4 Environmental Limitations

and General Impact on

Properties of the Catch
Stephen T. Grabacki

CONTENTS
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 39
4.2 Availability ..................................................................................................... 39
4.2.1 Effects of Environmental Factors .......................................................40
4.2.2 Effects of Fisheries Management ....................................................... 43
4.3 Quality ............................................................................................................ 51
4.3.1 Effects of Environmental Factors ....................................................... 51
4.3.2 Effects of Fisheries Management ....................................................... 52
4.3.2.1 Fishing Gear......................................................................... 53
4.3.2.2 Boat Size .............................................................................. 54
4.3.2.3 Fishing Areas ....................................................................... 54
4.3.2.4 Fishing Periods .................................................................... 54
4.3.2.5 In-Season Management........................................................ 55
4.3.2.6 Number of Harvesters .......................................................... 55
References ................................................................................................................ 56

4.1 INTRODUCTION
Harvests of “wild” (i.e., natural or non-cultured) fishes are limited by the natural bio-
logical characteristics of the species, which are, in turn, effected by myriad environ-
mental factors. Those environmental factors also effect the properties of the catch,
as measured in terms of seafood quality.
This chapter discusses the effects of the environment on fish availability and on
seafood quality, both as a direct influence, and as indirect constraints on fisheries
management. The discussion is supplemented by examples from the fisheries off
Alaska, U.S. The Alaskan fisheries are well suited to serve as examples because of
their diversity of species, large harvests, many product forms, worldwide markets,
and decades of sustainable fisheries management.

4.2 AVAILABILITY
The availability of harvestable fishes (finfish and shellfish) is limited directly by envi-
ronmental factors and indirectly by the effects of those factors on fisheries management.

39
40 Environmental Effects on Seafood Availability, Safety, and Quality

4.2.1 EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Environmental factors affect the availability of fishes in two ways:

• Biological: Affecting the numbers of fish and the size of individuals.

• Ecological: Affecting the distribution (location) of fish.

To begin, here are definitions of three important terms:

• Species: A group of organisms that can interbreed.

• Population: A group of organisms of the same species, in a given area.
• Stock: The portion of a population whose members are above a certain size
or age:
• Reproductive stock: Those members of a stock that have attained the
age of sexual maturity.
• Fishable stock: Those members of a stock that have grown large enough
to be vulnerable to capture by fishing gear.

Humans harvest fish from the fishable stock. The abundance of the fishable stock is
determined by the dynamic rates of the population (Figure 4.1):

• Additions:
• Fecundity refers to the number of eggs that each female fish produces.

Additions Recruitment Subtractions

- To spawners
- To fishery

Fecundity Natural

Births
POPULATION Mortality

STOCK
Fishing
[in numbers or biomass]

Middle
Young Old &
& small size & big
Immigration age Emigration

Individual growth

FIGURE 4.1 Schematic model of a population and stock of fish, showing additions (births
and immigration), subtractions (deaths and emigration), and recruitment (to the spawning
stock, and to the fishable stock); arrows are rates, and boxes are quantities (amounts).
Environmental Limitations and General Impact on Properties of the Catch 41

• Births (number of hatched eggs) are closely related to fecundity, but are
also affected by other factors.
• Immigration means that populations and stocks can grow by the addi-
tion of new members from outside the area.
• Growth and recruitment:
• Individual growth means that the individual fish increase in size, as
they age.
• Recruitment means that as fish age and grow, they enter (i.e., they
“recruit to”) the spawning stock and/or to the fishery (note: a stock in
which the recruits are allowed to spawn before being caught is more
stable and sustainable than a stock in which the fish can be captured
before spawning).
• Subtractions:
• Deaths refers to the loss of fish from the stock and population by natural
mortality (starvation, predation, disease, changes in water conditions,
etc.) or by fishing mortality.
• Emigration means that populations and stocks can shrink by the loss of
members moving away from the area.

Each of these parameters is affected by environmental changes. Favorable envi-

ronmental conditions will tend to increase fecundity, births, individual growth,
recruitment, and longevity, which then result in greater abundance of the stock and
greater opportunity for harvests. Unfavorable conditions will, of course, have the
opposite effect.
Environmental factors affect fish populations and stocks in many ways, at
all stages of a species’ life cycle. The primary factors are temperature, salinity,
and currents (Table 4.1), but other factors, such as water quality (oxygen concen-
tration, turbidity, dissolved and suspended constituents, and pollution) are also
important.
From the point of view of harvesters, the three most relevant parameters are:

• Abundance: How many fish are there?

• Distribution: Where are the fish, in three-dimensional ocean space?
• Fishability: How vulnerable are the fish to the fishing gear?

Clearly, abundance and distribution are affected by several environmental factors.

But fishability (also termed “catchability”) is affected by those environmental factors
and by the behavior of the fish.
Water temperature affects fishability in several ways:

• Each species has a preferred range of water temperature, and they tend to
remain in water that is at, or close to, that range.
• Water temperature can limit horizontal movements of fishes, by present-
ing oceanic boundaries, which tend to concentrate the fish, and which can
make them more vulnerable to capture.
42 Environmental Effects on Seafood Availability, Safety, and Quality

TABLE 4.1
Effects of Environmental Factors on Fish Abundance, Distribution, and
Fishability
Environmental Factor Effects on Fish
Temperature Rates of metabolism, feeding, digestion
Speed of swimming and migration
Individual growth rate
Starvation survival
Rate of gonad development, fecundity, spawning
Timing of spawning
Survival of larvae
Timing of migrations
Avoidance of predators
Avoidance of fishing gear
Creation of environmental boundaries; vertical and horizontal
Vulnerability to fishery (e.g., above or below thermocline)
Salinity Distribution and survival of eggs, larvae, juveniles, and adults
Migration orientation, in response to salinity gradients
Reproductive success and survival of eggs, larvae, and
juveniles
Creation of environmental boundaries; vertical and horizontal
Availability to fishery
Availability to spawning stock
Currents Greatest effect on stock is via direct effect on eggs, larvae,
[Horizontal and vertical, which are and juveniles (transport from spawning grounds to nursery
caused by differences in water and feeding areas)
temperature and/or salinity, and by Orientation of adult fish for migration
interactions with the atmosphere Alteration of diel behavior, especially by tidal currents
(wind)] Aggregation of food, at boundaries between currents
Creation of environmental boundaries; vertical and horizontal
Aggregation of fish and vulnerability to fishing gear

• Water temperature can limit vertical movements of fishes, by presenting

boundaries that the fishes will not rise above or descend below; this can
make the species vulnerable to capture, especially if the fishing gear (trawls
or seines) occupy enough of the water column in the preferred temperature
range.

Fish behavior affects fishability in several ways:

• Many species move in response to environmental stimuli; these movements

can be.
• Short term: Daily vertical migrations to find optimal conditions (tem-
perature, light, etc.), escape predators, or find food.
Environmental Limitations and General Impact on Properties of the Catch 43

• Long term: Seasonal horizontal migrations for spawning, or to find

optimal conditions (temperature, salinity, food, etc.).
• Some fishes can detect and avoid fishing gear; this behavior is affected by the
visibility of the gear, the operation (e.g., speed) of the gear, the attractiveness
of the bait or lure, and the swimming speed and feeding habits of the fish.

Finally, abiotic factors also affect fishability:

• Rough or steep ocean bottom conditions can limit the effectiveness of

fishing gear.
• Weather and sea conditions affect the placement and operation of the gear.

The preceding paragraphs have briefly outlined the basic mechanisms of environ-
mental effects on fish stocks at what might be termed a “micro” scale. This must be
balanced with a brief discussion of “macro” factors, such as large-scale and long-
term oceanographic processes.
The most well known of these processes is the El Niño/Southern Oscillation
(ENSO). It is a global scale, ocean-atmosphere coupled phenomenon. In normal
non-El Niño conditions, the trade winds blow toward the west across the tropical
Pacific. These winds pile up warm surface water in the west Pacific, so that the sea
surface is about half a meter higher at Indonesia than at Ecuador. During El Niño,
the trade winds relax in the central and western Pacific, leading to a depression of
the thermocline in the eastern Pacific, and an elevation of the thermocline in the
west. The result is a rise in sea surface temperature and a drastic decline in primary
productivity. Decreased primary productivity adversely impacts the higher trophic
levels of the food chain, including commercial fisheries of South America. The
opposite phase of ENSO is La Niña, in which the westerly trade winds are stronger,
and the waters off the west coast of South America are cooler and richer in nutri-
ents. This richness leads to increased fisheries production. See Clarke (2008) for a
recent comprehensive discussion of ENSO and its effects on fisheries.
Alaskan fisheries are affected by a similar, and perhaps related, phenomenon—
the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)—a pattern of climate variability in the North
Pacific (north of 20°N). It alternates between a “warm” or “positive” phase, and a
“cool” or “negative” phase, on roughly a 20- to 30-year time scale. These oceano-
graphic “regime shifts” are thought to have profound effects on the entire ecosystem,
including fishes (Johnson 2003, Mundy 2005). However, the processes and effects of
both ENSO and PDO are not yet well understood, and research is ongoing.

4.2.2 EFFECTS OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

From the point of view of the seafood industry, the effects of environmental factors
on fish stocks become apparent through changes in the abundance and distribution
of the fish. Fisheries managers respond to those changes by raising or lowering
the amount of fish that may be harvested, and by restricting the areas, times, and
methods of harvest.
44 Environmental Effects on Seafood Availability, Safety, and Quality

Fisheries are managed by various government agencies on behalf of the stake-

holders (= owners of the resources). Stakeholders include harvesters (commercial,
recreational, subsistence), seafood processors, customers, consumers, and many
other groups, as well as the public at large. Fisheries managers strive to balance
harvests with the ability of the stocks to withstand those harvests. If managers
are too conservative, the resource is underharvested and economic opportuni-
ties are lost, and if they are too liberal, the resource is overharvested and the
stock is damaged. In other words, the goal of fisheries management is sustainable
harvesting—harvesting the maximum amount of fish that can be taken on a long-
term, sustainable basis.
One of the most difficult tasks of fisheries management is stock assessment—how
many fish are there, where are they, and how many may be sustainably harvested?
As outlined in subsection 4.1.1, environmental variables cause the fish stocks to fluc-
tuate in numbers. We cannot see the fish, and the fish are not stationary, so we can
only estimate their:

• Abundance (numbers in a given area)

• Distribution (which is patchy and discontinuous)
• On an age-specific and/or size-specific basis

Biologists accomplish this by using mathematical models based on data from

scientific sampling (e.g., acoustic surveys, test fishing) and/or data from the fishery
itself (e.g., catch-per-unit-effort, average size of individuals). These models are
useful representations of the abundance and distribution of the resource, but they are
imperfect, and the imperfection results in some level of uncertainty in the estimates.
So, environmental conditions and changes limit fisheries harvests:

• Directly, by changing the abundance and distribution of the resources

• Indirectly, by limiting our ability to enumerate, understand, and forecast
the resources

In determining the maximum permissible harvest levels for each stock (e.g., total
allowable catch (TAC), biological escapement goal (BEG)), scientists and managers
must take both factors into account.
The living marine resources in the ocean off Alaska are truly of world-class
proportions. Demersal and pelagic, marine and anadromous, finfish and shellfish—
Alaska’s resources are known around the world for their abundance, diversity, and
sustainability. The exploitation of those resources is managed by agencies of the
federal (U.S.) and state (Alaska) governments (Grabacki 2008):

• National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, also called NOAA Fisheries):

conservation and management of federally managed species, such as
groundfish, http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/
• North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC or Council): allocation
of federally managed species, http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/default.htm
Environmental Limitations and General Impact on Properties of the Catch 45

• Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG or Department): con-

servation and management of state-managed species, such as salmon,
http://www.cf.adfg.state.ak.us/
• (Alaska) Board of Fisheries (BoF or Board): allocation of state-managed
species, http://www.boards.adfg.state.ak.us/fishinfo/index.php

The process begins with stock assessment. Every year, scientists from the NMFS, in
collaboration with scientists from the Council, universities, and the ADFG collect
data, and compile and update databases on catch, age, and size composition, and
survey biomass. They analyze the data and calculate estimates of key population
parameters for all groundfish species under federal management. The data for these
assessments come from scientific trawl surveys, acoustic surveys, fishery harvest
monitoring, and other scientific studies.
Contemporary stock assessment models are constructed to integrate the scien-
tific information, except when information is not sufficient for model construction.
The data are used to calculate estimates of year-class abundance, spawning biomass,
total biomass, weight-at-age, weight-at-age by year, and weight-at-age by sex. This
is a comprehensive, quantitative process, which occupies the full-time attention of
dozens of scientists year-round. This is the best scientific evidence available, and it
forms the foundation of all groundfish fishery stock assessments.
There is a fishery management plan (FMP) for every federally managed fishery
(Alaska pollock, Pacific cod, and many others). The NMFS’ guidelines for FMPs
require that a stock assessment and fishery evaluation (SAFE) report be prepared
and reviewed annually for each FMP. The SAFE summarizes the best available sci-
entific information concerning the past, present, and possible future condition of the
stocks, marine ecosystems, and fisheries that are managed under federal regulation.
It provides information to the Council for determining annual harvest levels from
each stock, documenting significant trends or changes in the resource, marine eco-
systems, and fishery over time, and assessing the relative success of existing state
and federal fishery management programs.
The stock assessment section of the SAFE reports is compiled by the plan team
from chapters contributed by scientists at the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center
(AFSC). Each chapter develops and evaluates several competing mathematical mod-
els of stock abundance, and then selects and recommends the model that best reflects
actual stock conditions. These chapters include recommendations for overfishing
levels (OFLs) and acceptable biological catches (ABCs) for each stock and stock
complex managed under the FMP. The ABC recommendations are reviewed by the
scientific and statistical committee (SSC), which may confirm the plan team’s rec-
ommendations, or develop its own. This is one of the stages of peer review, through
which these recommendations must pass.
The ABC recommendations, together with social and economic factors, are
considered by the Council in determining TACs and other measures used to
manage the fisheries. Neither the scientists, plan team, nor the SSC recommend
TACs; that is, the plan team’s recommended ABCs are distinctly separate from,
and are calculated prior to, any setting of TACs, or allocation of harvests. The
research and data collection performed by the NMFS, as well as the FMPs and
46 Environmental Effects on Seafood Availability, Safety, and Quality

the supporting SAFEs, consider each stock unit over its entire area of distribu-
tion. These studies include research on the target resources, as well as research
on climatic, environmental, and socio-economic factors. They are based on the
best available scientific knowledge, plus local and traditional knowledge of the
resources and their habitat.
The SAFE is a thorough, quantitative process, based on timely, complete, and
reliable statistics. The data underlying those statistics come from both the NMFS’
own scientific surveys, and from fishery-related monitoring. Each SAFE presents
sound statistical analyses, and produces several competing mathematical models,
or scenarios. The NMFS scientists then select the scenario that best represents two
stock-specific reference points—the ABC and the OFL. Finally, each SAFE also
considers the effects of the ecosystem on the stock, the effects of the fishery on the
ecosystem, by-catch of non-target and other species (including marine mammals and
sea birds), and fishery usage of habitat.
The ADFG is the state counterpart to the federal NMFS. The ADFG conducts
research on the fisheries resources that are within state management authority. The
most well known of these is Alaska salmon, which is actually composed of five
distinct species: king (chinook), red (sockeye), pink (humpy), chum (keta), and silver
(coho).
A groundfish stock, such as Alaska pollock in the Bering Sea and Aleutian
Islands, can be considered as one unit, and it can be studied and forecast as a unit.
Salmon stocks, on the other hand, have unique population dynamic characteristics in
each river to which they return to spawn. That is, each “run” of salmon in a particu-
lar river must be understood, forecast, and managed as a discrete unit, not related to
other runs of salmon in that river, or in nearby rivers.
In the years since Alaska became a state (1959), the ADFG has compiled com-
prehensive databases on salmon runs. Department scientists use those data, plus
in-season assessments of run strength (numbers of fish), to set escapement goals
for the fisheries. “Escapement” means the annual estimated size of the spawning
salmon stock, that is, the numbers of salmon that escape capture in a fishery. The
quality of the escapement may be determined not only by numbers of spawners,
but also by factors such as sex ratio, age composition, temporal entry from the
ocean into the river system, and spatial distribution within the salmon spawn-
ing habitat. The escapement goal is a stock-specific reference point for fishery
management.
By having escapement as its top priority, the ADFG ensures the conservation of
the target species, as well as the conservation of other species in the same ecosys-
tem, which might be associated with the target species. All other considerations,
such as harvests and allocation, are subordinate to the escapement goal. Long-term
conservation and sustainable use are, therefore, the ADFG’s overriding objective.
The Department seeks to maintain the quality, diversity, and availability of fish-
ery resources for present and future generations. In setting escapement goals, the
ADFG uses the best scientific evidence available from its own research (e.g., test
fishing, aerial surveys) and from fishery-related data. Alaska has literally hundreds
of salmon runs, and each run may be classified according to availability of data on
historic escapements and historic catches.
Environmental Limitations and General Impact on Properties of the Catch 47

For stocks where there are no stock-specific data on escapements or catches, the
ADFG selects a watershed model or a stream-length model on which to base its
estimates of run strength and escapement. Where there are few stock-specific data,
the ADFG uses a paleolimnology model for sockeye salmon, or a model relating
spawning abundance to system production for species such as chinook salmon. This
usually leads to the development of a sustainable escapement goal (SEG). A SEG
is a level of escapement, indicated by an index or an escapement estimate, which is
known to provide for sustained yield over a 5- to 10-year period. It is used in situ-
ations where a BEG cannot be estimated because of the absence of a stock-specific
catch estimate. The SEG is the primary management objective for the escapement,
unless an optimal escapement or in-river run goal has been adopted. It is developed
from the best available scientific information. The SEG is determined by the ADFG,
and is stated as a range that takes into account data uncertainty; the Department
seeks to maintain escapement within the bounds of the SEG.
A SEG differs from a TAC in that a SEG is a range, while a TAC is a specific
number. Stating an escapement goal as a range provides useful in-season flexibility
to fisheries managers, as will be explained later in the chapter.
For stocks where there are many data on both escapements and catches, it is
possible to calculate a BEG. It takes into account stock-recruit data and fishing
power. A BEG is the escapement that provides the greatest potential for maximum
sustained yield. A BEG is the primary management objective for escapement
unless an optimal escapement or in-river run goal has been adopted. It is devel-
oped from the best available biological information, and is scientifically defen-
sible on that basis. The BEG is determined by the ADFG, and is expressed as a
range based on factors such as salmon stock productivity and data uncertainty.
The Department seeks to maintain evenly distributed salmon escapements within
the bounds of the BEG.
For the salmon fisheries, the ADFG’s main priority is escapement, which ensures
that enough fish escape the fisheries, and spawn in their natal rivers. The total num-
ber of salmon returning to a given river (the “run” or “return”) is usually much
greater than the escapement level. That amount, over and above escapement, may
be harvested by commercial, recreational, personal use, or subsistence fisheries. If
the run of salmon is not greater than the escapement goal, then the ADFG does not
allow any harvest.
After the TACs and escapement levels are set and allocations are made, the
detailed work of fisheries management begins. The NMFS and the ADFG use a
wide variety of fishery management methods and techniques. The largest and most
basic collection of fishery management techniques may be termed “regulated inef-
ficiency.” Over time, in every fishery in the world, the exploitative pressure on the
stock tends to increase. Harvesters increase in number, and they improve in fishing
skill. Boats become bigger, faster, and more powerful. Electronic fish-finding equip-
ment becomes more sensitive and accurate. Fishing gear, such as nets, winches, and
ropes, become stronger. In other words, fishing fleets tend to become more efficient
in their catching power.
The problem is that the numbers of fish are finite. The finite nature of fish stocks,
combined with the virtually infinite improvements in catching efficiency, almost
48 Environmental Effects on Seafood Availability, Safety, and Quality

always set the stage for overfishing. In Alaska, one approach to a solution has been
to regulate the efficiency of the harvesters, through such methods as:

• Time-and-area closures: these methods allow fishing during certain times

or in certain areas, but not in others
• Restrictions on size of boats: certain fisheries have limits on the size of
fishing boats
• Restrictions on fishing gear: virtually every fishery has limitations on fish-
ing gear
• Certain gear types are completely prohibited, such as pelagic longlines,
sunken gillnets, fish traps

Another Alaska approach is to limit the number of harvesters in a fishery. Known

widely as “license limitation,” in Alaska it is termed “limited entry,” because
it limits who may enter a fishery. The Alaska Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission (CFEC) manages the license limitation program for Alaska’s salmon
fisheries, and certain other fisheries. No one may harvest Alaska salmon without
an Alaska “limited entry permit,” which must be bought from a current permit
holder. The CFEC keeps track of these permit transactions. The Alaska limited
entry salmon fisheries are protected from over-crowding, and thus are less dif-
ficult to manage than an unrestricted fishery. Similar license limitation programs
exist for the state-managed Alaska scallop fishery and the federally managed
Pacific cod fishery.
The third major approach to fishery management is “rationalization,” which refers
to economic rationalization—the granting of ownership rights to a given fraction
of an annual TAC. Currently, some notable Alaska fisheries have been rational-
ized—BSAI pollock, Pacific halibut, sablefish (blackcod), and most BSAI king and
snow crab fisheries—and several others are being considered for rationalization. All
rationalization programs involve some sort of individual fishing quotas (IFQ) for
harvesters, and some of them involve quotas for processors. For now, note that ratio-
nalization improves fisheries management by imposing limits on the amount of fish
that each harvester may take.
Federal and state fisheries managers use a variety of other techniques, depending
on the operations of a fishery. For example, there may be a requirement that all fish-
ing vessels have their fish holds inspected before the start of a fishing season, which
ensures that they have not started fishing before the season opens.
In addition to the fisheries management tools described above, state and federal
managers have the ability to impose or modify the rules during the fishing season, as
opposed to only between seasons. This “in-season” management ability means that
fishery managers can modify the fishery to adapt it to the realities of the stock, the
weather, and other parameters. In federal fisheries, a fishery might be limited, modi-
fied, or stopped altogether if a pre-determined level of incidental catch (“by-catch”)
is reached. In the state-managed salmon fisheries, managers can open and close the
fishery (start and stop fishing) in response to the daily “run strength,” which is the
numbers of salmon returning to their natal streams.
Environmental Limitations and General Impact on Properties of the Catch 49

In-season management has been used in Alaska fisheries ever since Alaska
became a state and took over the management of its fisheries. It is a powerful man-
agement tool that is being adopted by managers of other fisheries in other states and
countries. It will be discussed further in section 4.2.
The foregoing discussion outlines how the supply of fish can be restricted by
environmental factors—the environmental factors determine the abundance and dis-
tribution of the stock, and the fisheries scientists and managers strive to understand
and respond to those changes.
Environmental factors can limit the supply of seafood in at least three other
ways—by-catch reduction, habitat protection, and regulatory enforcement. The
environment of the target species includes many other species, both fishes and other
classes. By-catch, also called “incidental catch” or “incidental harvest” means the
unintended capture of non-target species, which might be other fish species, sea
birds, or marine mammals. Significant and effective by-catch reduction programs
are enforced in all Alaska fisheries, both federal- and state-managed.
In the groundfish fisheries, certain species have been designated as “prohibited
species,” and must not be retained on board a groundfish fishing vessel. When a pre-
determined amount of a prohibited species is taken, the fishery for the target species
is closed, regardless of whether it has taken its own TAC. This strict rule provides a
strong incentive for harvesters to “fish clean”—to minimize by-catch of prohibited
species. Over the years, the “PSC cap” (limit) has closed many groundfish fisheries
before the TAC for the target species has been reached. These same rules apply to
“state waters” (“internal waters”) groundfish fisheries, as well.
The NMFS’ protected resources division (PRD) is responsible for develop-
ing management and conservation programs for several species of marine mam-
mals and birds in Alaska. In administering the provisions of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Fur Seal Act, and
the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act, the biologists and staff of the
PRD work with other NMFS offices and the NPFMC to develop regulations and
management measures to protect, conserve, and restore populations of mammals
and birds. For example, 58,000 square nautical miles (n. mi.2) of ocean space near
Steller sea lion haulouts is closed to commercial fishing, and longliners must use
special gear to avoid by-catch of seabirds.
Considerations of habitat protection (environmental protection) limit fisheries
harvests because fishing activities are limited by regulation. For example, in the
American exclusive economic zone (EEZ) off Alaska, 571,000 n. mi.2 of seabed are
closed to bottom trawling. This closure is part of a larger system of marine protected
areas (MPAs) around Alaska, and elsewhere in the American EEZ.
Regulatory enforcement limits harvests in many ways, mainly by restric-
tions on fishing areas, seasons, and gear. This is done in response to changes in
the environment, the stock, and the fishery. Without a government management
agency to impose limits on harvests and/or fishing methods, the fleets tend to over-
fish the resources. This is generally thought of as the central problem of fisheries
management—an infinite demand on a finite resource. This has often been called
the “Tragedy of the Commons,” about which there is extensive literature. But, for
50 Environmental Effects on Seafood Availability, Safety, and Quality

the purposes of this chapter, that is an incomplete description; a more useful outline
has five elements:

1. Infinite demand
2. Finite resource
3. Imperfect knowledge of existing conditions in the environment and the
stock
4. Unforeseen consequences of fisheries management decisions
5. Limited time in which to make fisheries management decisions

This is why the process of fisheries management decision making is so difficult.

Environmental uncertainty affects the size and robustness of the fish stocks, our
knowledge of those parameters, and the consequences of our actions (harvests) and
decisions (regulations).
To conclude this section, a few words about “sustainability.” In recent years, the
concept of sustainability has been applied to fisheries, forestry, agriculture, and many
other fields. The idea is that renewable natural resources should be developed for long-
term sustainability, rather than for short-term profit. Over time, the history of human
exploitation of fisheries resources has, in general, been unsustainable. Around the
world, many fisheries have been overfished, and many have not recovered from the
impact. Therefore, the “sustainability movement” is a laudable concept.
As part of the sustainability movement in the fisheries arena, several non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) have sought to certify various fisheries as
sustainable (i.e., well managed). The basic idea is that the seafood produced by a
certified sustainable fishery might command higher prices in the marketplace. This
would provide an incentive to improve the management of other fisheries, so that
they become sustainable.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with the myriad, well-intentioned fishery
certification schemes, they do present some practical difficulties for fishery manag-
ers, the fishing industry, the seafood trade, and seafood consumers:

• Each NGO has its own set of criteria and procedures; a fishery might be
certified by one NGO, but not certified by another, which is confusing to
customers and consumers.
• The process of certification has costs, which can be significant; these costs
are passed on to the consumer, which, regrettably, makes certified sustain-
able seafood less competitive.
• So far (as of 2010), the sustainability NGOs have certified several well-
managed fisheries as sustainable, but they do not appear to have effected
any improvements in the management of poorly managed fisheries.

So, how can a conscientious professional in the seafood trade (e.g., processor, trader,
broker, wholesaler, retailer, restaurateur) figure out which seafood products are sus-
tainable vs. which are not? The answer is—it requires some “homework” on the
fisheries from which the seafood originates. Now that so much information is readily
available on the internet, this research can be quite easy.
Environmental Limitations and General Impact on Properties of the Catch 51

A good starting point is the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the
United Nations. The FAO has done a great deal of work in fisheries sustainability
(www.fao.org/fishery), and has crafted a Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
A checklist for compliance with that code may be found at http://www.fao.org/
docrep/W3140E/W3140E01.htm. Fisheries that comply with the code are considered
to be well managed and sustainable.
The Alaskan fisheries for salmon (all five species), halibut, crab (king crab and
snow crab), and groundfish (Alaska pollock, Pacific cod, sablefish, flatfish, etc.) have
been sustainably managed for more than 50 years—the proof of that assertion is
Alaska’s long-term “track record” of seafood production. Sustainable fisheries man-
agement is a bedrock principle of the Alaskan perspective. In fact, Alaska is the only
state of the United States that has fisheries sustainability mandated by its constitu-
tion. All of Alaska’s fisheries are fully consistent with the FAO Code of Conduct. As
such, they are demonstrably and reliably sustainable, and require no certification by
a new, distant, and expensive NGO. Supporting documentation can be found at http://
alaskaseafood.org/sustainability/.

4.3 QUALITY
The quality of harvested finfish and shellfish is affected by environmental factors
and by fisheries management practices. The concepts of “safety” and “quality” are
often confused, but they are actually very different. Safety asks: “will this product
sicken or kill the consumer?” Quality asks: “will this product please the consumer?”
It is possible for a food product to be high in safety but low in quality, e.g., an old,
bruised banana. And it is possible for a food product to be high in quality but low in
safety, e.g., canned salmon with imperceptible botulism toxin.
This section deals with seafood quality. It does not discuss seafood safety issues,
such as those caused by environmental factors (e.g., paralytic shellfish poisoning
caused by algae) or processing methods (e.g., Listeria contamination caused by poor
sanitation). In the United States, seafood safety is regulated and overseen by govern-
ment agencies (e.g., U.S. Food and Drug Administration), and the seafood industry
in the United States and elsewhere generally conforms to hazard analysis and critical
control point (HACCP) systems and methods.
Information about onboard quality systems in presented in Chapter 5.

4.3.1 EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Perhaps the most well known of Alaska’s fisheries are those for salmon (Oncorhynchus
spp.). Though there are differences among the five species, their life cycle follows the
same general pattern:

• Adult salmon spawn in freshwater (streams and rivers)

• Young salmon outmigrate to the North Pacific Ocean and/or Bering Sea
• Salmon feed in the ocean and grow to maturity
• Mature adult salmon return to their natal streams to spawn
• All Pacific salmon die after spawning once
52 Environmental Effects on Seafood Availability, Safety, and Quality

Almost all commercial fishing for Alaska salmon is done during their spawning
migrations. Depending on the species and the run (strain) of salmon, those migra-
tions occur between May and September, but each run of salmon (e.g., Copper River
kings, Bristol Bay sockeye) lasts only a few weeks. This seasonality dictates when
fishing may occur.
In general, the salmon in the beginning and peak (middle) of each run are consid-
ered to be higher in quality than those near the end of the run. As the salmon migrate
toward their spawning grounds, they mature sexually, and those physical changes
are dramatic (e.g., darker skin, paler/softer meat). A sexually mature salmon is much
poorer in quality as a seafood product than a “bright” (non-sexually mature) salmon.
The quality differences are dictated by the characteristics of each species and run,
and by environmental factors such as water temperature.
As mentioned in section 4.1, water temperature exerts a strong influence on
fishes. In salmon, water temperature affects the timing of the runs and the degree of
sexual maturity at time of capture. In turn, water temperature is influenced by sea-
sonal changes and by “macro-scale” environmental oscillations such as PDO. Water
temperature affects the quality of the fish, post-harvest. Prompt chilling, immedi-
ately on landing the fish on board the boat, is a critical element of seafood quality. If
the water is unusually warm, then chilling becomes even more important. In other
words, if the water (and the fish) is warm, then the flesh will deteriorate rapidly; this
begins as soon as the fish dies. Therefore, chilling must be prompt and thorough.
(See Chapter 5 for a discussion of onboard quality systems, including chilling.)
Finally, water temperature affects the distribution (location) of fish schools, which,
in turn, can affect quality. For example, the temperature of the Bering Sea has
risen slightly in recent years, and schools of Alaska pollock are now located further
away from the onshore seafood processing plants in Unalaska (Dutch Harbor) and
Akutan, Alsaka. This means that the harvested fish spend more time in the holds
of the fishing boat, before they are processed. Although the fish holds are refriger-
ated, the longer holding times can sometimes affect quality, especially if the fish are
scarce and fishing is slow.

4.3.2 EFFECTS OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Fisheries managers (government agencies) affect the quality of seafood in several
ways. Their regulations and methods are developed and implemented in response to:

• Biological characteristics of the target species, such as run timing

• Environmental attributes, such as vulnerable habitat or marine mammals
• Environmental parameters, such as water temperature and sea conditions
• Harvest methods and catching power of the fishing fleet

As outlined in subsection 4.1.2, the main tools of fisheries management are time-
and-area closures, and restrictions on type of fishing gear and the methods of operat-
ing the gear.
The central problem of fishery management is stated in various ways, all of
which mean an infinite demand on a finite resource. Therefore, government agencies
Environmental Limitations and General Impact on Properties of the Catch 53

(ADFG, NMFS, and pretty much every other such agency in other states and nations)
manage fisheries on a tacit principle of “regulated inefficiency.” The general goal is
to maximize the harvest of living marine resources, while safeguarding the sustain-
ability of those same (taxpayer-owned) resources (Grabacki 2008).
From the perspectives of resource sustainability and simple materials handling,
this regulated inefficiency works fairly well. But, as an unforeseen consequence, it
seriously damages the quality of the food that our industry produces, in several ways.

4.3.2.1 Fishing Gear

In the Alaska salmon fishery, there are three basic types of fishing gear: gillnet (drift
and set), purse-seine, and troll. Certain gear types are completely illegal in Alaska,
for any species: fish traps and other types of herding devices, sunken gillnets, “high
seas” gillnets, pelagic longline, etc. Other types of gear are legal for certain species,
but not for salmon: benthic longline and any sort of trawl.
Of the three legal types of salmon gear, trolling produces the best quality, because
the fish are captured, landed, and handled individually. Troll-caught salmon rarely
display any significant scale loss, bruising, or tissue damage. Further, they are often
bled immediately on capture, and most handling is done before the fish enter rigor
mortis. Troll fishing is permitted only in southeast Alaska.
Gillnet fishing operations can damage salmon in several ways. Bruising, inter-
nal bleeding, scale loss, and tissue damage are frequently apparent in gillnet fish.
Salmon are not uniform in size, and their encounter with a gillnet might capture
them by the head and gills (good), or by the body just past the head (bad). Removing
fish from the gillnet often damages it further, especially during periods of high-
volume catches.
Drift gillnet fishing involves hauling the fish-laden net onto the boat via some
type of roller. This compresses and bends the fish, thus damaging them. After the
fish are removed (picked) from the net, they drop to the deck, and are then placed
into the boat’s hold, sometimes gently, sometimes roughly. Nowadays, most drift
boats have the capability to chill the fish in the hold (by refrigeration or icing), but
some still do not.
Set gillnet fishing uses gear that is very similar to drift gillnet fishing. The main
difference is in how the fish are handled after they are picked from the net. Some
setnetters will put the picked fish into their skiff for transport to shore; this operation
resembles drift gillnetting, except that the fish are rarely chilled onboard the skiff.
Others will drag the net up onto the beach, or they will simply wait for the tide to go
out; in either case, the salmon contact the mud/sand/gravel of the beach. This can
degrade quality even further.
Purse-seine gear is used to harvest large volumes of tightly schooling salmon,
usually pinks and chums, but also sockeye in some areas. Fish in a purse-seine are,
for the most part, alive and of good quality. Damage (bruising, abrasion) can occur
as the fish are brought aboard the boat, as they are brailed and lifted out of the seine,
or rolled across the rail. A tightly compressed purse-seine can damage the quality
of the fish flesh. Sometimes, the salmon are pumped directly from the seine onto
a tender or a floating processor, without first going aboard the boat. In most cases,
regardless of whether the fish go onto the boat, a tender, or a floater, they are placed
54 Environmental Effects on Seafood Availability, Safety, and Quality

into refrigerated seawater (RSW). Seine-caught fish are handled en masse, never
individually, and are very rarely bled.
The size of fishing gear is also regulated. Troll vessels may fish only a specified
number and type of lure. Gillnets are regulated as to twine (multifilament, not mono-
filament), length, and depth. Purse-seines are similarly regulated.

4.3.2.2 Boat Size

In some regions, the maximum size of the fishing boat is limited by regulation. For
example, in Bristol Bay, no commercial salmon boat may be longer than 32 ft., length
overall (LOA). This has been reported to restrict the ability of some boats to be fit-
ted with equipment to chill the fish, either with ice, chilled seawater (CSW or slush
ice), or RSW.
There are no legal restrictions on the beam (width) or draft (depth) of the boats.
This can also have unforeseen consequences on salmon quality; for example, in the
quest to “pack more fish,” a boat might be designed with large, deep holds, into
which many hundreds of pounds of salmon are packed, resulting in compression,
bruising, and tissue damage.

4.3.2.3 Fishing Areas

Fisheries managers also determine the areas in which fishing is permitted. Salmon
from a given river are biologically distinct from those of the same species, but from
adjacent rivers; the most important differences are those of run timing and run size.
Therefore, the harvest of each stock must be managed separately, in order to main-
tain the abundance of each stock.
As salmon approach their spawning rivers, they school ever more tightly together.
Rather than harvest “mixed stocks” far from shore (where the quality is usually bet-
ter because the salmon have not started their pre-spawning maturation), the fleets
must harvest the fish fairly close to their natal rivers (but not too close, lest the har-
vest exceed the scientifically pre-set escapement goal; another example of regulated
inefficiency). This method also minimizes incidental catch of non-salmon species of
fish, birds, or mammals.
If the fishing areas are far from port, then the harvested fish will spend more time
in the fish hold before they are processed. Also, if sea conditions are rough, the har-
vested fish might be bruised by the movements of the boat.

4.3.2.4 Fishing Periods

Fisheries managers determine the fishing seasons and the fishing periods within
each season. Salmon fishing is rarely a continuous activity. Usually, fishing is started
and stopped (“opened and closed”) by the ADFG in response to the apparent daily
abundance of fish; the ADFG’s goal is to allow the harvest of a proportionate amount
of fish from the early, middle (peak), and late parts of the runs.
For example, the fishing season for Copper River king (chinook) salmon legally
starts on 15 May of each year. But the ADFG allows fishing only during certain
times within that season—these “openings” might last 8, 12, 24, or 48 h, depend-
ing on the run strength (abundance of salmon migrating through the fishing zone).
The longer the fishing period, the longer the harvested salmon remain on board the
Environmental Limitations and General Impact on Properties of the Catch 55

fishing boat before processing. Even with proper chilling, a fish that is held a long
time before processing (removal of viscera) will be of sub-optimal quality.
Opening, extending, and closing fishing periods requires a great deal of profes-
sional estimation. From the quality perspective, a fishing period that is “too short”
often results in a competitive race, which means that the fish are handled roughly. A
period that is “too long” can result in salmon going without proper chilling or prompt
processing, and they can be damaged by the motion of the boat. The difficulty is that
“too short” and “too long” vary daily, in unknowable directions and magnitudes.
The ADFG rarely coordinates the end of a fishing period (closure) with the sched-
ules of air cargo carriers. This means that freshly processed salmon might wait for
hours or even days before transport to market.

4.3.2.5 In-Season Management

The management method of “time-and-area closures” discussed in the preceding
two sections is a well-established technique of fishery management. The ADFG
applies this method in a style known as “in-season” management, which means that
restrictions are imposed and relaxed in response to the apparent daily abundance of
the salmon (rather than being pre-determined before the season starts). This man-
agement style works very well from the perspectives of resource sustainability and
maximum yield. Indeed, it is the envy of fishery managers elsewhere.
In-season time-and-area closures are necessitated by the facts that (a) the number
of salmon returning to a river can be estimated only within very wide statistical
limits, and (b) the movement of salmon toward their natal rivers is far from linear, in
space or time. Therefore, the ADFG’s fishery managers must be cautious in allowing
fishing to occur. This lack of predictability degrades seafood quality, as discussed
earlier, and it also degrades the marketability of the seafood because its supply can-
not be reliably forecast.

4.3.2.6 Number of Harvesters

The number of fishing licenses for each gear type in each region is fixed (limited
entry or limited licensing). The basic idea behind this management method is to
prevent overcapitalization of the fleet, which significantly increases the risk of over-
harvesting, and inevitably results in widespread bankruptcies. However, the catch-
ing power of the boats can still be increased, through wider hulls, more powerful
engines, more accurate electronic fish-finders, etc., so capital investment is not static.
When fish are scarce and/or prices are low, it becomes difficult for the fleet to service
its investments.
One consequence is that fishermen become less inclined to take care of their
catch. For example, they might handle the fish more roughly in order to pack in a
greater volume, or they might not operate their refrigeration machinery. Another
consequence is that additional investment in quality-related equipment (e.g., RSW or
CSW, insulating the fish holds) becomes ever more difficult.
Finally, seafood quality can be degraded by a “race for the fish” (overcrowding
of boats on the fishing grounds during a very short season), and it can be improved
by rationalization of the fishery. For example, the Alaska halibut fishery attracted
many new participants during the 1970s and 1980s. In response, fishery managers
56 Environmental Effects on Seafood Availability, Safety, and Quality

repeatedly shortened the fishing periods, in order to prevent overfishing. Eventually,

the seasons were, in many cases, reduced to only 24 or 48 h. This race for the fish
resulted in poor seafood quality because the fish were handled roughly and because
they had to wait several days before processing.
The solution was the IFQ program, in which ownership shares of the halibut TAC
were awarded to past participants in the fishery, based on their historic performance.
For example, if a fisherman had caught 0.5% of the halibut TAC in a given area, then
he was given a 0.5% share of future TACs, which he could harvest any time during
an 8-month season. The race for fish was over, and the quality of Alaska halibut
products was significantly improved, as was the at-sea safety of the harvesters.

REFERENCES
Clarke, A.J. 2008. An Introduction to the Dynamics of El Niño and the Southern Oscillation.
New York: Elsevier.
Grabacki, S.T. 2008. Sustainable Management of Alaska’s Fisheries: A Primer. Alaska
Seafood Marketing Institute: http://alaskaseafood.org/sustainability/tools.html, http://
alaskaseafood.org/sustainability/pdf/Sustainability%20White%20Paper.pdf.
Johnson, T.L. 2003. The Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands: Region of Wonders, ed. K. Byers.
University of Alaska, Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant College Program.
Mundy, P.R. (ed.). 2005. The Gulf of Alaska: Biology and Oceanography. University of
Alaska, Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant College Program.