In this case, how many more times do we have to read about studies that seafood in a given region is mislabeled before we do something meaningful to solve the problem?

In the most recent exposé, a study by marine conservation group Oceana revealed that in New York, three in five retail outlets it visited, including 100 percent of sushi restaurants, were selling mislabeled fish. Pile that on top of recent studies showing high rates of mislabeled fish (48% in Massachusetts, 55% in Los Angeles and 31% in Miami), and we’ve got a systemic problem.

So the question is why?

The obvious reason is greed. If you can sell cheap farm-raised Atlantic salmon at the price of more expensive wild-caught Pacific salmon, you’re going to make a tidy profit over time. Same goes for tilapia (a fish often farm raised in unsanitary conditions) and red snapper. And if you see something called “white tuna” on a sushi menu, run the opposite direction. It is often escolar, a bottom-feeding white-fleshed fish that can leave your gastrointestinal system upside down.

Oceana studied the DNA of 142 fish samples earlier this year from 81 retail outlets, ranging from supermarkets to corner fish shops, high-end restaurants, and sushi bars. No less than 39 percent of the fish were labeled as other species. In one finding, tilefish (which the Food And Drug Administration has put on the Do Not Eat List because of high mercury levels) was sold as halibut.

Granted, some fish species are so similar in their filleted appearance that distributors might mistake them. More often, the deception is willful.

So does it happen at the distributor or retail level? Probably both, as both would profit from the bait and switch. Is it traceable? Sure, all you’d need is a menu or list of today’s catch, the supplier invoice and a DNA sample. If the sample doesn’t match what’s on the menu, you know it’s the retail outlet. If it matches the menu, but not the invoice, you know it’s the supplier.

But detection isn’t the real challenge. The real problem is how to address a systemic fraud that is spreading nationally. Different rating schemas such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and FishWise aim to provide a “third-party” evaluation of the sustainability and sourcing of the seafood consumers buy. But there are flaws in these approaches, and a more comprehensive solution is necessary.

Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey sponsored a bill this summer that would call for improved traceability of seafood and communication of that information to consumers. The bill would also establish better coordination between the Food and Drug Administration and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to better monitor the sourcing and practices used for imported and domestic seafood. This would include stronger regulation of the substances and methods used in aquaculture operations. The bill is in committee, and hopefully will move forward.

As always, knowledge is power. From a consumer standpoint, asking direct questions about where the seafood comes from, how it was raised or harvested, when it was caught, etc. is crucial. Also, ask your fishmonger or waiter if the seafood supplier is a member of the Better Seafood Board. A subsidiary of the National Fisheries Institute, the board was established in 2007 to self-police the industry against mislabeling, shorting of counts and weights and tariff evasion.

There is no absolute answer now, but a groundswell of consumer expectations fueled by education and coupled with legislative action could help minimize seafood mislabeling.

Here’s hoping.

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

We saw several crustaceans, a plethora of brightly painted reef fish darting around the coral and one small moray eel peering out of a hole. Miles upon miles of coral along the north shore serve as the base layer of an ecosystem bracketed by microscopic zooplankton all the way up to apex predators like reef sharks and monk seals.

Sadly, this beautiful ecosystem faces a menacing threat. A mysterious, fast-moving cyanobacteria has begun killing the coral in the past few months. Scientists are scrambling to figure out the cause, and many locals are pointing fingers at the recent development boom up the Hanalei River.

Terry Lilley is a marine biologist in Hanalei who has sounded the alarm, calling in marine biologists and microbiologists from the University of Hawaii, and the head of infectious diseases at the United States Geological Survey. Together, they have taken many coral and toxicology samples to determine why this strain of white coral disease has cropped up.

“I have documented the entire north shore of Kauai and have found the reefs infected everywhere,” said Lilley. “Some reefs have up to 40% of the corals infected and some only 5%. The problem is that it is spreading quickly.”

In fact, Dr. Thierry Work, the head of the Infectious Diseases Department at USGS wrote in a recent report “… this outbreak would have to qualify as an epidemic. This is the first time a cyanobacterial/fungal disease on this scale has been documented in Hawaiian corals.”

A team of marine biologists from the University of Hawaii recently applied a marine epoxy with an anti-bacterial resin as a barrier between a small sample of diseased and non-diseased coral – much like a fire break. Early results showed untreated coral succumbed to the cyanobacteria at a rate of 7-10 inches in 26 days. In the same time period, the treated coral either had no infection or a reduced rate of infection of 1-4 inches infected.

“The problem is that there are hundreds of thousands of infected corals now blanketing 30 miles or rugged coastline,” said Lilley. “No one could ever treat all the corals. It is too late for a cure for Kauai but we may find a cure to stop it in other places.”

That’s a grim forecast.

I spoke to Rob Arita, a fishing guide on the north shore. He said he has seen the number of consistent bonefish on the Anini flats near the mouth of the Hanalei River decline somewhat in the past few years. You can still catch a trophy, but they aren’t there every day during the season like they used to be.

“It could be from overpopulation and overdevelopment. There’s a lot going on here,” he said. He mentioned the taro paddies (similar to those used for rice) that flood in heavy rains and leach out whatever has been used to fertilize them.

Hopefully, Lilley and the other scientists can soon discover the source of the disease and what makes the coral so susceptible to the cyanobacteria. If it is indeed a result of overdevelopment, it will be one more sad reminder of man’s ability to upset Nature’s delicate balance.

My wife and I someday hope to take our daughter to Kauai, so that she too can experience the closest thing we’ve seen to paradise. We hope there’s still time for her to see the ecosystems at the Tunnels, Ke’e or Anini.

For updated information, check out Lilley’s blog.

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

British inventor and multiple award recipient Dan Watson has developed a trawl net that allows non-targeted fish to escape. There have been several developments in the past few years, but his innovation stands out.

The SafetyNet uses hard plastic rings that are illuminated, showing smaller, non-targeted species how to exit. A turbine system built into the rings uses water flow to power the lights. Fish often can’t even see the netting. The rings hold their shape unlike standard mesh configurations, which contract when the net is dragged, making it harder for non-targeted species to escape.

There is also a panel that separates the net into a top and bottom half, capitalizing on targeted and non-targeted species’ stress patterns. For example, cod, which are listed as overfished and/or threatened globally, tend to swim down when stressed, while marketable whiting and haddock tend to swim up. All three species often inhabit the same ecosystem. When encircled by a SafetyNet, the cod swim down where they can escape, while the targeted haddock and whiting swim up and stay in the net. Juveniles escape through the rings.

Equally important, the net cruises about a meter off the ocean floor. Most trawlers use heavy bars or gates that drag the bottom in a wide swath (up to 100 feet), tearing up fragile ecosystems that may never fully recover.  The SafetyNet uses two or three low-profile counterweights that keep the net running low to the bottom, without the standard trawl’s path of destruction.

For his achievement, Watson has won multiple accolades, including the James Dyson Award, for which he received £10,000 (slightly more than $16,000). He has used that money toward growing his company, SafetyNet Technologies to bring the net to market. He expects to complete formal sea trials of the net in the next couple of months to pave the way for commercial availability.

Here’s hoping it delivers on its promise.

Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

Doubtless you’ve heard that old cliché before, particularly after watching blitzing bluefish tear up a ball of menhaden bolting out of the water into the beaks of diving seagulls.

Witnessing the mayhem is also a window on the delicate fabric of marine life. Forage fish such as menhaden, sardines, anchovies and herring are the primary food source for most commercially available fish species globally. Tuna, salmon, swordfish. You name it. Forage fish are also critically important to whales, seabirds, seals, penguins, etc.

Unfortunately, we’ve only recently begun to take steps to better understand just how fragile this equation is and the absolute need to better manage forage fish stocks. Nearly 90% of the global forage fish harvest goes toward livestock feed and fish food to support the massive aquaculture operations around the world. Humans consume the remaining 10%.

A global study by the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force last spring states that forage fish are nearly twice as valuable as food for larger commercial predators than as harvest for fishmeal. A team of 13 scientists with disparate expertise determined that forage fish, which account for 37% of global commercial fish harvest, have a direct commercial value of $5.6 billion annually.

However, these scientists conservatively hypothesize that forage fish’s value as food for larger commercial species in the ocean would be $11.3 billion. And this estimate does NOT include how important forage fish are to sea birds, marine animals and other species.
Put bluntly: If we harvest forage fish to a near stock collapse, tuna, salmon, swordfish, sea bass and every other commercially important species dependent on forage fish would soon follow. Not to mention all of the other dependent species like penguins, pelicans, otters, etc. But if we allow them to swim in the ocean, they will feed the commercial species we depend on.

Or think of it another way. If we continue to harvest forage fish at these rates to support aquaculture globally, we take them away from the wild species that need them.

This month, the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) reviewed a first draft of its new Fisheries Ecosystem Plan that will evaluate the health of the forage fish population in the Pacific and determine how to manage the forage fish commercial harvest. The plan seeks to identify unfished and unmanaged forage fish species and set management goals that preserve the species but may allow some commercial take.

The PFMC has given itself a deadline of March 2013 to finalize a new Fisheries Ecosystem Plan.

On the East Coast, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has taken steps to rein in the huge menhaden harvest, lowering the limit from 183,000 metric tons to 174,000 metric tons. Menhaden are crucial to the survival of such species as striped bass, osprey and bald eagles along the Atlantic coast.

Just how significant is the commercial interest? Omega Protein, a huge Virginia-based operation that sells fish oil and fish meal products around the world, harvested 160,000 metric tons of menhaden in 2010 off the coast of Virginia. That was 80% of the total harvest in the U.S.

The commission’s Atlantic Menhaden Board is set to meet on Dec. 14 to finalize a management plan aimed at setting sustainable catch quotas. The current limit is to leave at least 8% of adult menhaden in the ocean to spawn. Fisheries managers typically state that leaving 20% of a species’ adult population adequately supports population longevity. The ASMFC may set the limit somewhere between 15% and 30%.

The commission has stated that it may reduce total catch rates for menhaden from 0% to 50% when it finalizes the management plan.

If you’d like to comment on the draft Atlantic Menhaden Fishery Management Plan, click here.

If you’d like to comment on the PFMC’s Fisheries Ecosystem Plan, click here.

Think about it the next time you see a blitz.

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

Sometimes that’s all it takes to get momentum going in one direction. Sometimes that’s all you can get to maintain momentum, particularly when resistance is steady.

Such is the progress of global tuna fisheries management.

On Nov. 19, the 48-member nations of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) voted to maintain quotas aimed at protecting the fragile rebuilding of Atlantic bluefin tuna stocks.

The commission could not ignore glaring science that shows the tuna population dropped some 60% between 1997 and 2007 due to global overfishing, lax regulation and widespread illegal activities.

And yet, commercial fishing interests claimed the science was misleading and that Atlantic tuna are actually on the rebound, so the quotas should be higher.

ICCAT voted to raise the quota modestly from 12,900 metric tons to 13,500 tons this year. That’s nearly 60% lower than the 32,000 metric ton limit of 2006.

Baby steps.

The ICCAT decision not to extend protections to mako and porbeagle sharks drew raspberries from conservation groups such as Oceana. Mako, porbeagle, hammerhead and other sharks have been increasingly targeted – not just for their meat, but also for their fins in a grim practice of cutting the fins off to let the fish drown because it can’t swim.

The commission said it would reevaluate mako and porbeagle populations next year.

No one said ICCAT’s mission was going to be easy. All too often money and influence blur the line between a regulatory body’s charter and temptation – ironically pushing threatened species closer to peril.

That the commission essentially held the line on Atlantic bluefin tuna quotas in the face of intense opposition is a positive sign that science-based fisheries management can survive special interest lobbying. That the commission did not extend special protection to makos and porbeagles is a sign that progress is slow.

Further research may prove to ICCAT that certain shark species need added protections. If so, global fisheries management bodies such as ICCAT need to take the necessary steps.

Here is some additional reading about tuna and shark populations:

http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Thunnus-thynnus.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120208103226.htm

http://oceana.org/en/our-work/protect-marine-wildlife/sharks/overview

http://www.sharkwater.com/education.htm

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

The “theory” is that if the U.S. increases oil production, the country will become more competitive globally and therefore will not have to rely on foreign oil. Gas and oil prices would go down.

Don’t worry about the environmental impact. We’ll have safeguards in place.

Really? Hunters, fishers and other outdoor enthusiasts aren’t holding their breath. Just look at the promises made by the Pebble Mine operators: to contain up to 10 billion tons of highly toxic waste in a 10-square mile area in perpetuity.

But these threats of increased oil and gas production, including dangerous and questionable operations such as fracking and oil sands recovery are not the only problem here. The logic behind the “Drill, Baby, Drill” mindset is fundamentally flawed.

There is no statistical or historical evidence to prove that increasing oil production would affect gas prices, according to an Associated Press report. That’s because the world oil market is a very complex system, and the U.S. contribution to that market is about 11 percent. A group of statistical analysts from business and academia studied Energy Department figures since 1976, and concluded that upping U.S. oil production alone, even substantially, would barely budge domestic oil prices.

Here are some of the key findings:

• Since Feb. of 2009, seasonally adjusted domestic oil production has increased 15%. Regular unleaded fuel prices jumped from $2.07 to $3.58, or nearly 73% in the same timeframe. If the “Drill here. Drill now.” theory were accurate, gas prices should have dropped.
• Seasonally adjusted domestic oil production dropped by about a third from 1986 to 1999. Inflation-adjusted gas prices stayed below $2 a gallon for most of the same time period. Again, based on the theory, they should have soared.
• Gas prices fluctuate regardless of White House political affiliation: Since 1976, Republican presidencies have seen an average monthly gas price of $2.34, adjusted for inflation. The same average prices were $2.25 during Democratic presidencies. President Obama has had the highest monthly average at $3.05, while President Clinton had the lowest at $1.68.

Christopher Knittel, a professor of energy economics at MIT, put the findings in stark terms: “There are not many markets where the United States can’t impose its will on market outcomes,” Knittel said. “This is one we can’t, and it’s hard for the average American to understand that, and it’s easy for politicians to feed off that.”

Witness former GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney, who responded to a question about what he’d suggest for lowering current gas prices: “I can cut through the baloney … and just tell him, ‘Mr. President, open up drilling in the Gulf, open up drilling in ANWR [the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge]. Open up drilling in continental shelf, drill in North Dakota, drill in Oklahoma and Texas.”’

Just because the election is over doesn’t mean these issues are going away. There remain many questions about whether we should start drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), build/expand a pipeline to move tar sands oil from Canada to Texas or start putting up more wells in the Gulf, the Midwest … much less in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

The energy industry has spent billions of dollars to convince Congress that such intrusions on natural resources dear to sportsmen and women will have little or no impact.

Can you trust energy industry “experts” and their high-powered, deep-pocketed lobbyists to safeguard fish and wildlife in the country’s most priceless spaces? Especially when it comes to flawed logic?

I can’t either.

Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

Such is the case with a blog I wrote several months ago regarding ecolabeling. The blog advocated the growing use of labels to identify species that were raised and/or harvested and distributed sustainably. The blog pointed to three programs (from a list of several), including FishWise, Friend of the Sea and Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

A few weeks after I posted the blog, I became aware of a formal objection (scroll down to “Notice of objection,” Sept. 26, 2011) filed against one of the MSC’s proposed sustainable fisheries: North West Atlantic Canada Longline Swordfish. The objection filed by non-governmental (NGOs) agencies like the David Suzuki Foundation, the Nova Scotia Ecology Action Centre, Oceana and the Sea Turtle Conservancy, called out the several issues with the certification process.

Of particular note was the high bycatch rates stemming from longlines. Non-targeted species such as a variety of sharks and sea turtles chomp down on the baited hooks – some 1,500 of them attached to a longline extending up to 35+ miles – and end up dying in the struggle to escape. Some scientists estimate that nearly two sharks die for every one swordfish caught.

The NGOs also questioned the MSC guideline calling for fisheries to pay for and name the “third-party” certification experts. In essence, can you really trust a “third party” would deny certification to a fishery that has paid $70,000 to that party for the certification?

In the end, MSC ultimately denied the NGOs’ formal petition and listed the Canadian longline swordfishery as sustainable. Ironically, MSC also deemed the Canadian harpoon swordfishery as sustainable. Harpooning eliminates the bycatch, and therefore is much more sustainable. So the process and contradiction highlights the challenges consumers still face in seeking truthful answers about where their seafood comes from.

Is the concept and progress toward effective labeling a complete bust? No, I don’t think so. If anything, it has raised more awareness about how complex a task it is to accurately track and verify seafood origins.

I still think the basic concept of labeling seafood based on sustainable fishing and distribution practices has some merit. But consumers wishing to have a true picture of the sustainability of the fisheries their seafood comes from need to do some research beyond simply spotting a familiar label.

I applaud MSC and other programs whose efforts have elevated consumer awareness of sustainability issues. I hope that awareness raises more questions and eventually steers these certification programs toward a more credible and up front system for labeling seafood.

For now, ask direct questions at your seafood store. Hop online to see if local fishermen incorporate sustainable fishing practices. And check out some tips on the GreenFish Sustainable Seafood page.

Here is some additional reading:

Ecolabel Index

Halifax Media Co-op

Wikipedia

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

My friend did well, letting the fish run and bearing down on him with a little coaching. He got the fish in close and the captain and I estimated its weight at 10 pounds or more. As I reached for the leader to land the fish, a six-foot brown flash bolted from under the boat and engulfed the fish.

“WHAT DO I DO? WHAT DO I DO?” my friend shouted, as the rod doubled over and the reel screamed.

“Hold on to the damn rod!” I said.

Game over in five seconds.

Seal:1  Bluefish:0.

It took a few moments to process what had just happened. The next fish we hooked came in as just the head. It was once a very large bluefish.

Every now and then, Nature reminds us of the order of things. It’s up to us to see the signs and interpret them.

Seals have populated the Northeast coast from Canada down through New England for millenia, with some rookeries recently cropping up as far south as New Jersey. In the early 1900s, they were hunted to near extinction because fishermen viewed them as pests that could wipe out their livelihoods. The 1972 Marine Mammal Protection Act made them federally protected, and set them on a course for massive recovery.

Now the populations of harbor and gray seals (larger, more aggressive animals and the likely culprit above) have grown to the point where fishermen are again complaining about seal interactions. Lobstermen say seals break into traps to steal bait, commercial fishermen say they tear up nets chasing fish, and charter boat captains and fishing guides say they wipe out entire schools of target species. Just ask a guide up in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia or Newfoundland what he thinks about seal impact on schools of salmon.

So what is Nature’s real order here? Seals have few natural predators: great white sharks and Greenland sharks. And then there is man.

Canada has become the battleground over sanctioned seal hunts, and vivid images of bloodied baby seals have been the knife’s edge of the anti-seal hunt campaign. While Canada is one of six countries that allow seal hunts, it is by far the largest. Those who annually chase seals say it is their livelihood, selling them for meat and for the pelts used in the fashion industry. Many fishermen see it as a form of pest control. Commercial interests have become involved and now represent the vast majority of license holders pursuing seals.

So it is a question of ethics and economics, which historically mix like oil and water. There will likely never be one solution that appeases everyone. Too many diametrically opposed opinions.

Personally, I’m not in favor of the hunt as it is now. The scale and methods seem extreme to me. That said, I’m not in favor of changing the way of life of the aboriginals whose descendants have relied on seals for food and warmth for thousands of years. Get the commercial aspect out of the equation. Greed should not be the primary reason for killing seals any more than it should be in killing deer, moose, carabou or whales.

For if greed does become the predominant motive, what does that say about man’s influence on the natural order of things? Where do we draw the line?

Here is some reading on both sides of the issue:

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

International Fund for Animal Welfare

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

How anyone running for office finds time to perform some of the functions they were elected to perform is beyond me. What with the posturing, glad-handing and money spending, it’s a wonder they can think straight.

Oh wait …

So I took note of the latest move to protect billfish that passed the senate on Sept. 22 and is now on President Obama’s desk. In short, HR 2706 would ban the commercial harvest and sail of Pacific billfish in the U.S. except for traditional fisheries in Hawaii and the Pacific Insular area (Guam, American Samoa, Midway, etc.). The Billfish Conservation Act of 2012 would complement previous legislation that prohibits harvest and sale of Atlantic billfish.

So what’s the upshot? The U.S. is currently the world’s largest importer of billfish, including sailfish, marlin and spearfish. Banning harvest and sale of these species in the Pacific U.S. would reduce demand, and hopefully, the harvest of a critical apex predator and sought-after sportfish.

So at a time when bi-partisanship seems increasingly fleeting, overwhelming passage of this bill in both the House and Senate underscores its far-reaching importance.

If you’d like to vocalize support for this measure as it awaits Presidential review, click here. If you’d like to read more, check out the International Gamefish Association IGFA website.

The backdoor maneuvering and scheming is mind boggling. Passing a budget has enough intrigue to fill several Robert Ludlum novels.

This year is no exception as Republicans and Democrats wage all-out war to get pet projects paid for in special riders attached to different bills while cutting funding for more vital programs in the name of fiscal conservatism.

And so the U.S. House Appropriations Committee version of the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill for 2013 proposes many cuts that could dramatically affect sportsmen across the country. And not in a good way.

Here are some of the basics:

• 17% cut in the federal EPA budget, cutting deep into several critical programs.
• 80% cut in the fund used to purchase land, water and wetlands for public use. This fund comes from EPA fees charged to offshore drilling companies so federal, state and local governments can make vital lands publicly available.
• 21% cut in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service funding.
• 10% reduction in the National Wildlife Refuge System.
• $13 million reduction in American Wetlands Conservation Act

Sure, EPA is a big, sprawling federal agency. But, it is the agency that manages and administers several key programs that safeguard the lands and waters sportsmen care most about. Chief among its responsibilities is enforcing the Clean Water Act, which may be the last administrative defense against the proposed Pebble Mine in Bristol Bay, Alaska.

Cutting U.S. Fish and Wildlife funding directly affects the number of conservation officers working to eliminate illegal hunting and fishing practices. There were also last-minute amendments attached to the bill that cut EPA funding for some regulatory oversight of certain mining and electric utilities regarding environmental impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions.

The House Appropriations Committee essentially voted along party lines to agree on these cuts and move the bill out of committee. Next, the entire House of Representatives will consider the bill. If it passes the House, it will go to the Senate, and if it passes the Senate, it will go to the President’s desk.

There is no question that politics is the third rail. You see people post about it on Facebook and almost immediately, they get blown up by a “friend.” No matter your political stripe, it’s important to stay informed about issues that affect you directly.

If you care about the waters you fish or the lands you hunt, you might want to dig in a bit to see what is happening in D.C. and make your own decision about whether you support the legislation or not. If not, let your elected officials know.  Silence does nothing to help sway someone else’s opinion.

Here is some background information:

House Appropriations Committee Website

Congressional Research Service Report: Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations

Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

You know the fish are circling slowly in a pocket above a big sunken rock, facing upstream. You spotted them from up on the bank, before quietly walking up the shoreline and setting up for the cast.

Just as you pull the line off your reel, a rainbow trout bolts out of the water chasing an insect that just hatched. Low-hanging branches on both sides and a small pool means nailing the first cast is everything. You make an accurate back cast and get the drift right. Slight mend … wait … wait…

Summertime stream fishing is the stuff of lifelong memories. It’s how many of us learned to fish, whether with bait, lures or flies. Sure, size matters, but it’s an afterthought when you eventually learn to accept what nature has to offer just by standing in the stream and letting your senses take over.

As atmospheric temperatures rise, so does water temperature. This triggers several ecosystem changes in the stream. Bugs begin to hatch down at the bottom and rise through the water column. The goal is to get to the surface, spread their wings and take off … if they’re lucky. Trout, smallmouth bass and other species love to eat the nymph stage of the bug before it gets to the surface. And once the bug, like a mayfly for example, gets to the surface, it starts to splash around to try and take off.

Talk about ringing the dinner bell.

A full-on bug hatch is quite a spectacle, sometimes with the effect of dozens (if not hundreds) of fish popping the water’s surface for anywhere from a few minutes to an hour or so.

Summertime is also when fish and game departments in many states urge fishermen to play fish quickly and efficiently if they plan to release them. As water temperatures rise, the amount of dissolved oxygen available to the fish is lower, meaning that fish get exhausted more easily and may have a harder time recovering. This is true in salt as well as fresh water.

So if you plan to release a fish when the water is warmer, play it quickly, do your best to keep it in the water while de-hooking it, and wet your hands if you have to handle it. If the fight drags on and you release the fish, it could die shortly from over-exhaustion because it didn’t recover fast enough (i.e., get enough oxygen to its vital organs). Similarly, a saltwater species like a striper caught near shore that has fought a long battle may not have enough stamina to escape sharks and other predators soon after the fight.

If you think a fish is close to playing itself out, consider either keeping it (if it’s legal sized) or cutting it loose as close to the hook as possible.

Summertime is a great time to be on the water. If you’re practicing catch and release, think about how the environmental factors play a role in fish survival. If the temperatures are higher, either play the fish quickly and release it without taking it out of the water, or choose another spot with a better temperature range.

Take a look at some additional information and resources on the GreenFish Playing the Fish and Catch and Release web pages.

Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

The theory is that customers assume some of the financial risk by buying a share of the farm’s total seasonal output before the season begins. Each week during the season, the customers get boxes or bags of produce, dairy, meat, etc. as the return on their investment. This keeps the farmers liquid during the lean winter months and helps them better prepare for the season ahead. It gives customers a guaranteed percentage of the farm’s yield each week. More importantly, it strengthens the fabric between farmers and their communities.

Community-supported fisheries (CSFs) deliver the same promise. Launched in 2007 as a pilot project in Port Clyde, Maine, Port Clyde Fresh Catch has served as the blueprint for successful CSFs from New England to Alaska. The CSF began by offering the sweet Maine winter shrimp harvest in shares to locals, but has since expanded its repertoire.

The beauty of CSFs is that the fare is strictly local. It’s whatever the fishermen are harvesting during the season. For example, the Cape Ann Fresh Catch CSF north of Boston will offer a variety of groundfish from the Gulf of Maine, including: yellowtail flounder, hake, dabs, pollock, haddock, grey sole, cod, redfish/ocean perch. What shows up in the weekly or bi-weekly pickup “on any given day is up to Mother Nature,” as the website says. Like many CSFs, the one in Cape Ann offers customers the option of getting whole fish or fillets along with recipes and tips on cleaning/filleting the fish.

Maintaining sustainable fisheries hinges on buying local. Not only are you supporting the fishermen in your community, you’re buying seafood that is fresher, and delivered with a much smaller carbon footprint than say, farmed shrimp from Thailand.

Sustainability also depends on the methods used to catch the fish. So if that matters to you, don’t be afraid to ask questions. Do the CSF fishermen use longlines that increase bycatch or ground trawls that tear up the ocean bottom? Have you read anything about any of the fishermen getting pinched for violating state of federal regulations? Check out the GreenFish Sustainability page for some resources on what constitutes sustainable commercial fishing methods.

The Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance has a helpful list of some CSFs on both coasts. If you’ve got one near you, visit the website, talk to the fishermen, and perhaps others who have bought shares before. You may get hooked up!

Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

Thankfully, you’re sporting felt-sole boots. They give traction where you once dared not go without a stick.

Naturally, Nature has a funny sense of humor. Turns out those lifesaving pieces of felt not only enable sure footing, but they may also provide an excellent vehicle for transporting unwanted hitchhikers. Their fibrous environment allows moisture to stick around for a while – as in weeks, unless cleaned and dried over a long period of time – allowing nasty things like didymo (rock snot), whirling disease and zebra mussels to hitch a ride and survive.

The fly fishing community has been aware of rock snot since it first started showing up in New Zealand in the early 2000s. What was strange is that this form of algae, which was historically endemic to northern climates such as North America, northern Europe and Asia. The problem? Rock snot covers river bottoms in a thick, mucky carpet that prevents some trout species from attaching their egg sacs to protective gravel beds. Additionally, it stops some insects like caddisflies, which are critical trout food, from breeding in the same area.

As didymo spread, the fishing community and state authorities began to react. Trout Unlimited called for a ban on felt soles in Sept. of 2008, and manufacturers like Simms responded. Some states, like Alaska, Maryland, Rhode Island and Vermont have already passed legislation banning felt soles (mostly in freshwater bodies). Other states have legislation in progress.

Reaction from anglers to the bans has unsurprisingly spanned the gamut from outrage at the loss of good traction and the expense of buying new to support for taking steps to safeguard fisheries.

Unfortunately, the scientific evidence linking felt soles as the primary vector for invasive species transport is somewhat murky as well. Rhode Island repealed the ban on felt sole use in saltwater, and biologists in other states are cautious about calling for bans before more conclusive research occurs. Some say there are myriad ways that rock snot, whirling disease and the like can hitch a ride, including water fowl and animals. They also suggest invasive species can stick around on other fishing gear as well, if not properly cleaned.

So what’s the solution? Get informed and be prepared. Find out whether your state has any felt sole bans in place. Use the web or your local tackle shop to stay current on the latest information about invasive species. Most importantly, take the time and care to thoroughly clean and dry your gear after use and before heading to new waters.

Here is some helpful information:

The Invasive Species Action Network

Clean Angler tips

USDA Library

photos

You can also check out the alternatives to felt soles that some manufacturers have: out Simms, Patagonia, Hodgman, Orvis and L.L. Bean.

In the end, it’s important for us as anglers to take more responsibility for stewardship of the waters we fish.

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

Whew! That’s a relief. And here many of us were worried about marine life, seafood and the fishing industry long term.

But then again, what should we make of a recent report from the Associated Press that suggests things are far from a state of grandeur? A recent Atlanta Journal Constitution article notes that the AP analysis of 2011 fishing data (the first full year since the 2010 spill) shows a dramatic drop in prime seafood catch numbers.

Here’s the gist:

• The fall shrimp season dropped from an average of 18.1 million pounds to 11.1 million pounds in Louisiana’s Barataria estuary, one of the hardest hit shorelines.
• The blue crab catch in the same area dropped from an average of 9.5 million pounds to 6.8 million pounds.
• Mississippi’s shrimpers reported a 13 percent drop in catch volume, and the state’s crabbers said their harvest was down 52 percent.
•  Alabama’s oyster haul was down 50 percent.

It’s still too early to tell definitively how much, if it all, the oil spill directly contributed to these poor fishing reports. Indeed, fishermen are making close to the same amount of money on their catch as before the storm. But that likely stems from the fact that prices are so high due to the reduced availability of the seafood. For the most part, Gulf fishermen don’t seem to be too happy about the significant drop-off and future prospects.

Then there are the recent reports of weird and scary marine wildlife anomalies. Shrimp with no eyes and tumors poking out of their exoskeletons have shown up in trawl nets. Dolphins have washed up dead on Gulf of Mexico beaches more than eight times the normal rate with a variety of abnormal conditions. While some researchers think the oil is to blame, actually proving that is very challenging.

This quote from the article speaks volumes: “Recent studies have found higher numbers of sick fish close to where BP’s well blew out and genome studies of bait fish in Barataria have identified abnormalities. Meanwhile, vast areas of the cold and dark Gulf seafloor are oiled, scientists say.”

So what are we to make of BP’s rosy picture? At best it’s a thinly veiled attempt to see the glass as half full. At worst, it’s greenwashing to the nth degree aimed at adjusting public opinion to make sure we keep buying its gas and support continued, environmentally dangerous deepwater drilling.

Even local politicians are drinking the Kool-Aid^®. Republican U.S. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana posted this gem in a press release on his website: “The good news is that I don’t think anyone would have predicted that the Gulf would have rebounded to where it is today. That goes for our tourism industry, which is thriving, and of course our Gulf seafood, which is as safe and delicious as ever.”

I grew up fishing the bayous around Chef Menteur and Lake Borgne in a 12-foot wooden skiff with my dad. I have fond memories of putting a few speckled trout, flounder or redfish in the live well over the years. So I have a keen interest in what’s going on in my old home waters. I feel for the commercial fishermen and the seafood shops and restaurants fighting to get back on track.

In the end, the criminal trials of low-level BP officials along with the $20 billion compensation package to fishermen (many of whom have not yet been able to collect) will have little effect on the timeframe for the Gulf’s recovery. They will have little effect on the near-term future of the marine ecosystems trying to bounce back. And they will have little effect on the catch rates and diseased seafood fishermen are reporting.

Nor will the multi-million-dollar ad campaign to sugar coat the bumpy recovery affect the lives of those who depend on the resource the most.

I’m not buying it.

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

If you are sick of hearing about it, now is the time to stand up and do something. For years, inspired by films such as Red Gold and increasing articles in media, anglers around the country have asked what they can do to help protect Bristol Bay from the likes of Pebble Mine. The answer has generally been as anticlimactic as “sign up for info,” or “sign this generic letter to your elected officials.”

Well, the tide has changed.

Two weeks ago, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a document assessing the risks to Bristol Bay posed by the colossal Pebble Mine. Their findings are not all that surprising when you consider the mine’s potential magnitude. In short, even at small scales and without some major failure, Pebble will significantly impact water flow, cause major habitat reduction, and potentially expose fish populations to acid mine drainage or metals leaching into the water.

Along with some elected Alaska officials, the Pebble Partnership repeatedly insists we should rush to judge the project until we see an official plan. But the EPA watershed assessment makes it quite clear that there are only so many ways to skin this particular game. From the mining company’s own records, we know where the deposit is; we know what the geochemical makeup of the deposit is (i.e., whether it will cause acid mine drainage – Yes!); and more. In short, we know enough to make an educated decision.

We have a good understanding of the watershed’s current state. Even Pebble’s own data reveals that this is a complex hydrologic system with significant ground to surface water flows, groundwater that spawning and rearing salmon depend upon, and cold, clean water with little ability to buffer against potential metals or acid leaching from the mining process.

More importantly we know that that the deposit is located smack in the middle of crucial headwaters habitat necessary for sustaining the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery, as well as resident populations of legendary sized rainbows.

Pebble’s preliminary reports also show that this would be, if built to full capacity, North America’s largest open pit mine with tailings facilities and water treatment facilities needing permanent management. Let me repeat – forever.

With that in mind, EPA’s Watershed Assessment states that the mine’s waste and facilities will need to last well beyond any historical reality we can fathom. Mines outlast states and governments. They outlast us all. That is troubling in the context of a fishery that has provided for Alaska natives for more generations than most of us can grasp.

In sum, the Watershed Assessment lays out what we all reasonably expect: Pebble Mine will have unacceptable adverse risks to one of the world’s largest and most diverse coldwater fisheries.

Alaskans don’t generally care much for federal intrusion. But it is important in this case to remember a few things. Polling shows that over 50% of the state opposes the mine. Locally, 80% of the Bristol Bay region opposes Pebble. Let’s be clear, then, the work of EPA is by invitation.

In May of 2010, a broad cross-section of disparate groups formally asked the EPA to use its authority under the Clean Water Act to protect Bristol Bay from unacceptable adverse impacts potentially caused by large scale mines like Pebble. These groups included: eight tribes of the region, Bristol Bay Native Association, Bristol Bay Native Corporation, every Alaska commercial fishing organization, sportfishing organizations and industry leaders, as well as a growing list of other interests.

The Watershed Assessment is the first step in the collaborative work to protect Bristol Bay. This week, EPA begins a series of hearings – from Seattle and Anchorage to communities in Bristol Bay – on the matter. If you can attend those meetings, please do so. Show your visual support for EPA and testify if you can.

More importantly, no matter where you are in the country, you can lend your voice to the fight. It doesn’t matter if you’ve never fished there or if you are a scientist or not. Please go to Save Bristol Bay website and send a letter to the EPA during the public comment period. Doing so, you will add your voice to the reasonable request that Bristol Bay be protected for future generations of Alaska Natives, commercial fishermen, sport anglers, and any others who value clean water and wild salmon.

Samuel Snyder, PhD

Alaska Conservation Foundation

Director Bristol Bay Watershed and Fisheries Protection Campaign

GreenFish Ambassador

In the latest development seemingly from the realm of Jules Verne, a robotic fish that is autonomous and pretty smart is patrolling the waters of the Spanish port of Gijon looking for pollution during a pilot project.

The fish is the product of SHOAL, a pan-European private-public collaboration aimed at early detection and remediation of pollution in regional ports and coastal waters. Traditional pollution monitoring depends on human divers taking a variety of samples and bringing them back to a lab for assimilation and analysis – a process that typically takes weeks.

The fish accomplishes this task in seconds, relying on a complex array of chemical censors, artificial intelligence (AI), hydrodynamics, and an Underwater Adhoc Mobile Network (UMANet). The chemical sensors can detect and report pollution, such as lead, copper and phenols to monitors on land.

Scientists have developed AI that allows the fish to swim independently, maneuver around obstacles, and generally navigate challenging sub-surface environments such as busy ports without getting caught up. If someone pulls the fish out of the water, it would automatically send an alert to port monitors that something is wrong.

What is particularly interesting about this project is that multiple robofish are designed to work in a swarm. They can communicate with each other using the UMANet technology to collaborate to quickly pinpoint the source of a pollution reading and instantly relay that information to port authorities. That can mean the difference of hundreds of thousands of dollars and countless man-hours of cleaning up a mess that could have been stopped within hours of initial detection.

According to a SHOAL press release:

The fish can map where it is, where it needs to go, what samples it has taken and where from and what the chemical composition of the samples are, as well as communicating all of this back through shallow water to a base station, the other fish and the user interface.

That is a significant development. The fish’s physical design doesn’t just help it blend into the environment (sort of), it helps it be more maneuverable than standard remotely operated vehicles (ROVs), taking advantage of a fish’s naturally hydrodynamic design. Another cool feature is that the fish automatically knows when it’s battery life is almost up, swims back to a recharging station on its own and charges up for its next patrol. Their range is one kilometer from the sonar buoys that help them identify where they are, and their maximum depth is 30 meters.

Here are some other specs:

1. Each fish is about 24 inches high by 60 inches long with a 14 inches wide.
2. It weighs just over 77 pounds.
3. It can detect three chemical groups and three water quality measures.

Project managers also hope to extend the fish’s capabilities to include other missions such as search and rescue, helping divers, and port security.

The fish is still in the testing phase, and SHOAL projects the fish cost to be a little more than $31,000. Project managers anticipate the cost will come down as demand increases. So don’t expect to see one anytime real soon.

But if you do, you might take comfort in knowing this robofish is on duty.

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

Remember back in the early 90s when the “dolphin-safe” labeling on canned tuna was a big deal? Dolphin were getting killed as bycatch in the purse seines used to encircle big schools of tuna.

The labeling began after a 1990 U.S. law passed that required tuna products to be labeled “dolphin safe” based on how the tuna was caught. In essence, operations that used purse seine methods would not have the label, and therefore, were not as attractive to many shoppers.

Over the next two decades, Mexico sourced canned tuna was largely getting shut out of lucrative U.S. markets because it came largely from purse seining. Mexico complained in 2008 to the WTO as the arbiter in such international trade agreements. A WTO dispute panel ruled that the U.S. law did not unfairly discriminate against Mexico tuna products.

Mexico appealed and the WTO appeals panel came down on Mexico’s side on May 16, saying the U.S. law is in fact discriminatory. The panel ruled that using purse seines is no more harmful to dolphin than other tuna fishing practices deemed dolphin-safe in other areas of the ocean.

So what does this all mean?

Short term, it means that barring some last-minute legal maneuvering, it won’t be long before canned tuna from Mexico will enjoy the same open market freedom as U.S. canned tuna since the Mexican product will have the “dolphin-safe” label.

The darker, more troubling conclusion is what it means for global management of marine resources. The Mexico tuna industry might have won broader entry into a vital revenue market, and the cost of canned tuna may come down a bit with more competition.

But the end result is that politics and money won, and the resource, particularly dolphin, lost. If U.S. law has holes in it, i.e., unclear delineation of what dolphin-safe tuna fishing practices constitute, then we as a nation need to fix it. If the end game is greed at the expense of ocean resources, as this case suggests, I worry about where this all ends.

How will sovereign nations effectively protect their marine resources if international trade agreements and restrictions are rendered unenforceable? This issue is not about nationalist pride. It’s about thinking globally. How do we make sure fisheries around the world are sustainable? At the same time, how do we make sure they are equitably available to all? How do we make sure local, artisan fishermen off the coast of Africa have necessary access to local species without having to compete with giant trawlers registered 2,000 miles away?

Collectively, we damn well better figure out some workable answers soon. If not, global fish stocks will end up being traded like financial stocks, with nebulous regulation and only those with deep pockets “owning” the resource.

Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

Parliament to debate ban on manufacture and sale of ale

Fortunately, the latter is pure fiction, and ghastly fiction at that. The former has a kernel of truth.

The man who would be king spoke at the World Fisheries Congress in Scotland this week about the need to find more ways to discover and/or maintain sustainable fisheries globally.

The fish and chips comment was meant to hit home. “Fish and chips are a part of British culture, one of our iconic national dishes. … The simple fact is that fish and chip shops rely on there being plenty more fish in the sea, and that is only going to be the case if we take care of fish stocks now and plan for them to be there long into the future,” he said.

The Prince has taken a keen interest in sustainable fisheries, having launched the International Sustainability Unit (ISU) earlier this year. The unit’s primary charter is to use collective science-based research and global thinking to address environmental challenges around the world. One of the unit’s key goals is to find sustainable approaches to marine fisheries, so that stocks stay healthy, fishermen stay in business and the public can share in the resource.

Highlighting the critical importance of creating sustainable fisheries, the Prince echoed the World Bank’s belief that properly managed fisheries could generate $150 billion per year more than they currently do.

It is important for high-profile personalities to help raise the visibility of marine stewardship and the challenges we face globally. It’s equally important that these personalities back up what they say.

While the fish and chips remark might come off as a softball media pitch from someone occasionally labeled as “detached royalty,” he personalized it, talking about finding an escape as a student in Scotland in a nearby fish and chips shop. The ISU is a charity he launched as part of the Prince’s Charities, and he’s actively promoting the issue and raising money.

Someone with his visibility taking a stance on global sustainable fisheries is going to raise awareness. In turn, that will spark more financial and intellectual investment in finding solutions … regardless of whether we agree with his politics.

So far, he’s backing it up.

Let’s hope that he continues the dialogue, that people continue to respond, and … for the good of a nation … that fish and chips stays on the menu.

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

Enter the Pebble Mine.

Photo by Barry and Cathy Beck

The Pebble Mine proposed for the Bristol Bay area of Alaska has become a lightning rod of contentious debate between those who see dollar signs from gold, copper and other precious metals and those who see a gem of nature in peril. The Pebble Limited Partnership is a consortium featuring London-based Anglo American and Canada-based Northern Dynasty.

Ever since the mine was proposed several years ago, it has become a symbol of paradoxes. For example, state officials largely support the project, which could potentially unearth $300 billion in precious metals according to Pebble Mine officials. But many area residents most closely affected by the mine, including native tribes who make their living off of fishing, oppose the mine because of the potential devastating impacts on the fish and their ecosystems. The Bristol Bay watershed is widely viewed as one of the world’s most valuable wild sockeye salmon fisheries supporting a commercial and sport fishery worth $500 million.

Photo by Ben Knight

The scale of the project is enormous. It would be one of the largest mining operations ever gouged in the earth, spreading over a 54-square-mile area located in the headwaters of the Kvichak and Nushagak Rivers, two of the eight major rivers that feed Bristol Bay.

Here’s the scary part. Because of the mind-boggling amount of waste such an operation would generate, the developers propose building the world’s largest earthen dam (700 feet high) at the head of a containment pond measuring up to 10 square miles. That pond would “hold” a nasty mix of toxic waste (projected between 2.5 and 10 billion tons over the life of the mine) including sulfides that would require treatment “in perpetuity.” How long will that promise hold?

Worse still, the mine operators discount any threat of a major earthquake or the impact on the integrity of the containment pond, despite serious questions from geologists and seismologists. Consider that in 1964, a massive 9.2 scale quake rocked Anchorage. Any kind of seepage of ore wastes could be devastating. Not to mention the tremendous impact on the ecosystem of drawing 35 billion gallons of water a year from the North and South Fork Koktuli for the mine’s operations.

The project is still in the planning stages and several lawsuits have already been filed and escalated. The next significant step is the anticipated federal Environmental Protection Agency watershed assessment draft study to be released some time in mid-May. The study will look at the Bristol Bay Watershed and the potential impacts such a wide-scale project could have on it.

If the assessment deems the project a threat to Bristol Bay, the EPA, with authority from the federal Clean Water Act, could move to preemptively deny the key permit Pebble Limited Partnership would need to begin operations. That step would likely end up in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Given what’s at stake, it’s no wonder that opposition to the project represents a wide range of geographically dispersed humanity, from native Alaskans, to sportsmen (520 diverse associations), to chefs and restaurateurs, to biologists, to some politicians and people who care about the environment.

That’s why a well-organized group of sportsmen descended on Washington April 16-18 and met with the White House, EPA executive administrators and key members of Congress to discuss several science- and economic-based concerns over the project.

That’s also why we as sportsmen and women need to educate ourselves about what’s at stake and speak out. The public comment period following the release of the draft watershed assessment will be a great opportunity to make your voice heard.

I may live in North Carolina, but I realize this is far more than a regional squabble. The ramifications, particularly if the mine goes live and the blasting starts, will send tremors globally.

Here are some resources for additional background, with a couple of links to make your thoughts known online.

• Save Bristol Bay
• Pebble Watch

Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

Of course, this is just my personal opinion, and it wasn’t always that way. I admit to getting drawn into the Deadliest Catch when it first came out. I think this was largely because I had no idea what those guys do, and was fascinated by the risks they take and how much they love embracing that risk. By the time the second season came around, it felt like I was watching the same show with new twists woven in. I couldn’t get past the second show that season.

Different reality shows have varying degrees of over-dramatization: The Bachelor, Real World … what have you. I have a good friend who recently competed on Top Chef, and I watched every episode he was in. But the drama the producers needlessly infused in most every scene, especially pre-commercial break and judging, made me wince.

You can see the drama already mounting only a couple of shows into National Geographic’s Wicked Tuna. The producers did a good job creating a buzz about the show, in part, by highlighting the touchy subject of bluefin tuna fishing. The drama building among the different featured captains dropping f-bombs like they’re prepositions is to be expected. No doubt it’s a hard feast-or-famine life.

But the bigger drama seems to be swirling around the question of whether an organization like National Geographic should even be involved with a show about harvesting tuna at a time when global alarms are sounding about the health of the species. Watchdog groups and foreign governments have cited wanton overfishing using a variety of environmentally destructive gear. Some marine biologists are forecasting a cataclysmic collapse of the fishery.

National Geographic and the show’s producers are touting a message of conversation that hinges on the fact their subjects are fishing with rod and reel, not longlines or trawls. This means there is very little wasted bycatch of non-targeted species. They also claim that the U.S. is a global leader in effectively managing the fishery in U.S. waters and strictly regulating the fishing tackle used and the volume harvested. Some bloggers have supported this approach as well.

Naturally, there’s been no shortage of opposition to the show, with a plethora of blogs and petitions circulating the Internet.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with the show’s fundamental premise: a window on the rod-and-reel bluefin fishery with a message about conservation. The caveat is that I’d like to see the producers keep reinforcing why a focused, targeted species approach (using rod and reel) to fishing is sustainable, and to back that up with data the public can understand.

Otherwise, the show will slip into the formulaic trend of other reality shows: introduction, rehash of previous drama, setting the stage for new drama, tension between captains and captains and crew, quick action fighting a fish, and the finale to see who gets the big payday, and who gripes about their luck.

No thanks. Been there, seen that.

Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

Now, it’s the snakehead. It has acquired various colorful web names like Frankenfish or Fishzilla, but make no mistake, this is one nasty S.O.B.

Here’s why. It is an apex predator with razor-sharp teeth, can breathe air on land and survive for up to four days and has no natural predators. It can crawl/hop between freshwater bodies (pond to river, etc.) It eats rats as a delicacy.

Translation: this bad boy is like a Great White in fresh water. It swims, makes babies and eats every other fish in sight as well as the food every other fish eats. This is a real problem for the bass and other native fish species in the Potomac watershed, where the snakehead has been seen in eight neighboring states. Left unchecked, it could take over these ecosystems. Worse, it has been shown to tolerate high levels of salinity, meaning it is already in tidal areas in Virginia and D.C.

The snakehead is about 50 million years old and of course, is non-native to the U.S. It originated in Asia and Africa where it has been farmed as a food fish. But as with many invasive species, it is wreaking havoc in waters not meant for such a nasty bugger.

So for the second year in a row, the state of Maryland Department of Natural Resources has put a bounty on the snakehead. Catch and kill one, take its photo, and you could be eligible to win a $200 gift certificate to a local Bass Pro Shop and/or similar prizes.

Is that a big enough incentive? Not sure. Last year 69 fishermen eliminated 82 fish. But the genetic cards are stacked in the snakehead’s favor since a single female can produce up to 15,000 eggs and mate five times a year.

Perhaps it’s time to switch the focus a bit. Why not have big pro tourney with corporate sponsors like the bass pro circuit? Or you can get local chefs and the seafood industry involved.  I’ve never tried or even seen this fish available for sale/consumption, but apparently it’s a pretty clean and firm white fish that can be grilled or fried.

But before launching a menu item campaign, perhaps someone should come up with a better name. “Snakehead” sounds only slightly more appetizing than “chocolate covered dung beetles.”

Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

A recent study by scholars in Canada and the U.S. suggests that sustainable fisheries management was vital to pre-European invasion Hawaii. So much so because they had to rely exclusively on local resources, so they figured they needed to take care of them.

What a novel idea. And they did a hell of a lot better job than we’re doing now.

Researchers conducted comparative studies of fisheries in Hawaii and Florida dating back centuries to determine how the different cultures managed their reef fisheries. In Florida, several species were fished to near extinction because of cyclical ebb and flow of mismanaged ecosystems. 19^th and 20^th century targeting of green turtles, sawfish, conch and groupers have imperiled their populations.

By contrast, the Hawaii tribes established rigid fisheries management centered on community by-in and enforced strictly … via corporal punishment. Translation: everyone knew what they had to do to preserve the resource, they supported it, and if you screwed up, you paid dearly for it.

Some of the forward-thinking measures they espoused included closing certain areas of the reef to fishing for awhile to allow ecosystems to re-balance, restricting the use of certain gear and protecting certain species. Only the high priests and the chiefs could eat shark or sea turtles, for example. They even relied on aquaculture practices incorporating fishponds that preserved key nutrients while minimizing pollution of the reefs.

That’s a far cry from the antibiotic- and waste-laden practices that many operations use today. Moreover, the ancient Hawaiian tribes had better yields, harvesting more fish at rates that far exceed today’s established limits for reef fisheries. And they sustained that without killing everything in the ocean.

Perhaps we could learn something from a simpler time. If we depend on fishing resources like the ancient island tribes, then maybe we should manage them similarly.

Step #1 is to establish rules that ensure the longevity of the fishery, not just the revenue and food source of today.

Step #2 is to make sure these rules have support from the community at large. Social adoption and enforcement would mean more effective policing of and adherence to these rules.

We could probably get by without the corporal punishment, but we damn well better have some penalties with real teeth that make offenders think twice about breaking the rules and jeopardizing the balance. Right now, we don’t.

Here are two articles that shed light on the study:

RedOrbit

United Press International

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

It was a gift, and I had mounted a rod holder in front of the cockpit for my fly rod. I was plying a bay close to the mouth of the Piscataqua River that separates Maine and New Hampshire. The bay completely empties out at low tide but floods over five to six feet or so, and at certain times of year, schools of large bass swim up on the flat searching for food.

These fish are usually very hull shy, skittish as hell and damn hard to hook unless they’re actively busting huge schools of bait. But a kayak makes a difference. During the maiden voyage shortly after dawn, I spotted the back and tail of a fish porpoising after some poor herring 20 feet from me. That striper was almost half as long as my kayak.

As much as I really, really wanted to hook one of those fish, I started thinking about the consequences. What if I hooked a 40+ inch fish while nestled into a 35-pound kayak with no rudder and no anchor? This bay sits astride a very busy shipping channel in a river with one of the strongest currents on the East Coast. The image of me water skiing behind some angry cow striper in front of a 900-foot cargo ship because I was too proud/cheap/stupid to let go of the fly rod played in my mind.

I kept casting anyway, perhaps mercifully to no avail. But later that day, I bought an anchor and revised my plan to fish closer to shore so that I could either bail out or beach the kayak and fight from shore.

Boating safety is important, of course. But safety in a kayak requires even more focus. They can be tippy (particularly when casting a fly into the wind). You are lower to the water, and depending on the length and configuration, you are more subject to outside forces such as wind, current and waves.

The most important step you can take, aside from knowing how to swim, is to wear a life jacket. The Coast Guard requires there be a personal floatation device (PFD) for everyone in a boat. In a kayak, you should wear it at all times.

We want to point this out in light of the tragedy that happened to a 37-year-old avid fisherman in Alabama who recently drowned after his kayak capsized. It is a terribly unfortunate incident underscored by the fact that the victim was not wearing a life vest.

Fishing from a kayak is a blast, particularly if you do go for a joyride from an outsized fish (in a reasonably safe area). But the difference between having a great time and a real bad day hinges on being prepared.

Here are a couple of good resources that provide helpful checklists on how to prepare for your kayak fishing adventure:

http://www.smart-start-kayaking.com/Kayaking-Safety.html

http://www.marinerkayaks.com/mkhtml/Kyksaftw.html

Be safe. Have fun. Tight lines!

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish | By Anglers for Fish

These are among the historical rogues gallery of trash fish. Many are either butt ugly (see Mother-in-law/cabezone), prehistoric (gar) or poisonous (lionfish).

They certainly don’t look very inviting.

But a funny thing is slowly, quietly taking place. People are paying to eat these fish, and others like them.

It’s another small step in the broader sustainable fisheries movement where “trash fish” discarded as bycatch pulled from a variety of commercial nets are becoming en vogue for celebrity chefs and home cooking gourmands. Otherwise dumped over the side dying or dead, these fish often end up on the grill or seared in butter and lime.

There are several benefits to this:

First off, making these fish commercially available eliminates waste of largely untapped fish stocks that can stand a bit of pressure. Second, allowing commercial fishermen to market these fish can take some of the heat off of more targeted species such as redfish, striped bass, grouper, etc. Third, it puts a bounty on some non-native invasive species that are out-competing local fish for food and habitat.

Watch this video of ballistic Asian carp by the thousands in the Illinois River on their way to the Great Lakes, or this video of lionfish, which have become a menace in the Atlantic. There’s no question these fish do more harm than good in their current numbers. Why not harvest some as part of population control?

Here is an article about a couple of chefs that have started a project to make Asian carp an easily accessible food source.

So check to see if any restaurants or seafood houses in your area offer any of these species. Ask some questions and maybe take a chance. You may find a new favorite.

And for those skeptics who persist at looking down upon “trash fish,” remember that the next time you order a $20 lobster off the menu. These bottom feeders were considered poor man’s food not too long ago.

For more info about sustainable seafood choices, check out the GreenFish Learn page.

By Colles Stowell, By Anglers | For Fish

I was so wound up to catch a fish I didn’t sleep a wink the night before and I didn’t eat much for breakfast. The diesel fumes began to get to me not long after leaving port. My dad knocked on the door and said I had a fish on.

I bolted out of that bathroom like a tiger sprung from a cage … only to wipe out at my dad’s feet.

“Pull your pants up son.”

Details.

Once I got myself straightened out and strapped into the captain’s chair, the battle was on. My dad calmly encouraged me, letting me know when to reel and when to let the fish run, as he gently held pressure on the rod. Surely it was a whale. I kept questioning whether I would be able to land the fish, and he kept reassuring me I could get it in.

Fifteen minutes later, the captain snapped a photo of me dazed, exhausted and smiling as the mate swung an Amberjack that weighed four more pounds than me over the rail. Five seconds after that photo was taken, I threw up everywhere. But I couldn’t have been happier.

That was my first real fishing trip, and the enthusiasm has stayed with me for 40+ years. My dad helped feed my love of fishing by quietly guiding me along the way. Allowing me to make mistakes, and then showing me how to do something a little better.

Most every avid angler hopes a son or daughter will share the same enthusiasm, but of course, there is no guarantee. The best we can do is to introduce our children to the sport, be a gentle guide, let them experience the entire outdoors and let them see what it’s like to catch a fish. If they’re not hooked after that, perhaps it’s not for them at this time. Hopefully, just being in nature will be enough for them. They may even take to fishing later in life.

If you’re preparing to share the love of fishing with your children, we’ve provided some tips and ideas for making the experience rewarding for both you and your children on the GreenFish Learn page. Here, you’ll not only learn what tackle to use and how to choose a good spot, you’ll also find some helpful information about playing a fish properly, using conservation-inspired tackle, practicing catch and release, choosing sustainable seafood and being a good steward of the land and sea.

I was to learn many of these lessons from my father over time. Especially the one about taking a leak to make the fish bite.

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

While the wording of the legislation varies, the arguments on both sides are generally the same. Commercial fishermen claim any attempt to regulate the harvest will put them out of jobs and keep seafood from the public. Recreational fishermen have watched commercial harvests continue as local populations of sport fish like striped bass, redfish and speckled trout dwindle, along with the size and frequency of these fish. New figures show the significant economic impact recreational fishing has on a state’s economy for everything from licenses to gear, hotels, guides and restaurants. Recreational fishermen also claim the targeted fish represent a small portion of the total commercial haul in each state, and are available to consumers via aquaculture and other avenues.

Here is what’s currently on the front burner:

• Massachusetts – The Legislature is entertaining four bills that essentially would make stripers gamefish in Massachusetts and ban commercial harvest of the fish. A sub-committee has to determine this month whether to recommend this legislation for further review, referral to another committee or recommendation for passage to the entire Legislature. Conservation group Stripers Forever sparked the movement, and has made a compelling video about the situation.
• Maryland – The state is considering a bill promoted by the Maryland Saltwater Sportfishing Association to ban all gill nets for finfish. This would effectively stop net-based fishing for striped bass and other fish species. The bill arose after reports of an illegal catch of 12,000 pounds of striped bass last year in state waters.
• North Carolina – A house bill backed by the Coastal Conservation Association of North Carolina to designate redfish, speckled trout and striped bass as gamefish is likely to head to the entire Legislature for a full review and vote in the next couple of months. Even if the bill doesn’t pass this year, other measures are taking shape to help preserve these fisheries, including a renewed effort to ban all gill nets.

Stripers have gamefish status in six states: Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and South Carolina. Redfish have gamefish status in South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas. Speckled trout have gamefish status in South Carolina, Alabama and Texas.

Here’s hoping the momentum continues, and that states figure out how to conserve certain gamefish while still enabling commercial fishermen to earn a living with a sustainable harvest.

By Colles Stowell

GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

Problem is, the practice involves slicing off the fins – including the tail – and then dumping the defenseless shark, often still alive, overboard. The shark sinks to the bottom and drowns or is eaten by other fish because it is unable to swim, and thus ventilate the gills to take in oxygen. The impact is significant, with some estimates ranging between 26 and 73 million sharks killed a year, mostly for their fins. Some conservationists fear the global demand for shark fin soup as a status symbol delicacy is pushing some populations toward perilous declines and possible extinction.

No matter how you look at it, the practice is gruesome, and a waste.

So it’s encouraging to see some local enforcement pay off. Marshall Islands officials recently seized a Japanese vessel’s haul of nearly 1,500 pounds of shark fins and 60,000 pounds of shark meat and fined the vessel $125,000. While it is a blip on the global picture, the seizure and fine are important for raising the visibility of the issue and serving notice that shark finning isn’t legal everywhere. This was the first fine of its kind in Marshall Islands waters.

In fact, local legislation and enforcement – along with education – are the most effective tools for slowing the practice and limiting the trade of shark fins. U.S.-registered vessels are currently banned from the practice by federal law, but foreign-registered vessels continue to ply U.S. waters for shark fins and sell them to restaurants in the U.S. and elsewhere. States such as Hawaii, California, Oregon and Washington have already passed legislation banning the sale, possession and distribution of shark fins.

Five other states, including Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, New York and New Jersey are considering similar legislation.

If the concept of shark finning gets under your skin, check to see if your state has any measure in the works for banning the practice. If not, perhaps it’s time to start pushing some buttons and contact your state representative or senator.

Follow this link for some more interesting reading about the practice and its impact: http://www.sharkwater.com/education.htm.

Colles Stowell
GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

The announcement triggered a memory of my first real saltwater conservation lesson.

I was 14 when I landed a sailfish. My family and my uncle’s family had met down on Duck key for a week in 1982 to chase tarpon, grouper billfish … whatever. It was a big deal for my cousin and me. He and I and our dads were somewhere off Marathon with a husband and wife charter boat crew reeling in Mahi that sported tropical colors only they possess.

We watched in awe when the sailfish surfaced behind the school, flopping its sail side to side and changing colors from blue to green to yellow and black as it dove into the school. The captain rigged up a yellow tail, cast it out, threw the rod at me and told me when to reel. It was an amazing fight, and I don’t know how my scrawny frame didn’t end up overboard in the rolling surf.

I managed to get the fish boat-side so the captain could grab the bill in his gloved hand and ask my dad whether we were going to keep it to mount. Long had I wanted a mounted sailfish like the big one my dad had caught on his honeymoon 15 years before.

“Not this one son. Either a really small one, or a big one. This one’s got plenty of life in him still.”

Luckily, I was loaded with adrenaline and euphoria so the decision didn’t sting as much. But the captain offered to tag the fish instead, so he could be released and perhaps tracked to share in some budding research. Plus, we got to motor into the harbor with a sailfish flag raised, signaling that someone connected.

About a year later, I received a letter saying the fish had been caught somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico. It had grown (it was 50-60 pounds when we released it) and was released in great shape.

I had been learning the lesson of catch and release chasing freshwater bass and rainbow trout in a small pond in northern New Hampshire or chasing redfish and speckled trout in the Louisiana bayous. But it wasn’t until I read that letter that I really understood the concept of paying the resource forward.

The IGFA announcement crystallizes the concept. The international sport fishing community needs to stand united behind the concept that a tournament should no longer mean chugging into harbor with a black marlin hanging from a winch. Digital photography and video is good enough anglers can get a very realistic mount from a photo.

Some tournaments have already begun to implement all-release rules, and the numbers show the effort seems to be working. Forty-six boats released a record 1,174 sails during this year’s Silver Sailfish Derby, including 659 on the first day of fishing Jan. 5, according to the Palm Beach Post.

So tag the fish. Revive it. Release it. Then see what happens. You just may get proof that you paid it forward for someone else.

Colles

It’s a funny thing as a small business trying to plan a new product launch. You want to try and gauge demand and give yourself a little extra supply just in case, without over-ordering and tying up cash.

Well, we did that and promptly ran out of product in a couple of weeks! Good news was that we knew we’d hit on something – a need for a universal camera mount that would work with most cameras and rod holders for kayaks, small freshwater boats and saltwater sportfishers. Bad news (if you could call it that, more like a challenge) was that we had to move fast to re stock.

So we did, and we’re now loaded up with inventory and taking orders again. Because of the successful launch, the CPR Mount has been featured in Saltwater Sportfishing Magazine, Pacific Coast Sportfishing, the IGFA member publication and in March will be featured in Florida Sportfishing among other notable publications. So the word is getting out fast.

In fact, we’ve shipped the CPR Mount all over the U.S. and Canada and to the U.K. and Australia. And we’re gradually introducing the CPR Mount to retail stores across the country and actively looking for sales reps. Look for it in kayak stores, fresh- and saltwater fishing gear shops and flyfishing shops.

Feedback from users has been great. They’re using a broad range of digital cameras and GoPros to capture some epic battles they otherwise couldn’t in all types of environments and on all types of boats and kayaks.

To keep the momentum building, we plan to establish a CPR Mount community on Facebook and are creating a gallery page on our website, and a Youtube channel as well. There, users can post photos and videos for a chance to win the “CPR Mount Photo of the Month Contest.” Aside from bragging rights, untold fame and Hollywood movie offers, winners will receive a monthly prize – so stay tuned!

So I want to thank the GreenFish community for being supportive, and I encourage you to provide your feedback.

We’ll continue to keep you posted on the CPR Mount’s progress.

Bryan Godber, GreenFish

I was reminded of this on Feb. 2 when I attended a legislative hearing on the gamefish bill in North Carolina to protect red drum, spotted sea trout (speckled trout) and striped bass from commercial gill netting.

Representatives of commercial fishermen, who oppose the bill as a threat to their livelihoods, and recreational fishermen, who want to see the numbers of fish increase, were given a chance to state their cases. The bill would effectively ban gill netting for and commercial sale of these fish. It’s too early to say whether either side truly hit a home run with the committee during the hearing, but the recreational fishermen were better organized, outnumbered commercial representatives by 3-1, and delivered some of the more compelling comments.

A lobbyist, a seafood store owner and a radio personality spoke about how the bill would put hard-working commercial fishermen out of work and take red fish, speckled trout and striped bass off the plates of the public. They claimed the measure would essentially transfer rights to the three species as seafood from a majority of the state’s population to a small group of “wealthy, elitist recreational fishermen who live on the coast.”

Recreational fishing guides, store owners and a boat builder effectively countered these arguments by claiming their livelihoods also depend on these species, and that red fish, speckled trout and stripers only accounted for roughly two percent of the commercial fishing income from 2010 according to state figures. They also repeated state figures that the direct and indirect economic impact of recreational fishing for N.C. was over $2 billion, while commercial fishing represents a fraction of that.

They noted that gamefish status for these species has effectively worked in South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Louisiana. Red fishing in Louisiana and South Carolina far surpasses that in North Carolina and Mississippi where gill netting for these species continues, they said. One charter boat captain put the disparity in stark contrast: “Anglers are leaving our state to catch our state fish.” The committee chairman publicly acknowledged another charter boat captain’s call to pay it forward so that his baby girl would have a chance to catch a redfish if she wants to when she gets older.

A recreational fisherman spoke about witnessing the decimation of the local fresh water herring fishery at the hands of mismanaged commercial fishing and the fear that the same could happen for these three species. He noted that aquaculture and other programs have made these species available to the public in seafood stores and restaurants in states where gamefish laws are in place.

Perhaps most poignantly, he touched on why recreational angling has such a universal appeal: “Angling is done to experience a moment between man and fish that cannot be duplicated. A moment so addictive, that thousands upon thousands seek it over and over, and pay to do it. Parents share it with their children. It is our heritage. The virtual world cannot duplicate it and it’s not available as an App on an iPad.”

At the end of the hearing, many of the recreational fishermen expressed confidence in having delivered a strong, united message that this bill would be an economic benefit by attracting more tourism dollars and making an economic engine even stronger. Representatives of the commercial side quietly expressed concern about the bill’s momentum before and after the hearing.

The Legislative Research Commission Committee on Marine Fisheries will discuss the issue again in March with no public comment. The stakes are high enough that both recreational and commercial fishing interests will likely be back.

MSC is a London-based independent non-profit that partners with fishermen, processors, distributors and retailers globally to ensure wild-caught seafood comes from sustainable stocks, is caught using sustainable methods, and is labeled properly.

Increased demand for sustainable seafood information has launched several other ecolabel operations around the world, including non-profits like FishWise, (West Coast-based) and Friend of the Sea, (headquartered in Italy). Both FishWise and Friend of the Sea certify wild-caught and farmed (aquaculture) seafood.

Ecolabels have become selling points because they provide third-party validation that stamped seafood products are in fact, sustainable. This is an important milestone at a time when reports of mislabeled seafood are increasing.  Check out this investigative report from The Boston Globe.

While the growing number of different ecolabels may confuse some consumers, the overall net effect is a positive one for seafood lovers as well as fisheries around the world. Increased global awareness of sustainable seafood choices made at the point of sale will hopefully make sustainable fishing practices the rule, not the exception, in the not too distant future.

So even if you aren’t carrying around the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch pocket guide or mobile app, you can look for an ecolabel in a store near you. If you don’t see one of those, now’s a good time to ask.

By Colles Stowell

Here are some of the highlights:

• Better managing fishing stocks and reducing fishing capacity could generate $50 billion a year;
• The European Union alone pays $100 billion dollars a year to address marine pollution costs, much of which stem from poorly regulated fertilizer use;
• Almost 5% of the global CO2 emissions comes from the maritime industry, and that percentage is expected to grow by 72% by 2020. Better designed ships running on cleaner fuels can minimize that impact.
• Hitchhiking invasive species in ship ballasts costs $100 billion per year globally.

It is refreshing to see the U.N. make a case for stimulating global marine economies by what would seem to be common sense approaches to anyone outside of politics. We can only hope that even some percentage of these goals, if not the whole enchilada, are achieved.

But the devil will be in the details. Global cooperation is a fickle thing. Just look at international friction over whaling or even tuna fisheries. Getting everyone to agree in principle to even basic steps such as developing and paying for studies on how to generate more clean energy is no simple task.

The U.N. took a good first step in issuing this report. Hopefully, there will be enough international collaboration to start making proposals into realities.

Colles Stowell – By Anglers | For Fish

Controversial? The bill pits commercial fishermen, many hailing from several generations of commercial fishing, against recreational fishermen and environmentalists who fear for the long-term health of the species. Commercial fishermen claim the ban would rob them of their livelihoods and keep N.C. citizens from sharing in the resource when they buy seafood. Recreational fishermen say the numbers of fish they’re seeing have dropped precipitously in the past few years as commercial fishing continues, and that affects coastal economies and jobs as well.

In the end, it’s a fierce battle over how to manage the resource.

The numbers are interesting. Consider the following from N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries reports:

• In 2010, commercial fishermen landed more than 72 million pounds of fish (including all available species in the state), while recreational fishermen landed less than 15 million pounds.
• N.C. commercial licenses sold in 2010: 5,179, of which 2,522 were bought by active commercial fishermen. N.C. recreational licenses sold in 2010: 296,175 to residents and another 157,346 to out-of-state fishermen. Factor in the nearly 257,000 fishermen who own lifetime licenses and are grandfathered, the total number of fishermen who had license to fish with hook and line in 2010 in N.C. coastal waters was more than 700,000.
• Of the 2,522 licensed, active commercial fishermen, 1,114 targeted one or more of these species. Only 87 of those 1,114 fishermen made over $2,000 on the sale of red drum, spotted sea trout and/or striped bass.
• North Carolina accounts for nearly 90% of all commercial landings of red drum nationally, but only 1 percent of recreational landings.
• In 2010, commercial fishermen income from harvesting red drum, spotted sea trout and striped bass was over $88 million, which is 2.2 percent of the total income from all commercial landings for the same year.
• The total economic impact of recreational fishing in N.C. waters for 2008 was $1.6 billion, not including an estimated $1.2 billion in associated durable goods (boats, motors, gear, etc.).

The rhetoric flying back and forth has become increasingly venomous as all parties claim to have a personal and financial stake in the outcome. Lobbying state legislators has become a full-time job for many.

The bill’s outcome is uncertain. 2012 is a short legislative session in N.C., and some legislators question whether such an emotionally charged bill will even see full votes on the senate or house floors this term.

What is certain is that failure to manage these three species as finite, yet indispensably valuable resources to the state and its coastal communities could set red drum, spotted sea trout and striped bass on the imperiled path of Atlantic cod and Atlantic salmon.

Just ask the commercial fishermen who chased those species 30 years ago if they think the species could have been better managed.

The tradition of making New Year’s resolutions … and often breaking them … has in many ways become somewhat of a cliché. You cut down on the after-dinner ice cream, decide to quit smoking or limit your time on Facebook. Often, that resolve begins to wane in a few weeks because you’ve lost focus on the original commitment.

At its heart though, the resolution itself is like hitting the refresh button. It’s a new start. As long as you’re committed to seeing it through, the motivation is honest and has the best chance for success.

GreenFish had a great 2011. I’m happy to report we topped 3,500 fans on Facebook, significantly expanded our team of Ambassadors, and increased our donations to the sustainable fisheries partners of your choice by moving from a 1% to a 5% donation amount through our GreenFish Gives program. We also introduced new products, including the CPR Mount, which has taken off.

It’s time to hit the refresh button again. Our principle resolution for 2012 is to continue to promote a lifestyle of sustainable fishing via new products and this blog. The blog has been a good forum for sharing updates on such topics as sustainable fishing regulations and the release of the CPR Mount. That said, I confess that the blog has not been as consistent as I’d like it to be.

I want this blog to be a regular communication with you – a frequent reference point for learning about the latest news on everything from federal bills to designate striped bass as game fish to the health of global tuna populations. You’ll learn what type of “green” tackle to use, how to release a fish with a lot of teeth and some tips on how to teach your kids to fish. You’ll see occasional instructional videos featuring our ambassadors demonstrating techniques for tight roll casting or fighting big game fish from a kayak. You’ll learn about important fishing legislation in your region. You’ll also see what’s happening here at GreenFish.

We will post at least one blog a week to maintain a steady flow of content. While I’ll continue to write some of the blogs, I’ll be sharing these duties with outdoor writer, website consultant and fellow fishing addict Colles Stowell. Colles has helped revitalize the GreenFish Web site content to make it more compelling and user-friendly during the past year. He shares the same commitment to promoting sustainable fisheries and will keep you posted on news and information about the near- and long-term health of the resource.

Small companies don’t grow without the support of their customer base. This blog is a communication forum for us to share news and interesting information with you, and in turn, for you to share your comments with us.

In that vein, our blog is a commitment to stay connected with you.

So in the first blog of 2012, we wish you a Happy New Year and welcome you back to the blog!

Thanks, and tight lines,

Bryan Godber GreenFish – By Anglers | For Fish

Fly Fishing the World (FFTW) is an exploratory experience. It will venture deep into the soul of fly fishing, where nature rules, and the angler is a mere visitor, hoping to claim a position in the food chain.

Perennial host, John Barrett is passing the torch to Conway Bowman and the next generation of fly fishermen. This season of Fly Fishing the World will not lack for excitement as Bowman circles the globe in search of the prime destinations, legends, and big fish – making for some of the world’s best fly fishing.

“I’m thrilled to have the opportunity to host the re-launch of Fly Fishing the World. The re-tooling of this long-running series raises the bar for adventure-angling, and introduces viewers to the eclectic cast of characters an intrepid wanderer meets on a journey through fly fishing’s outer realms,” said host, Conway Bowman.

Unforgettable destinations await Bowman as he ventures to Baja, Mexico, where he takes viewers in search of the elusive roosterfish off-the-beach. Bowman also plies Montana’s rivers for trout during the biggest flood event in recent memory, explores a unique flats fishery in the Great Lakes and matches wits with ever-wary tailing carp. Bowman also travels to Hawaii to uncover rumors of double-digit bonefish and giant trevally prowling the waters of an uninhabited island.

Fly Fishing the World is one of the longest-running outdoor programs on television and is the only fishing series to ever garner a Cable Ace award. To learn more about Conway and FFTW, follow him on Twitter http://twitter.com/conwaybowman

Is the salmon wild-caught or farmed? Where does the tuna come from, and is it sustainable? Was the swordfish harpooned or snared on a long line that stretches for miles and is blamed for killing many tons of non-targeted species? Does the shrimp come from Thailand?

Consumers have recently begun to ask more questions about the origins of their seafood. This is a good thing from a sustainability perspective as well as a gastronomic one. Atlantic salmon stocks are still recovering from a history of over-fishing and consumption, but thanks to advances in aquaculture, some of the pressure has been removed. Still, buying salmon raised in massive pens jammed with so many fish that they breed disease and spread it to wild populations if they escape may not be the most sustainable choice in the long run. Some aquaculture operations fight diseases with antibiotics, which get passed on to the consumer.

So what is the right answer? Just as choosing whether to keep or release a fish is a personal choice, so is the decision of which seafood to consume. Learning more about what stocks are sustainable and which to avoid is an important first step in understanding the consequences.

Here are some basic suggestions to think about when choosing seafood at a restaurant or grocery store:

1. Where did it come from? The further away, the more energy used to ship it. This is especially true if you live on the West coast and you eat fresh Maine lobster that was flown overnight. Long distances can also affect freshness.
2. How was it caught? Some methods are less destructive to the ecosystem than others.
3. If it was farmed, were the farming practices sustainable? Did they use antibiotics?
4. Does the species have a healthy population? Eating lower on the food chain, such as mackerel and mussels helps guarantee the sustainability of the choice.
5. Is it local? If so, this choice is not only good for your conscience and your stomach, it’s also good for the local fishing community.

PETA says fishing makes fish suffer, so they’re asking people to stop.
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals says parents are sending a dangerous message to their children that recreational fishing is OK.

“Nobody wants to set a bad example for their kids, but many parents don’t actually stop to think that when they’re going fishing, they’re really sending their kids a dangerous message, that it’s fun to torment animals,” says Hayden Hamilton with PETA.

Hamilton says fish are intelligent animals who feel pain when they’re hooked, or brought up in a net.

“Most parents would never dream of spending a weekend trying to hook the family dog, but hooking a fish on the mouth and dragging him through the water is just as cruel as hooking the family dog through the mouth and dragging him behind your car,” says Hamilton.

The organization held a protest Tuesday at 12 p.m. at Broad St. and Alaskan Way.

“We’re hoping just to grab some people’s attention for a minute to make them consider that fish do feel pain, you know, and it’s life and death issues for these animals.”

It’s a pretty good read and there are some interesting facts raised:

• Today about half of the seafood consumed around the world comes from farms
• It takes about 2 pounds of wild fish ground up to make fish meal needed on average to produce 1 pound of farmed fish – not a
  sustainable model!
• 90% of the salmon that arrives at tables comes from farms, more that 1.4 million tons each year
• Only about 50,000 tons of Barramundi are farmed annually, but production has doubled over the past 10 years
• Annual farm production of carp is above 3.2 million tons, mostly in China
• Tilapia could be an ideal fish for farming – their vegetarian diet makes it ideal for sustainable aquaculture
• Since 1960, worldwide seafood consumption has increased nearly 60%
• 84% of the 6-7 million tons of seafood consumed each year in the US is imported
• A badly run near-shore farm of 200,000 salmon can flush nitrogen and phosphorous into the water at levels equal to the sewage of a town of 20,000 people

The article also addresses the infamous “Frankenfish” being
worked on by companies such as Aquabounty. They aim to create the ideal fish by genetically engineering Atlantic Salmon which would grow up to twice as fast as typical fish.

The message of the article is that with current levels of
consumption, we need to come up with more sustainable ways of fish farming. It’s a good article and worth the read.

Introduced in July, the Billfish Conservation Act of 2011 (S. 1451 and H.R. 2706) would close U.S. commercial markets to Pacific billfish. Unfortunately, commercial fishermen from Hawaii and other U.S. Pacific islands will still be allowed to sell billfish legally. But this bill would have a big impact on the U.S. commercial fishing industry in the U.S.

Just about every major conservation group has pledged support for this vital bill, including the IGFA, KeepAmericaFishing, CCA and The Billfish Foundation. You can help too: Call or write your legislative representatives and urge them to support The Billfish Conservation Act of 2011. It’s long overdue and has nothing but upside.

GreenFish founder Bryan Godber explains, “We now have a team of over 50 high profile individuals in the industry, all helping to promote our brand and sustainable fishing message on a volunteer basis. These individuals should be seen as role models to the fishing community not only for their career achievements as industry icons, but also for their efforts to promote a lifestyle of sustainable fishing for future generations to enjoy. It’s a great to know how many high profile individuals out there want to help push our brand and our mission forward and represent our clothing brand.”

Environmentally sensitive fishing products are showing up at tackle shops with increased regularity. Wright McGill, the Colorado company that makes an assortment of tackle under the Eagle Claw brand, even has a biodegradable fishing line.

Why is that important? Because monofilament, the dominant line used fo r nearly 70 years, stays around a long time. Fishing line is tangled in brush beneath the water’s surface and in trees along the river bank. It’s a hazard to boat propellers, birds and other animals.

The country’s 30 million anglers age 16 and older spend an average of 17 days per year fishing. They use thousands of miles of fishing line each year and leave a lot of it in the landscape, where scientists say it may take 600 years to break down.

Bioline, the Eagle Claw product that’s primarily pitched for crappie fishing, is engineered to retain its strength for 10 to 12 months of use, then begin a five-year degrading process whether it’s left on the land or in the water.

Crappie anglers in particular benefit from biodegradable fishing line, according to Eagle Claw, because they spend the majority of their fishing time in and around cover, mostly submerged wood. Hang-ups are common, and the light line that crappie anglers favor breaks easily.

At $10 to $12 per spool, Bioline costs about the same as other premium fishing lines.

That’s not true of many “green” fishing products, like worm weights. Bass anglers buy them by the dozens, if not hundreds. Each time a snagged line is broken, the terminal tackle is lost, and that includes the hook and weight. The hooks eventually rust but the weights are permanent.

Until recently, virtually all worm weights were made of lead, and that’s still the cheapest option. Fifteen quarter-ounce lead worm weights cost just over $3. Weights made from less objectionable tungsten or brass may cost five times as much.

Bass anglers likeDavid O’Keeffe are willing to pay premium prices for tungsten weights, but it’s not because of the green bandwagon.

“I catch more fish using tungsten sinkers,” O’Keeffe said. “Tungsten is denser than lead, so you get a smaller profile. When a bass tries to eat a soft plastic bait, the fish gets the whole bait, sinker and all, in its mouth. The hook set is a lot more effective when you’re jerking a small, hard sinker out of the fish’s mouth rather than a larger, soft lead sinker.”

O’Keeffe said the tungsten sinkers teamed with fluorocarbon fishing line also increase his feel for the cover his lure is moving through.

“The term ‘green fishing product’ turns me off,” O’Keeffe said, “but fishermen are leaving a lot of stuff in the water. When the water levels are low, I see a lot of fishing line tangled in trees and brush. I remove as much as I can, store it in my boat and take it back to town for the garbage.”

Bass fishermen may object to the term “green fishing product,” but fly fishermen do not, according to Rick Pope, president and founder of Temple Fork Outfitters, a Dallas-based fly-fishing company.

“Fly fishers are extremely sensitive to the environment,” Pope said. “There are some green products for fly-fishing, but the sensitivity is mostly about being good stewards and not leaving fishing leaders, plastic packaging or anything else in the streams, rivers or lakes where fly-fishing is done.”

Fly fishers pioneered the use of barbless hooks so fish could be released with less stress. Though designed for commercial fishing, circle hooks are also considered “green.” When fished correctly, the circle hook almost always hooks the fish in the corner of the mouth where little damage is done, and the fish can be released with an expectation of survival.

Recycled Fish preaches that If we want more and bigger fish in our waters, now and for our kids, a lifestyle of stewardship is what it’s going to take, because our Lifestyle Runs Downstream.

Green Fish, through clothing sales, hopes to teach the values and actions of sustainability and stewardship for the waters of angling.

Stewardship, a term in the environmental movement that has roots in what academics have termed “the greening of religion” – e.g. that God commanded humans to be stewards of, not have dominion over, nature. Today, however, the term has widespread use, inducing increasing use to describe how we should fish, relate to our fisheries, and our fishing communities.

Recently, in response to all of my work, I was asked what it meant to be a steward. To which I replied:

“Stewardship means many things. Mostly it means just what it sounds like – to take care of, to steward, the people, places, and things that we care about – social, cultural, or environmental goods.

Stewardship is tethered to how we behave on the water, how we take care of our fisheries, how we take care of our community. In origin both organizations noted above focused on Catch and Release, but have grown their message beyond how we handle fish to how we relate to the habitat of fisheries – including how our lifestyles of consumption, food, and transportation invariably impact the fisheries we love.”

The context of that question and conversation, in retrospect, was also representative of stewardship. I was on the Naknek River in Bristol Bay working with the Bristol Bay Fly Fishing and Guide Academy. The explicit goal of the academy is to train and educate the next generation of guides for Bristol Bay, guides who are from the region, born and raised with the local knowledge that 90% of the guides in Bristol Bay do not possess. Beneath it all, though, the subtext of the guide academy is about stewardship.

(Yours truly doing a bit of casting instruction with a future Bristol Bay guide)

Stewardship, in many ways, comes from knowing and understanding places, bioregions, and ecosystems. Fly Fishing has long been praised for its ability to teach about place. Without fly fishing, however, these youth already possess so much of the knowledge that many guides would kill to have in their back pocket.

The guide academy taught fly fishing, while trying to create an avenue into a vibrant local economy that has been dominated by non-locals. In doing so, you give agency and power of stewardship to those most impacted by decisions in the region – local youth. Not that non-local guides are not stewards – many are. If they are not, well they should be or they shouldn’t be fishing and guiding. Afterall, guides are supposed to be teachers and stewardship should be a part of the curriculum, so to speak.

But by educating youth about fishing, the power of fishing, and the role of anglers –individually and collectively – in conservation, the Guide Academy by its very nature is an activity of stewardship. After all, stewardship entails empowering others to take care of places like Bristol Bay.

Neither group – Recycled Fish or Green Fish – were explicitly involved in the guide academy, but as we taught the youth of Bristol Bay about fly fishing, guiding, and conservation in Bristol Bay, we inherently carried the message of stewardship and enacted the work of stewardship by educating and equipping the next generation to be stewards of sport and waters.

As we look at the role of angling, and fly fishing in particular, in conservation it is imperative that we work in every way possible encourage a culture of stewardship.  As I have written before, it is not enough to simply fly fish anymore; we must be stewards of both our sport and the waters of our sport.

That means supporting organizations like TU, Recycled Fish, or the myriad grassroots groups out there with missions focused on conservation and stewardship. It means lending our voices, through letters, editorials and other avenues to key issues facing coldwater ecosystems – such as protecting Bristol Bay or restoring native fish ecosystems. Above all, it means we must live our lives on and off the water as stewards and strive to pass that message on to the next generation, and then the next, and so on.

(Finn, the next generation of angler - stewards, I hope!)

http://foggy-mountain-meanderings.blogspot.com/2011/02/greenfish-promoting-lifestyle-of.html

http://basspundit.blogspot.com/2011/02/sustainable-fishing.html

http://www.troutsandstouts.com/1/post/2011/02/sustainability-and-taking-responsibility-for-our-rivers.html

http://waterdogjournal.com/?p=370

http://theflyingkayak.blogspot.com/2011/02/whats-this-sustainable-fishing-you.html

http://myflyfishingjourney.blogspot.com/2011/02/obn-and-greenfish.html

http://azwanderings.com/fly-fishing/arizona-fly-fishing-catch-and-release.html

http://murphyfish-musing.blogspot.com/2011/02/this-blog-entry-is-my-submission-for.html

http://rbwrightoutdoors.blogspot.com/2011/02/protecting-resource-what-sustainable.html

http://mysticfishing.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/the-bite-is-on-green/

http://methowgeartesting.blogspot.com/2011/02/sustainable-fish-populations.html

http://www.somefishblog.com/2011/02/greenfish-writing-prompt-from-obn.html

http://whitetailwoods.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-does-sustainable-fishing-mean-to.html

http://myleakywaders.blogspot.com/2011/02/obn-writing-prompt-sustainable-fishing.html

http://legend-outdoors.com/blog/2011/02/16/greenfish-more-of-an-answer-than-a-question/

http://naturalistsangle.blogspot.com/2011/02/recycling-fish.html

http://jodysfishing.blogspot.com/2011/02/sustainable-fishing.html

http://thetailout.blogspot.com/search?q=greenfish

http://www.ted.com/talks/barton_seaver_sustainable_seafood_let_s_get_smart.html

“Start basic and don’t expect to get the thing overnight,” said Brian Kozminski, president of the Miller Van Winkle chapter of Trout Unlimited.

Kozminski will be the featured guest at the March 15 edition of the Outfitter’s Outdoor Speaker Series. During his “Fly Fishing: Tips & Tricks” discussion, Kozminski will offer his expertise for aspiring and veteran anglers alike; as well as a history of Trout Unlimited and the importance of improving water quality.

See more here