wiped out by the heat or shifted elsewhere.

As a result, there is now a void in the populations of some species that were in their larval stages when the Blob hit its crescendo. Species that should be along the Pacific coast or returning to inland waterways simply aren’t. And that’s taking a toll on the ecosystem and on commercial fisheries.

Chinook salmon, for example, are often harvested when they are around three or four years old, meaning that the salmon that went out to sea in 2015 should have returned home this year. As a result of the Blob, says Weitkamp, the Columbia River has “the lowest spring return ever of chinook this year.” In response, Washington State has suspended summer chinook fishing.

This July, British Columbia, also suffering low returns of sockeye salmon due to the Blob, closed the recreational sockeye fishery on the Skeena River. The return of sockeye and pink salmon to the Fraser River this year is also uncertain.

Alaska, meanwhile, is a story of contrasts. Pacific cod crashed around 2017, and the shrimping industry has struggled, too. But in 2018, Bristol Bay, in southwest Alaska, saw the highest return of sockeye salmon ever recorded. “It’s so strange,” says Weitkamp. “It’s so unpredictable.”

There have been less obvious consequences of the Blob, too. Scientists believe that the availability of prey for humpback whales has changed around California. “There’s now a lack of krill, so the whales are feeding on anchovies closer to shore, which is also where there is more overlap with crab gear,” says Buell. This change in feeding habits may be contributing to a recent spike in whale entanglements.
​
It’s unclear how long the consequences of the Blob might last or when the next Blob might hit.

By Holly Lake 
HAKAI MAGAZINE

​Canada has the longest coastline in the world, yet it has long been a lax outlier in fisheries management. But with an overhaul of the federal Fisheries Act now complete, the sense among advocates and fisheries experts is that the tide is about to turn.

The passage of Bill C-68 on June 21 means that for the first time since the Fisheries Act was enacted in 1868, Fisheries and Oceans Canada is required to manage fish stocks sustainably and put rebuilding plans in place for those that are depleted.

Josh Laughren, executive director of the nonprofit advocacy organization Oceana Canada, says that in 20 years we may look back and see the new criteria around sustainable management and rebuilding stocks as a transformational change.

“We’ve put our money where our mouth is,” says Jonathan Wilkinson, minister of fisheries, oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard, noting that the federal government has already committed CAN $107-million to support the work. “It raises the bar in making sure that decision-making is based on science and evidence.”

Laughren says if this act had been in place in the 1980s and implemented as written, Canada could have avoided the collapse of the northern cod fishery in the early 1990s. “The history of Atlantic Canada would be different.”

Instead, cod stocks were depleted, triggering a moratorium on fishing in 1992. The federal government still has no recovery plan in place for the species.

Like Laughren, Wilkinson believes the changes are overdue.

“These kinds of things should have been done a long time ago,” Wilkinson says. “We should have been resourcing them more effectively.”

The new act also restores protections for fish habitats that were gutted in 2012 by the previous Conservative government, increases requirements for monitoring and reporting, requires Indigenous knowledge to be incorporated into decisions, and mandates a review of the act every five years.

Wilkinson says when it comes to addressing the challenges facing global fisheries, Canada is now “at the forefront.” Laughren, however, says it’s more that Canada is now in the conversation.

Until now, for example, Canada’s fisheries minister had full discretion to authorize fishing without limits. There were no provisions in the act to prevent overfishing or mandate actions on troubled stocks. It was a unique power in fisheries management and conservation.

In contrast, Chile, New Zealand, Japan, the European Union, and the United States have long had legal restrictions and requirements limiting fisheries managers’ discretion.

Most of these jurisdictions have also had requirements to prevent overfishing. New Zealand’s Fisheries Act and the European Union’s Common Fisheries Policy go even further, imposing binding requirements to rebuild depleted stocks and base decisions on the best available science.

While Canada had policies on evidence-based decision-making and sustainable fisheries, until now, they were not enshrined in law.

“We now have [legislation] that says the purpose of fisheries management is to keep stocks healthy and return them there if they’re not healthy,” Laughren says.

However, the United States is still ahead in terms of the government’s legal obligations, he says. The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandates annual reports to Congress about which stocks are overfished, how to determine if stocks are close to being overfished, and how overfishing will affect stocks.

“Then they have to outline what they will do about it,” Laughren says, noting that management plans must include clear targets and timelines, and a failure to meet them often lands the government in court.

“[The Magnuson-Stevens Act] is far more prescriptive than [Canada’s] Fisheries Act. And there’s evidence it works,” says Laughren. “The US has 45 rebuilt stocks since that law was put in place in 1976.”

In Canada, of 26 critically depleted stocks, only five have rebuilding plans. Further, only 34 percent of fish populations in Canada are healthy, and more than 13 percent are critically depleted.

Like Laughren, Susanna Fuller, a marine biologist and senior project planner with Canadian nonprofit Oceans North, thinks the new act is something to celebrate. But they’re both looking to the act’s regulations, which are still to come, to provide prescriptive timelines, targets, and directions—details that are rolled into the law itself south of the border.

“In Canada, our regulations actually do mean a lot,” Fuller says. “I think that whether or not we’re in line with other countries is going to be very much in the implementation of the act. We’ll find that out over the next while as regulations roll out.”

While Canada now has legislation that is on par with other fishing nations, and is unique in that the act’s habitat protection provisions apply to all fish and habitats covering all aquatic ecosystems, Fuller says no country is really managing fisheries sustainably, none has met global targets on rebuilding stocks, and none is employing an ecosystem-based approach to management.

Fuller says that the law now enables Canada to possibly meet some of its international commitments around sustainable fisheries management, but adds that whether the planet gets real fisheries management and biodiversity protection in the face of climate change is another question entirely.

“Quite frankly, no one is making the really hard decisions.”

SOURCE: https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/canada-has-a-new-fisheries-act-how-does-it-stack-up/

By Amy Smart
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Significant changes could be coming to the way fisheries are managed in Canada, giving hope for the rebound of some species and the protection of others, says an ocean conservation group.

Josh Laughren, executive director of Oceana Canada, said proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act would prompt the government to rebuild stocks that fall below sustainable levels.

And while the changes still include an “off ramp” for government to make decisions in the interest of short-term economics over longer sustainability, they would require those decisions to be made public, which Mr. Laughren said is a step toward ensuring past mistakes aren’t repeated.

“We’ve kind of sleepwalked through this incredible decline in abundance and it’s been hidden by some of the economics of it,” Mr. Laughren said in an interview.

More than half of the entire value of Canadian fisheries now comes from Atlantic invertebrates like lobster, crab and shrimp, he said, pointing to a 2015 report by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Not only does that make the industry more vulnerable to pathogens and disease, but the profitability of those fisheries have obscured the depletion of other marine species like groundfish. Since 1970, Canada has seen fish biomass decline by 55 per cent, an expert panel convened by the Royal Society of Canada found.

In the United States, fisheries laws have more bite because they clearly define “overfishing,” and when it occurs, action to stop and reverse the impacts is required within months. Forty-five stocks have been recovered since the law was introduced and 28 of the most successful ones were generating 54 per cent more revenue than when they were overfished, he said.

Bill C-68 was introduced a month after the Liberal government was sworn in and had its second reading in the Senate in December.

Mr. Laughren said he’s very hopeful the bill could improve biodiversity in a way that also creates more economic opportunity.

“Abundance provides options, abundance makes allocation a hell of a lot easier and provides more value. I think we’ve kind of forgotten about how important that is,” he said.

Others are more wary.

Paul Lansbergen, who represents commercial fisheries as president of the Fisheries Council of Canada, said that beyond protecting fish stocks the law should also protect “sustainable” fishing rights.

“The most significant policy issue facing the sector is a concern of stability of access to the fishing resource,” he told the Senate standing committee reviewing the bill.

“The use of fisheries is missing in the current wording of the bill.”

Mr. Lansbergen said the council will reserve an opinion on the law until accompanying regulations are revealed. But he told the committee it represents a significant change that will have long-standing implications for the sector and the health of the oceans and fish resources.

Canada’s seafood industry employs 80,000 people and accounts for $7-billion in exports to more than 130 countries.

Mr. Lansbergen said Canada is already a “global leader” in sustainable fisheries management, noting that 80 per cent of wild seafood production is certified by the Marine Stewardship Council.

He warned against forcing commercial fishermen to give up their licences.

“Taking away long-standing licences and quotas does not respect past investments and has eroded the sector’s confidence to invest and could undermine conservation efforts,” he said.

Martin Mallet, executive director of the Maritime Fishermen’s Union, said he’s hoping the bill passes without too many hiccups, adding most fishermen associations in Atlantic Canada support the bill.

Mr. Mallet said the union particularly likes the way the bill would enshrine an existing owner-operator policy into law so it can be better enforced.

It would give stronger protection to East Coast fishermen against unaffordable quota costs that have made fishing more expensive than it’s worth in some other jurisdictions, he said.

“The West Coast fisheries are an example of what could happen if you don’t have this type of regulation. You end up having companies and investors basically buying the rights to the fish,” he said, with fishermen then leasing the quota from them.

It can mean less economic benefit funnelled into local communities, he said.

Bill C-68 also provides new authorities for Indigenous participation in the fisheries along with their co-management.

Terry Teegee, regional chief with the British Columbia Assembly of First Nations, said he generally supports the bill but would like even stronger protection for First Nations’ inherent and constitutionally protected rights.

Many of the sections regarding Indigenous participation use language like “may” instead of “shall,” which means it doesn’t compel action, he said.

Mr. Teegee said Indigenous knowledge systems should be recognized on a level playing field with government science. Committing to rebuild fish stocks and habitat restoration could be seen as an act of reconciliation, he said.

“I think the bill itself is better than it was but certainly I think there can be improvements and more commitments to Indigenous people,” he said.

The clock is ticking on the bill head of the federal election this fall but Mr. Teegee said fisheries protection shouldn’t depend on who holds power.
​
“Right now we’re seeing climate change and we’re seeing fish stocks declining. We need to really fix things and make some interventions,” he said.

READ MORE: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-conservation-group-says-proposed-amendments-to-fisheries-act-give-hope/ 

NEW YORK TIMES
By Kendra Pierre-Louis

Fish populations are declining as oceans warm, putting a key source of food and income at risk for millions of people around the world, according to new research published Thursday.

The study found that the amount of seafood that humans could sustainably harvest from a wide range of species shrank by 4.1 percent from 1930 to 2010, a casualty of human-caused climate change.

“That 4 percent decline sounds small, but it’s 1.4 million metric tons of fish from 1930 to 2010,” said Chris Free, the lead author of the study, which appears in the journal Science.

Scientists have warned that global warming will put pressure on the world’s food supplies in coming decades. But the new findings — which separate the effects of warming waters from other factors, like overfishing — suggest that climate change is already having a serious impact on seafood.

Fish make up 17 percent of the global population’s intake of protein, and as much as 70 percent for people living in some coastal and island countries, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

“Fish provide a vital source of protein for over half of the global population, and some 56 million people worldwide are supported in some way by marine fisheries,” Dr. Free said.

As the oceans have warmed, some regions have been particularly hard-hit. In the northeast Atlantic Ocean and the Sea of Japan, fish populations declined by as much as 35 percent over the period of the study.

“The ecosystems in East Asia have seen some of the largest decline in fisheries productivity,” Dr. Free said. “And that region is home to some of the largest growing human populations and populations that are highly dependent on seafood.”

Now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Dr. Free began the research while a Ph.D. student at Rutgers University.

Marine life has been subjected to some of the most drastic effects of climate change. The oceans have absorbed 93 percent of the heat that is trapped by the greenhouse gases that humans pump into the atmosphere.

A study published in January, also in Science, found that ocean temperatures were increasing far faster than previous estimates.

Amid these changing conditions, fish are shifting where they live, in search of their preferred temperatures. High ocean temperatures can kill off both the fish themselves and the sources of food they depend on.

“Fish are like Goldilocks: They don’t like their water too hot or too cold,” said Malin L. Pinsky, an associate professor in the School of Environmental and Biological Sciences at Rutgers University and a co-author of the new study.

In about a quarter of the regions studied, fish had expanded their range. Off the Atlantic coast of the United States, sustainable catches of black sea bass increased by 6 percent over the study period.

Another quarter of the regions saw no significant changes in fish populations, like the northwest Atlantic Ocean, where Atlantic herring are abundant.

But half the regions did not fare as well. The northeast Atlantic Ocean — home to the Atlantic cod, the mainstay of fish and chips — saw a 34 percent decline in sustainable catches.

Over all, more populations of fish declined than increased over the eight decades in the study.

The researchers focused on sustainable catches, using a measure developed by the United Nations that quantifies the amount of food that can be repeatedly harvested from a base population of fish. “Fisheries are like a bank account, and we’re trying to live off the interest,” Dr. Pinsky said.

Several previous studies have predicted that climate change would lead to fewer ocean fish in the future, but the new research looked at historical data to determine that the declines had already begun.
​
“This is going to be one of those groundbreaking studies that gets cited over and over again,” said Trevor Branch, an associate professor at the University of Washington’s School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, who was not involved in the study. “Most of what I’ve seen before in terms of climate-change impacts have been speculative, in terms of, ‘We think this is what’s going to happen in the future.’ This one’s different.”

The researchers used a data set of 235 fish populations located in 38 ecological regions around the globe. The detailed data told them not only where the fish were but also how they reacted to environmental effects like changing water temperatures.

The team compared that data to records that showed how ocean temperatures had changed over time, broken down by the various regions. These regional analyses were important, because some parts of the ocean have warmed faster than others.

“We then connected those to which populations responded positively, negatively, and which didn’t respond at all,” Dr. Pinsky said.
​
The data revealed some other trends. Fish populations in the colder parts of their ranges tended to fare better than those located in warmer areas — for those fish, the extra heat was too much. This was especially troubling to the researchers, because the data they used was less detailed in the tropics. Fish losses in those regions may have been higher than in the regions the study focused on, Dr. Pinsky said.

Warm areas fared even worse when they were overfished. The researchers suggested that overfishing made fish even more vulnerable to temperature changes by hurting their ability to reproduce and damaging the ecosystem.

Guarding against overfishing and improving the overall management of fisheries can help, the researchers said. But ultimately, they said, the solution lies in slowing or halting climate change.
​
A separate study, published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances, found that limiting warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, or 1.5 degrees Celsius, above preindustrial levels — a goal of the Paris climate agreement — could result in billions of dollars in extra revenue for fisheries globally. Much of that would be in the developing world, where many people rely on fish for protein.

“We hope that this highlights the importance of accounting for the fact that climate change is driving shifts in productivity,” Dr. Free said of his research. “Fishery managers need to come up with new innovative ways of accounting for those shifts. That includes reducing catch limits in warm negative years, but it can also include increasing catch limits in cooler positive years. Having regulations that are adaptive to climate change is going to be really important for maximizing food potential.”

By BOB WEBER
THE CANADIAN PRESS

Half the country’s chinook salmon populations are endangered and most of the rest are in decline, according to a science committee that monitors the health of wildlife populations.

The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife In Canada reported Monday that of Canada’s 16 chinook populations, eight are endangered, four are threatened and one is considered of special concern.

Only one, located in British Columbia’s Thompson River, is considered stable. The condition of two populations is unknown.

Endangered is the committee’s most serious ranking, suggesting the population is in danger of being wiped out.

“There are some where there is thought to be fewer than 200 fish still remaining,” said committee member and Simon Fraser University fisheries biologist John Neilson.

“At that level, there would be concern about those stocks. That’s why we’re sounding the alarm.”

Chinook salmon are both a major fishery in British Columbia and central to the lives and culture of Indigenous people. Neilson said the new assessment is the most comprehensive the committee has ever done on the fish.

“From other studies and general knowledge on the state of salmon in B.C., there’s a lot of concern,” Neilson said. “These are populations that are at the high end of needing some attention.”

Scientists believe the problem occurs during the part of their lives the salmon spend in the ocean.

Some believe growing numbers of seals and sea lions, which feed on the fish, are behind the declines. Others say the warming and acidifying ocean is starting to affect the food web the salmon depend on.

“It’s a complex story,” said Neilson.

It’s time the federal government use its power to protect the fish and its habitat, he added.
“Our suggestion is that government act quickly.”

The Species At Risk Act allows the federal government to issue emergency protection orders which allow Ottawa to control activity in critical habitat normally governed by the provinces.
The federal government has used the power twice before for the western chorus frog and the sage grouse.

Federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna said she hadn’t yet seen the assessment but would follow up on its concerns.

“We understand that it is critically important to protect and conserve our native wildlife. We need to fulfill our obligations under the Species At Risk Act.”

She said some measures have already been taken to protect and rebuild chinook salmon stocks.
The committee also released assessments of two other species.

It recommended no change be applied to polar bears, now considered to be a species of special concern.

It also looked at the black ash tree, a common urban tree in civic parks in Toronto, Montreal, and Ottawa. It found that over the last 20 years, an invasive species called the emerald ash borer has killed about two billion ash trees in the Great Lakes Region.
​
The black ash is now considered threatened, the committee found.

By Staff The Canadian Press

Atlantic herring is a hearty source of protein for people and marine mammals alike, but like a startling number of Canada’s fish stocks, the plan to rebuild the depleted herring population is currently one big question mark.

That’s a conclusion reached by advocacy group Oceana Canada, which published its second annual fisheries audit Tuesday — a report card assessing the health of Canada’s fish stocks.

The report found Canada has a lot of work to do to reverse the decline of its fish stocks, and it needs to pick up the pace.

Oceana’s science director Robert Rangeley said he hopes the audit is a “wake-up call” for better fisheries management.

“My biggest fear is one of complacency,” said Rangeley. “We’re still hovering around one-third of our fish stocks (that) are healthy, which is very poor performance for the 194 stocks that are so important for coastal communities.”

Only 34 per cent of Canada’s fish stocks are considered healthy. Twenty-nine per cent are in a critical or cautious zone, and perhaps most alarmingly, 37 per cent of stocks don’t have sufficient data to assign a health status.

Some, like Pacific herring in Haida Gwaii, slipped into the critical red zone this year.

The numbers are indicative of the slow policy implementation that plagues management of Canada’s fisheries, Rangeley said. The Oceana team expected to see more stocks move from the uncertain zone into one of the other categories this year, but in fact, the needle barely moved.

On the legislative front, the House of Commons passed revisions in June that will strengthen the Fisheries Act, including direction on rebuilding depleted stocks. If it becomes law and is supported by strong regulations, this could signal a turning point in the health of Canada’s fisheries.

Rangeley said government transparency has improved in recent years, giving his team access to the audit’s necessary data. But scientific reporting and assessment of stocks is slow and incomplete. Scientific and planning documents are often published late, or not at all.

Slow scientific publication means some stocks haven’t been assessed in years – and with the impacts of climate change affecting the ocean at a swift pace, it means some of the health assessments are becoming too outdated to plan around how to help improve the stock.

Of the 26 stocks that are assessed as critically depleted, only three have rebuilding plans in place. And even when those plans are published, the report notes that they are often based on out-of-date scientific assessments.

Atlantic Canada’s fin fish are most heavily represented among the critical stocks.

Rangeley said invertebrates like lobster and crab are more likely in good health than at-risk fin fish like cod and herring. However, rebuilding plans to bring struggling stocks back to health are notoriously slow to appear.

Perhaps the most famous example is the infamous cod moratorium in 1992 that devastated Newfoundland’s fishing communities. Twenty-six years on, there’s no plan in place to rebuild the Northern cod stock.

It’s not just an issue for the depleted stocks, said Rangeley. He recommends that a sense of urgency is applied to stocks in the cautious zone as well as the critical zone, because the more depleted they get, the harder it is to rebuild.

“It’s just a biological reality,” Rangeley said. “Knock ’em down too far for too long, the effort takes so much longer and it’s such a lost opportunity for a valuable seafood industry to just let such a waste occur.”

Striking the balance between a healthy ocean ecosystem and an economically viable, renewable food industry for small communities is not impossible, and it’s been done before, said Rangeley.

To run the fisheries right, more vigilance is required, the report said.

Some form of catch monitoring is in place for more than half of Canada’s stocks but the methods often don’t give a complete assessment of the catch, leading to big data gaps. And 159 stocks don’t have fishing mortality estimates, making it nearly impossible to set sustainable limits on the industry.
​
The report recommends investing in science and management capacity, assessing stocks regularly and developing up-to-date, well-enforced rebuilding plans.
It also highlights the importance of timely reporting, and calls for a national ‘fishery monitoring policy’ that would compel all commercial fisheries to sufficiently keep track of yearly catches.

Good planning, Rangeley said, is essential to getting Canada’s fisheries back to a healthy, sustainable level for oceans and for people.
​
“You can sustainably harvest seafood indefinitely if you get it right, and we’re not,” he said.

iPolitics
By Holly Lake.

Oceana Canada has released its 2018 fishery audit, and it’s fair to say many of this country’s fish stocks are floundering.

This is the non-profit’s second annual report on the health of Canada’s fisheries, which also assessed efforts to maintain and rebuild them. It found that, in 2018, only about a third (34 per cent) of stocks can be considered healthy — slightly less than in 2017. The number of critical stocks remains the same at 13.4 per cent, while almost 16 per cent are in the “cautious” zone.

“They’re hovering on the brink of dropping down into that critical zone,” 
said Robert Rangeley, director of science at Oceana Canada.

Of Canada’s 26 critically endangered stocks — nearly all of which are in Atlantic Canada — only three have published rebuilding plans.

While there’s been some improvement, a lack of sufficient data means the status of 37 per cent of stocks remains uncertain. For 72 stocks, there wasn’t enough information to assign them a health status.

“We know the stocks in our fisheries aren’t doing well; there’s no question,” Rangeley said. “Unfortunately, it’s not a good news story.”

That said, it’s not all bad news. There’s been progress on investment that’s aiming to turn the tide.

“It’s pretty clear that DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) has put in effort over the last few years,” he said. “They’ve made significant investments in science and in transparency. They’ve committed to departmental work plans, and that’s not only transparency, it’s accountability.”

For that transparency to be fully realized, science information must be made publicly available in a timely fashion. The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat (CSAS) oversees the publication of information related to the management of fisheries and oceans, but, in 2017, fewer than 10 per cent of documents that should have been released following CSAS meetings were published on time.

The report found almost half of the documents were published late: on average, 137.3 days later than CSAS policy timelines call for. More than 40 per cent of expected documents have still not been published.

“How do we manage with that lack of information?” asked Rangeley.

As part of recommendations in the environment commissioner’s 2016 fisheries audit, DFO now creates and publishes annual work plans with priorities and timelines. While these chart a clear course, the department has not met the plans’ prescribed timelines. The report found that only 25 per cent of the work-plan deliverables were completed in the past year.

“We have an unprecedented commitment with these work plans. They’re good plans, so get on with them,” Rangeley said. “When they’re completed, we’ll have more rebuilding plans.”

Fisheries monitoring also remains a real concern, including determining just how many fish are being taken out of the ocean and how many are being caught as bycatch.

Bycatch are the unwanted fish and other marine creatures caught during commercial fishing for a different species.

“If you don’t know what’s there and you don’t know what you’re taking out, the science is pretty wobbly,” Rangeley said.

Keeping track can be done through at-sea or electronic monitoring, mandatory logbooks or dockside monitoring. It’s widely acknowledged that current monitoring tools are weak and inconsistent. A fishery-monitoring policy has been drafted by DFO to address these questions and is now in public consultation. He said “it’s desperately needed” and should clarify what’s coming out of the water.

The federal government has been paying a great deal of attention to the ocean recently, including using its chairing of the G7 to create a blueprint for healthy oceans. Rangeley said Oceana Canada welcomes that, but Canada is still not following some best practices, including legally mandating the creation of rebuilding plans for critical stocks.

But if a revamp of the Fisheries Act — which is now in the Senate — passes, it will set fisheries management in this country on a course correction. Provisions in the bill direct the minister of fisheries and oceans to manage fish stocks sustainably and to put rebuilding plans in place for depleted stocks.

[READ MORE: Fisheries Act overhaul clears House of Commons]

Although it’s clear from the data that stocks are underperforming, Rangeley said there’s no reason things have to stay that way — nor should they, given that fish are an important part of the ocean ecosystem. A healthy ocean is productive, and provides a renewable source of protein for the planet. Key to keeping the ocean healthy is getting the harvest levels right. To do that, rather than manage species in isolation, we should be lessening the stress on them from climate change and pollution.

In a statement, DFO said it welcomed the fishery audit and will be reviewing its recommendations.

The department pointed to several investments that are starting to strengthen ocean protections, including its Oceans Protection Plan, which includes dozens of projects to restore lost habitat, as well as the $197 million announced in Budget 2016 for ocean and freshwater science, which is enhancing DFO’s ability to make informed, evidence-based decisions to support the sustainable management of Canada’s fisheries.

“This funding has increased our capacity to do research, monitoring and carry out state-of-the-art stock assessments,” reads the statement.

Work continues on that front to complete and update Integrated Fisheries Management Plans by developing precautionary reference points and harvest-control rules. Plans are also underway to rebuild major fish stocks in the critical zone, as well as the monitoring policy Rangeley eagerly awaits.

“The department has committed to expedite work in these areas, and will continue to make public our work plans to complete this work,” the statement said.

On the legislative front, in addition to rebuilding depleted stocks, the department says Bill C-68 is intended to promote the restoration of degraded habitat.

Rangeley said the investments are welcome, but they need to continue, along with a sense of urgency.

“We think there’s a huge opportunity to have more diverse fisheries and more value from it.
“I know there’s better science and better management that can be done to get our critical stocks on the path of rebuilding; it’s been proven in other jurisdictions. We know how to do this, the federal government knows how to do this.”
​
Investing in the ocean is justifiable, he added. “It’s just so valuable to the health of the planet. As the country with the longest coastline in the world, we’ve got to look after our bit.”

iPolitics
By Charlie Pinkerton

Sustaining Canada’s waters dominates the list of responsibilities for the Trudeau government’s new Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard Jonathan Wilkinson.

The North Vancouver MP is also charged with driving innovation in Canada’s fishing and aquaculture economy and upgrading the Coast Guard fleet.

“With the world’s longest coastline, Canada must have a world-leading plan to protect it and marine species at risk,” says the minister’s new mandate letter.

The minster is directed to implement and develop the Oceans Protection Plan, advance Bill C-68 – the reform of the Fisheries Act, which aims to restore lost protections, to achieve the government’s goal of protecting 10 per cent of its marine and coastal areas by 2020, protect Canada’s fresh water, restore salmon stocks in the Fraser River, create a healthy future for Pacific salmon by  2019 the International Year of the Salmon and to formalize the moratorium on crude oil tanker traffic on British Columbia’s North Coast.

Trudeau asks Wilkinson to “include initiatives that create and sustain good middle class jobs, leverage new technologies, and ensure the long-term sustainability of Canada’s oceans economy.”

As for outfitting Canada’s Coast Guard, Wilkinson is asked to work with the Minister of Procurement to ensure Canada’s waters are safely navigable. The Coast Guard is to also maintain shipping routes, defend Canadian sovereignty and support exploration. Canada’s Coast Guard has several procurements underway in a range of different stages. The largest of these is a new $1.3 billion Polar Icebreaker, for which the government plans to award a contract in 2021. It will be built in Vancouver and will be Canada’s largest icebreaker and one of the most powerful in the world, according to the government’s plan.

Wilkinson was appointed to the position last month as part of the prime minister’s cabinet shuffle.
​
Dominic LeBlanc held the role before his move to Intergovernmental Affairs and Northern Development. LeBlanc’s move from the file came after the so-called ClamScam controversy, in which a lucrative surf clam licence was awarded to a company with ties to several Liberal MPs including LeBlanc himself. The department has cancelled the licence.

iPolitics
By Holly Lake

For the first time since the Fisheries Act was created in 1868, there are provisions within it that focus on the rebuilding of fish stocks. But as they’re currently worded, they fall short of what international experience has shown is required to actually help a stock rebuild.

Simply, they must mandate that the federal government respond, not just consider responding.
That was the word from Josh Laughren, executive director of Oceana Canada, at the House fisheries committee earlier today. He said the language contained in Bill C-68 will also have to go further if it’s going to fulfil Canada’s international agreements and ensure this country’s laws are commensurate with other nations. 

“C-68 only requires the minister to consider whether there are some unspecified measures to rebuild stocks that, in his or her opinion are in the critical zone when making management decisions,” he said. “Let’s pause on that: consider whether there is some measure in place, once the stocks are already at or below levels which the government’s own policies explicitly state that they are never to reach.”

Laughren said some say they shouldn’t worry about this, as requirements will be set out in regulations, but he said the Act ought to provide clear guidance to those responsible for drafting the regulations and to stakeholders and rights holders on the intent of those regulations.

“What constitutes a ‘rebuilding measure’? If there are not measures to rebuild stocks, what then? And rebuild to what? To Maximum Sustainable Yield? To the Upper Reference Point? Or just back to the edge of the critical zone? In what time frame?”

He cited examples from European Union, New Zealand and Japan, where the word “shall” features prominently in the language around managing stocks. In the United States, the national standards for fishery conservation and management read: “Conservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery for the United States fishing industry.”

Further: “Any fishery management plan, with respect to any fishery, shall … contain the conservation and management measures … necessary and appropriate … to prevent overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks.

“In each case, the intent of the legislation is clear,” Laughren said. “When stocks are in trouble, governments must respond – not consider responding.”

He said the need to rebuild fisheries has never been greater. Canada’s marine fish populations have declined by 55 per cent since 1970, and according to DFO’s most recently published numbers, there are only three rebuilding plans for the 21 stocks confirmed to be in the critical zone. 

That includes Northern cod, which despite the federal moratorium put in place in 1992 that devastated communities in Newfoundland, still has no rebuilding plan. DFO continues to allow directed fishing on the stock — and others — that fall within the critical zone.

“Nonetheless management decisions have continued to allow fishing levels to steadily increase on this fragile stock giving it the dubious privilege of being the largest groundfish fishery in Atlantic Canada, while under a moratorium,” Laughren said. 

DFO’s latest cod stock survey, which was announced in March, shows that the small improvement reported in recent years is already on the decline.

“It is our view that this historical lack of priority on rebuilding, despite policy commitments to implement rebuilding plans for depleted stocks, and to reducing fishing effort on stocks in the critical zone to as little as possible, is directly attributable to the lack of legislative guidance and legal duty,” he said. “This committee has the opportunity to fix that.”

In Europe, cod stocks were as collapsed as they are here. But unlike here, they’ve recovered in the North Sea in Norway and in the Barents Sea, Laughren noted.

The difference? A legal duty to act and create rebuilding plans work — and they can make a big impact, he said. Since the United States legally required the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks, 44 stocks have been classified as rebuilt since 2000, generating on average 50 per cent more revenue than when they were overfished. That’s why Oceana Canada is calling for a legal requirement to develop rebuilding plans when stocks have fallen into the critical zone to be included in the Fisheries Act, as well as targets and timelines for rebuilding.

“Countries that have this positive legal duty to act have healthier, more stable fisheries than those that do not. Surely, that’s what we all want,” he said.

Liberal MP Ken McDonald, who represents the riding of Avalon in Newfoundland, said talk of the moratorium hits hard when you’re from the province.

“The fishery is so important, economically and socially to some 500 communities in Newfoundland alone, what do you say to those people who depend on the bit of quota they do have to be a make or break year, cod being in the critical state that it is. Do we cut it off completely? How do you balance that with the community and the survival of the stock?”

Laughren said overfishing of stocks including cod has done far more to hurt communities than any conservation has.

“These are tough decisions. The idea of developing a proper plan and setting your goals in advance actually means you need to have that discussion. It’s a tough one, but have it before, not after you reach these thresholds.”

Right now, all involved are awaiting word from Fisheries Minister Dominic LeBlanc on the fishery in the face of the 30 per cent stock decline.

“No one has any sense of where he’s going to go on it because there’s complete and utter discretion on it. There’s no plan to guide us,” he said. “Twenty-six years after the collapse and we still don’t have agreement on where we’re trying to go with the stock or at what levels we will start to allow fishing. Those are tough discussions and we ought to have them before we get to this stage.

Conservative MP Todd Doherty said over the years and with multiple Parliaments, the committee has heard promises from DFO of doing better and getting fish stocks beyond the critical level — and yet nothing ever changes.

“What is the issue we seem to have? Is it an institutional issue or strictly a management issue within DFO?”

Laughren said it’s gone on too long to be simply a management issue within the department.

“When you see the same thing happening over a generation or more, you start to look at fundamental drivers. It’s lack of guidance, it’s lack of a framework for making these decisions. And we’re all complicit,” he said.

“On stocks there are a lot of voices for them to be re-opened before they should be or for quotas to be set higher, to push the quota to the upper level of what the scientific advice is. Those voices come from outside the department too.”

That’s not to say there haven’t been success stories. He pointed to the bounce back of halibut.
​
“When you take the pressure off stocks and let them recover, in almost all cases, they do,” Laughren said. “Give them the time and let nature take its course.”