DOCSLIB.ORG

Canada's Marine Fisheries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Canada's Marine Fisheries CANADA’S MARINE FISHERIES: Status, Recovery Potential and Pathways to Success Julia K. Baum, PhD, University of Victoria Susanna D. Fuller, PhD, Ecology Action Centre PREPARED BY FOR OCEANA CANADA 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 4.2.4 Current status of Canadian stocks - DFO Precautionary Approach Framework 61 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 4 4.2.5 Current status of Canadian stocks – COSEWIC and DFO statuses 64 GLOSSARY AND ACRONYMS 5 4.2.6 Integrated Fisheries Management Plans 68 4.3 Summary of results 68 1. INTRODUCTION 7 5. WHAT IS PREVENTING FISHERIES RECOVERY? 70 2. WHY DOES CANADA NEED 5.1 The drivers of overfishing 70 HEALTHY FISHERIES? 9 5.1.1 Targeted fishing 70 2.1 The seafood industry 9 5.1.2 Bycatch and discards of target species, non-target 2.2 Seafood consumption 11 species and species at risk 70 2.3 Economic value of Canadian fisheries 11 5.1.3 Illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing 73 2.3.1 Landed value 11 5.1.4 Gear impacts on bycatch species and habitat 74 2.3.2 Seafood exports and imports 13 5.1.5 Failure to consider marine fisheries in an ecosystem 2.4 Jobs and the economy 14 context 77 5.2 Conclusion 77 3. HOW WELL ARE CANADA’S FISHERIES 5.3 Recommendations 78 BEING MANAGED? 16 3.1 The legal and policy framework for fisheries management 16 6. WHAT IS THE RECOVERY POTENTIAL 3.1.1 National legal and policy framework for fisheries FOR CANADIAN FISHERIES? 79 management 16 6.1 Key elements for recovery 79 3.1.2 Canada’s international commitments to 6.2 Focal species for fisheries recovery in Canada 82 sustainable fisheries 25 6.2.1 Atlantic groundfish and skates 86 3.1.3 Gaps in Canada’s legal and policy framework for fisheries 6.2.2 Pacific groundfish 89 management 26 6.2.3 Forage fish 89 3.1.4 Recommendations to improve Canada’s legal and 6.2.4 Apex predators 90 policy framework and enable fisheries recovery 28 6.3 Challenges to achieving recovery 91 3.2 Additional mechanisms for fisheries science 6.3.1 Estimating MSY 91 and management 28 6.3.2 Shifting baselines 92 3.2.1 Co-management of fisheries 29 6.3.3 Climate change 92 3.2.2 Research partnerships and collaborations 29 6.4 The value of recovery 92 3.2.3 Market-based approaches in sustainable seafood 31 3.3 Transparency in Canadian fisheries science 7. CONCLUSION 94 and management 31 3.3.1 The lack of transparency 31 8. REFERENCES 95 3.3.2 Recommendations to improve transparency 34 APPENDIX A. CASE STUDIES OF RECOVERING 4. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF CANADA’S OR RECOVERED MARINE STOCKS 106 FISH STOCKS? 38 4.1 Methods 38 APPENDIX B. OVERVIEW OF CANADIAN 4.2 Results 41 STOCKS AND MAPS 123 4.2.1 Frequency of stock assessments 41 4.2.2 Stock assessment types and data availability 45 APPENDIX C. METADATA AND PLOTS FOR 4.2.3 Current status of Canadian stocks – RAM Legacy INDIVIDUAL STOCKS 144 Stock Assessment Database 54 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Canada’s marine fisheries are highly valuable, both Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) uses the Precautionary economically and culturally. Despite their significance, Approach Framework to classify populations into four Canada has a poor track record of effectively managing its zones – healthy, cautious, critical or unknown – based fisheries and preparing for the future. Although the collapse on their stock status relative to a set of reference points. of northern cod is a notorious example of Canada’s fisheries Marine fish that COSEWIC has assessed as being threatened mismanagement, this species is just one of many that have or endangered should immediately be considered in the been overexploited and experienced massive declines in critical zone in this framework, with associated management Canada. Forty exploited marine species are assessed as measures implemented as an urgent priority. endangered or threatened by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and are being A suite of non-governmental mechanisms contributes to considered for listing under Canada’s Species at Risk Act. scientific advice and could be further leveraged to help inform Canada’s fisheries management decisions. These Despite extensive overfishing, the overall value of Canadian include: co-management agreements between fishing fisheries is at an all-time high, because high-value shellfish communities and entities and DFO; collaborative research fisheries dominate harvests, especially on the East Coast. networks; and market-based approaches. This prosperity belies a serious problem. Canada has maintained its fisheries prosperity through a process of serial We highlight a disturbing lack of transparency in Canadian depletion: by intensifying fishing pressure on new stocks fisheries science and management. Stock assessments after depleting the previous ones, rather than through sound are sometimes inaccessible or opaque, and management management and successful population rebuilding. decisions are often not publicly available. Moreover, management decision-making processes for marine Canada has a relatively strong national and international species have often been circumvented by stakeholders legal and policy framework to manage its fisheries, but it with competing interests who communicate directly with has typically failed to implement the instruments that are in the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast place to prevent overfishing and to ensure recovery where it Guard’s office or with regional fisheries directors. This is is needed. Until now, Canada’s Species at Risk Act has failed made possible largely as a result of the broad discretionary to protect marine species. In addition, although the Oceans powers of the Minister that are inherent in the Fisheries Act could be invoked to help recover depleted marine fish Act. DFO should make its data and management decisions populations, it is rarely used for this purpose. available and foster a new culture of transparency. Canada’s Fisheries Act needs to be updated to include In preparing this report on the current state of Canada’s modern management principles, such as precautionary and fisheries, we developed a list of 165 Canadian marine fish ecosystem-based fisheries management approaches. It and invertebrate stocks, including the most important should be amended to include legal requirements to prevent commercially harvested stocks and those designated as overfishing and to rebuild fish stocks within clearly defined being of conservation concern. Recent stock status data timelines and with pre-identified recovery targets. were available for 125 of these 165 populations. Of the 125 stocks examined, 82 are found on Canada’s Atlantic Canada’s Marine Fisheries: Status, Recovery Potential and Pathways to Success 1 coast (n=28 species total) and 43 are on Canada’s Pacific which presents a much more optimistic portrait regarding coast (n=18 species total). For 79 stocks, there is an the proportion of stocks reported as healthy (48 per cent) estimate of abundance. Accurate estimates of fishing and those with an unknown status (15 per cent). The opacity intensity are important for managing and recovering wild of ECCC’s methodology makes it impossible to discern populations, yet only one-quarter of the reviewed stocks the basis of these discrepancies: the report does not had an estimate of fishing mortality or exploitation rate. state which individual stocks it evaluated; nor is DFO’s Moreover, there are 22 stocks without any existing measure Fisheries Checklist, upon which the document is based, of abundance or relative abundance. publicly available. The infrequency with which assessments are conducted and Overfishing remains the primary reason why many the lack of Research Documents for some recent assessments of Canada’s commercially harvested marine fish and should be regarded as significant impediments to sound invertebrate stocks are depleted and in need of recovery. fisheries management and recovery in Canada. Scientific Successful fisheries recovery requires a suite of integrated capacity must be restored within DFO if the department is approaches, including science-based estimates of to meet the scientific and management requirements of the abundance, reference points, effort control, reduced broad suite of species under its mandate. fishing mortality and rebuilding plans with legally binding timelines and targets. As soon as overfishing is detected, Our analysis of 125 Canadian marine stocks reveals that fisheries managers must sufficiently reduce exploitation less than one-quarter (24 per cent) of Canada’s marine fish levels by setting and enforcing science-based catch and invertebrate stocks are currently considered healthy by limits. Precautionary harvest control rules also should be DFO: 15 stocks on the Atlantic coast and 13 on the Pacific established to ensure that there is adherence to science- coast. Also of concern are a full 45 per cent of Canadian based decision-making. stocks whose status is currently unknown. Climate change impacts will need to be considered Eighteen stocks in Canada are considered critical. On when developing recovery plans, and Canadian fisheries the West Coast, only three stocks are considered critical. management currently does not do an adequate job on this However, the status of all elasmobranchs and forage fish front. Biological characteristics such as species life history on this coast is unknown, making it impossible to determine and trophic level must also be taken into consideration. the true status of the fished community. In the Atlantic, 15 stocks are considered to be in a critical state. Recovery of overfished marine populations has been Unsurprisingly, these include five cod stocks. Three achieved for a variety of species and can occur relatively American plaice, one witch flounder, one white hake, quickly if fishing mortality is sufficiently reduced. Within four redfish stocks, and mackerel are considered to be in Canada, Atlantic halibut stands out as one of the few fish critical condition.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FISH LIST WISH LIST: a Case for Updating the Canadian Government’S Guidance for Common Names on Seafood
    FISH LIST WISH LIST: A case for updating the Canadian government’s guidance for common names on seafood Authors: Christina Callegari, Scott Wallace, Sarah Foster and Liane Arness ISBN: 978-1-988424-60-6 © SeaChoice November 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY . 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 4 Findings . 5 Recommendations . 6 INTRODUCTION . 7 APPROACH . 8 Identification of Canadian-caught species . 9 Data processing . 9 REPORT STRUCTURE . 10 SECTION A: COMMON AND OVERLAPPING NAMES . 10 Introduction . 10 Methodology . 10 Results . 11 Snapper/rockfish/Pacific snapper/rosefish/redfish . 12 Sole/flounder . 14 Shrimp/prawn . 15 Shark/dogfish . 15 Why it matters . 15 Recommendations . 16 SECTION B: CANADIAN-CAUGHT SPECIES OF HIGHEST CONCERN . 17 Introduction . 17 Methodology . 18 Results . 20 Commonly mislabelled species . 20 Species with sustainability concerns . 21 Species linked to human health concerns . 23 Species listed under the U .S . Seafood Import Monitoring Program . 25 Combined impact assessment . 26 Why it matters . 28 Recommendations . 28 SECTION C: MISSING SPECIES, MISSING ENGLISH AND FRENCH COMMON NAMES AND GENUS-LEVEL ENTRIES . 31 Introduction . 31 Missing species and outdated scientific names . 31 Scientific names without English or French CFIA common names . 32 Genus-level entries . 33 Why it matters . 34 Recommendations . 34 CONCLUSION . 35 REFERENCES . 36 APPENDIX . 39 Appendix A . 39 Appendix B . 39 FISH LIST WISH LIST: A case for updating the Canadian government’s guidance for common names on seafood 2 GLOSSARY The terms below are defined to aid in comprehension of this report. Common name — Although species are given a standard Scientific name — The taxonomic (Latin) name for a species. common name that is readily used by the scientific In nomenclature, every scientific name consists of two parts, community, industry has adopted other widely used names the genus and the specific epithet, which is used to identify for species sold in the marketplace.
    [Show full text]
  • Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission
    32nd Annual Report of the PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR 1979 TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AND TO THE GOVERNORS AND LEGISLATURES OF WASHINGTON, OREGON, CALIFORNIA, IDAHO, AND ALASKA Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission 528 S.W. Mill Street Portland, Oregon 97201 July 8, 1980 32nd Annual Report of the PACIFIC MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR 1979 PREFACE The Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission was created in 1947 with the consent of Congress. The Commission serves five member States: Alaska, California, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The purpose of this Compact, as stated in its Goal and Objectives, is to promote the wise management, utilization, and development of fisheries of mutual concern, and to develop a joint program of protection, enhancement, and prevention of physical waste of such fisheries. The advent of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act {FCMA) of 1976 and amendments thereto has caused spectacular and continuing changes in the management of marine fisheries in the United States. The FCMA created the Fishery Conservation Zone (FCZ) between 3 and 200 nautical miles offshore, established 8 Regional Fishery Management Councils with authority to develop fishery management plans within the FCZ, and granted the Secretary of Commerce the power to regulate both domestic and foreign fishing fleets within the FCZ. The FCMA greatly modified fishery management roles at state, interstate, national and international levels. The Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission recognized early that its operational role would change as a result of possible functional overlaps with the two regional fishery management councils established on the Pacific Coast. On the one hand, the FCMA provides non-voting Council membership to the Executive Directors of the interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions, thus assuring active participation as the Councils deliberate on fishery matters of concern to the States.
    [Show full text]
  • Why International Catch Shares Won't Save Ocean Biodiversity
    Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law Volume 2 Issue 2 2013 Why International Catch Shares Won't Save Ocean Biodiversity Holly Doremus University of California, Berkeley Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal Part of the Environmental Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Law Commons Recommended Citation Holly Doremus, Why International Catch Shares Won't Save Ocean Biodiversity, 2 MICH. J. ENVTL. & ADMIN. L. 385 (2013). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal/vol2/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Doremus_Final_Web_Ready_FINAL_12May2013 7/18/2013 4:24 PM WHY INTERNATIONAL CATCH SHARES WON’T SAVE OCEAN BIODIVERSITY Holly Doremus* Skepticism about the efficacy and efficiency of regulatory approaches has produced a wave of enthusiasm for market-based strategies for dealing with environmental conflicts. In the fisheries context, the most prominent of these strategies is the use of “catch shares,” which assign specific proportions of the total allowable catch to individuals who are then free to trade them with others. Catch shares are now in wide use domestically within many nations, and there are increasing calls for implementation of internationally tradable catch shares. Based on a review of theory, empirical evidence, and two contexts in which catch shares have been proposed, this Article explains why international catch shares are not likely to arrest the decline of ocean biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Undesirable Substances in Seafood Products – Results from Monitoring Activities in 2006
    Undesirable substances in seafood products – Results from monitoring activities in 2006 Ásta Margrét Ásmundsdóttir Vordís Baldursdóttir Sasan Rabieh Helga Gunnlaugsdóttir Matvælaöryggi Skýrsla Matís 17-08 Júlí 2008 ISSN 1670-7192 Titill / Title Undesirable substances in seafood products– results from the monitoring activities in 2006 Höfundar / Authors Ásta Margrét Ásmundsdóttir, Vordís Baldursdóttir, Sasan Rabieh, Helga Gunnlaugsdóttir Skýrsla / Report no. 17 - 08 Útgáfudagur / Date: Júlí 2008 Verknr. / project no. 1687 Styrktaraðilar / funding: Ministry of fisheries Ágrip á íslensku: Árið 2003 hófst, að frumkvæði Sjávarútvegsráðuneytisins, vöktun á óæskilegum efnum í sjávarafurðum, bæði afurðum sem ætlaðar eru til manneldis sem og afurðum lýsis- og mjöliðnaðar. Tilgangurinn með vöktuninni er að meta ástand íslenskra sjávarafurða með tilliti til magns aðskotaefna. Gögnin sem safnað er í vöktunarverkefninu verða einnig notuð í áhættumati og til að hafa áhrif á setningu hámarksgilda óæskilegra efna t.d í Evrópu. Umfjöllun um aðskotaefni í sjávarafurðum, bæði í almennum fjölmiðlum og í vísindaritum, hefur margoft krafist viðbragða íslenskra stjórnvalda. Nauðsynlegt er að hafa til taks vísindaniðurstöður sem sýna fram á raunverulegt ástand íslenskra sjávarafurða til þess að koma í veg fyrir tjón sem af slíkri umfjöllun getur hlotist. Ennfremur eru mörk aðskotaefna í sífelldri endurskoðun og er mikilvægt fyrir Íslendinga að taka þátt í slíkri endurskoðun og styðja mál sitt með vísindagögnum. Þetta sýnir mikilvægi þess að regluleg vöktun fari fram og að á Íslandi séu stundaðar sjálfstæðar rannsóknir á eins mikilvægum málaflokki og mengun sjávarafurða er. Þessi skýrsla er samantekt niðurstaðna vöktunarinnar árið 2006. Það er langtímamarkmið að meta ástand íslenskra sjávarafurða m.t.t. magns óæskilegra efna. Þessu markmiði verður einungis náð með sívirkri vöktun í langan tíma.
    [Show full text]
  • Seafood Traceability for Fisheries Compliance – Country- Level Support for Catch Documentation Schemes
    ISSN 2070-7010 FAO 619 FISHERIES AND AQUACULTURE TECHNICAL PAPER 619 Seafood traceability for fisheries compliance Country-level support for catch documentation schemes Seafood traceability for fisheries compliance This document explores ways in which individual countries in seafood supply chains can, in their capacities as coastal, flag, port, processing or end-market states, contribute to maximizing the effectiveness of catch documentation schemes. The focus is on the traceability of seafood consignments, but the authors also explore other important compliance mechanisms that are not directly related to traceability but – that support the effective implementation of catch documentation schemes at the Country-level support for catch documentation schemes country level. The document explains which traceability mechanisms are built into catch documentation schemes, and which additional support mechanisms must be provided by individual countries along seafood supply chains. The study finds that traditional fisheries monitoring, inspection and sanctioning mechanisms are of primary importance with regard to flag, coastal and end-market states, whereas effective country-level traceability mechanisms are critical of particular importance in port and processing states. ISBN 978-92-5-130040-4 978 9251 300404 FAO I8183EN/1/11.17 Cover photograph: Weighing and recording of catch to be transhipped off a longline fishing vessel. Noro, Solomon Islands. © Francisco Blaha (Photo serves an illustrative purpose and was not taken in the context of IUU fishing)
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance & Best Practices for Federally-Managed Fisheries
    DISCUSSION DRAFT Electronic Monitoring and Electronic Reporting: Guidance & Best Practices for Federally-Managed Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service in collaboration with Regional Fishery Management Councils Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions State Marine Fisheries Agencies Tribes Commercial and Recreational Fishermen Fishing Community Organizations Environmental and Non-Governmental Organizations Electronic Technology Service Providers August 2013 EM/ER Discussion Draft Page ii Foreword What is a “Discussion Draft”? A discussion draft is a draft work in progress intended to stimulate reader thought and to extract reader’s reaction to a topic. The purpose is to mine reader’s additional ideas and contributions for completion of a final document. What is the intended use for this document? The objective of the discussion draft is to promote discussion and thinking within regions and across regions about electronic monitoring (EM) and electronic reporting (ER). Our collective goal for the final document, scheduled for completion this Fall, is to help managers and stakeholders consider the questions of how EM/ER tools can help contribute to a more cost-effective and sustainable collection of fishery dependent data in our federally- managed fisheries. Are these Mandatory Requirements? No. The guidance in the document is not prescriptive or regulatory in nature and is offered simply as preliminary advice and suggested best practices. As consideration of EM/ER proceeds in the eight Council regions it is hoped that additional feedback and guidance will be submitted for addition to this document over time as a “living document” to improve the knowledge base and information available to assist decision makers.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries
    Strategic Framework for Fishery Monitoring and Catch Reporting in the Pacific Fisheries Fisheries and Oceans Canada Pacific Region Fisheries and Aquaculture Management Final March 2012 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 Policy context 1 Key drivers for change 2 The current status of monitoring and reporting 5 A risk‐based strategic framework 7 2. Goal and Guiding Principles 8 Goal 9 Principle 1: Conservation and sustainable use 9 Principle 2: Consistency and transparency 10 Principle 3: Tailored requirements 11 Principle 4: Shared accountability and access 11 Principle 5: Cost‐effectiveness 12 3. Strategic Approach 12 Strategy 1: Monitoring and Reporting Requirements 13 Strategy 2: Monitoring and reporting programs 16 Strategy 3: Data management 17 Strategy 4: Other program support 18 Strategy 5: Integrated Compliance Management 18 Strategy 6: Continual improvement 19 5. Summary and Next Steps 19 References 22 Appendix 1 24 Appendix 2 26 D 1. Introduction Faced with a myriad of challenges, including climate change, declining fish stocks, reduced economic viability, an evolving global marketplace, and heightened competition for aquatic resources, Canada’s Pacific fisheries are undergoing reform. Demands for sustainable management that considers the larger ecosystem, respects Aboriginal rights, strengthens engagement of resource users in decision‐making, and finds solutions to allocate scarce resources are putting pressure on governments and fishery interests alike. In many fisheries, the distrust of reported catch data and inconsistent monitoring has helped to fuel conflicts between harvesting groups. Reliable, timely and accessible fisheries information is the foundation of sustainable management. While the importance of good catch data is certainly not new to the Pacific Region, the worldwide trend towards sustainable fisheries and supporting management practices is calling for significant improvements in monitoring and reporting.
    [Show full text]
  • Lobster Review
    Seafood Watch Seafood Report American lobster Homarus americanus (Image © Monterey Bay Aquarium) Northeast Region Final Report February 2, 2006 Matthew Elliott Independent Consultant Monterey Bay Aquarium American Lobster About Seafood Watch® and the Seafood Reports Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from the Internet (seafoodwatch.org) or obtained from the Seafood Watch® program by emailing [email protected]. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives,” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Fisheries Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Vessel Monitoring Systems and Their Role in Fisheries Management and Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
    Vessel Monitoring Systems and their Role in Fisheries Management and Monitoring, Control and Surveillance 1.0 Vessel Monitoring Systems: Overview Fisheries managers started utilizing Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) in the 1990si to track the locations and monitor the activities of fishing vessels in order to bolster the efficacy of fisheries management measures. This capability also enhanced enforcement capacity by facilitating more effective and cost efficient enforcement actions by providing a level of monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) not possible with traditional and more conventional methods of aerial and surface surveillance. Satellite-based VMS are described by the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as: “…comprised of several components. Each participating vessel must carry a VMS unit. This shipboard electronic equipment is installed permanently onboard a fishing vessel and assigned a unique identifier. Most shipboard VMS equipment types use satellite communication systems that have an integrated Global Positioning System (GPS). The system calculates the unit’s position and sends a data report to shoreside users. The standard data report includes the VMS unit’s unique identifier, date, time and position in latitude and longitude…” Initially, VMS was used as an instrument for flag States to track the activities of their own domestic fishing vessels, and for coastal States to monitor foreign-flagged fishing vessels licensed to operate within their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provided the legal basis for this as it gave coastal States the primary responsibility for managing all living marine resources within their 200 nautical mile EEZ. The United Nations (UN) Fish Stocks Agreement specifically called for the implementation of VMS by flag States in the framework of sub- regional, regional and global agreementsii.
    [Show full text]
  • Fact Sheet the Conservation of Migratorywhale Sharks SHARK
    Memorandum of Understanding on Sharks MOU Species Fact Sheet the Conservation of MigratoryWHALE Sharks SHARK WHALE SHARK REQUIN-BALEINE TIBURÓN BALLENA Fact Sheet Whale Shark Rhincodon typus WHALE SHARK Class: Chondrichthyes Order: Orectolobiforme Family : Rhincodontidae Species: Rhincodon typus 0 Illustration: © Marc Dando Sharks MOU Species Fact Sheet Sharks MOU Species Fact Sheet WHALE SHARK WHALE SHARK © Shark MOU Advisory Committee This fact sheet was produced by the Advisory Committee of the Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks (Sharks MOU). For further information contact: John Carlson, Ph.D. Research Fish Biologist, NOAA Fisheries Service-Southeast Fisheries Science Center Panama City, 1 [email protected] Sharks MOU Species Fact Sheet WHALE SHARK 1. Biology The Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) is the world’s largest living fish (<20m), found globally in tropical and warm temperate waters (Rowat and Brooks 2012). Coastal feeding aggregations are known from these filter feeders, where they exploit seasonal productivity of pelagic invertebrates, fish spawning events, and small schooling fishes. Although encounters are rarely associated with surface temperatures below 21°C, Whale Sharks are capable of withstanding temperatures as low as 4.2°C during dives to up to 1,900 m (Colman 1997; Duffy 2002; Afonso et al. 2014; Tyminski et al. 2015). Their reproductive ecology is poorly understood but associated with slow growth and late maturity and therefore a limited reproductive capacity. 2. Distribution Whale Sharks are distributed circum-tropically from approximately 30°N to 35°S with seasonal variations (Rowat and Brooks 2012; Sequeira et al. 2014). Several aggregation sites are distributed over all three ocean basins, with major subpopulations in the Atlantic Ocean and Indo-Pacific (Sequeira et al.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability
    This PDF is available from The National Academies Press at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=19000 Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability ISBN Committee on Considerations for the Future of Animal Science Research; 978-0-309-31644-6 Science and Technology for Sustainability Program; Policy and Global Affairs; Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources; Division on Earth and 360 pages Life Sciences; National Research Council 6 x 9 PAPERBACK (2015) Visit the National Academies Press online and register for... Instant access to free PDF downloads of titles from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 10% off print titles Custom notification of new releases in your field of interest Special offers and discounts Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Request reprint permission for this book Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability Committee on Considerations for the Future of Animal Science Research Science and Technology for Sustainability Program Policy and Global Affairs Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources Division on Earth and Life Studies Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Critical Role of Animal Science Research in Food Security and Sustainability THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX M Common and Scientific Species Names
    Bay du Nord Development Project Environmental Impact Statement APPENDIX M Common and Scientific Species Names Bay du Nord Development Project Environmental Impact Statement Common and Species Names Common Name Scientific Name Fish Abyssal Skate Bathyraja abyssicola Acadian Redfish Sebastes fasciatus Albacore Tuna Thunnus alalunga Alewife (or Gaspereau) Alosa pseudoharengus Alfonsino Beryx decadactylus American Eel Anguilla rostrata American Plaice Hippoglossoides platessoides American Shad Alosa sapidissima Anchovy Engraulidae (F) Arctic Char (or Charr) Salvelinus alpinus Arctic Cod Boreogadus saida Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Thunnus thynnus Atlantic Cod Gadus morhua Atlantic Halibut Hippoglossus hippoglossus Atlantic Mackerel Scomber scombrus Atlantic Salmon (landlocked: Ouananiche) Salmo salar Atlantic Saury Scomberesox saurus Atlantic Silverside Menidia menidia Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus Atlantic Wreckfish Polyprion americanus Barndoor Skate Dipturus laevis Basking Shark Cetorhinus maximus Bigeye Tuna Thunnus obesus Black Dogfish Centroscyllium fabricii Blue Hake Antimora rostrata Blue Marlin Makaira nigricans Blue Runner Caranx crysos Blue Shark Prionace glauca Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis Boa Dragonfish Stomias boa ferox Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Brown Bullhead Catfish Ameiurus nebulosus Burbot Lota lota Capelin Mallotus villosus Cardinal Fish Apogonidae (F) Chain Pickerel Esox niger Common Grenadier Nezumia bairdii Common Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus Common Thresher Shark Alopias vulpinus Crucian Carp
    [Show full text]