Fishermen express anger

WEDNESDAY, 02 FEBRUARY 2011 02:31 BY JANELA BUHAIN | VARIETY NEWS STAFF

A public hearing last night on a bill that aims to ban shark finning and its possession on island caused a stir among local fishermen

Local fisherman John Aguon gives his testimony on Bill 44-31 as Lexi Lee-Sang, 11, and Reagan Singler, 6, of St. John’s School’s Kids for Coral program look on. Photo by Matt Weiss

who say they are being portrayed as the “bad guys” because of the bill.
Bill 44-31, introduced by Vice Speaker BJ Cruz last week, seeks to ban the possession, sale, trade and distribution of shark fins on Guam and imposes strict fines and imprisonment for those caught in the act.

Dozens of high school students, fishermen, activists and scientists filled the legislative public hearing room to provide testimony and show support or opposition to the bill.

Fishermen’s Cooperative Association President Manny Duenas said he opposes the bill because there is no need for it.

“I’m really disheartened by the fact that it’s implying that it’s happening here on Guam,” Duenas said. “Fishermen are not evil.”

Duenas said that there is no evidence that the local shark population is in jeopardy as stated in the intent of the bill.

He said he had scientific data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association to prove that sharks are not in jeopardy in local waters.

Duenas said Guam’s waters may have more dangerous sharks than they did 20 years ago and shared that his nephew was ravaged by a tiger shark.

“Sharks are so abundant around Guam and it’s a nuisance,” he said, adding that sharks were only found in certain parts of the island in the 1970s and 1980s but are now so abundant that they are found all over the island.

Duenas suggested that the concern for shark finning is exaggerated and not appropriate in the Marianas or within any U.S. jurisdiction in the central and western Pacific region because of strict federal fishing regulations already in place.

Local fisherman John Aguon said he was concerned because he catches sharks for subsistence purposes.

“I’m not a destroyer or shark killer but let’s get more educated. Some of these people haven’t even tasted shark how can they say killing shark is bad when it’s feeding me and my family,” Aguon said.

However, Senator Rory Respicio, co-sponsor of the bill, assured Aguon that he will not be affected by the bill if enacted into law because the bill addresses commercial fishing of sharks.

Support

Dozens of students showed up at the hearing from George Washington High School, Simon Sanchez High School and St. John’s School and provided their support for the bill.

Several shared scientific facts they learned through science classes or through movies promoting shark conservation.

“Although Guam does not have a serious issue with shark finning, our island condones it because we allow its importation,” said Angelica Gagan, one of the students.

Evelyn Quiell, President of the Shark Made Club at SSHS, read testimony on behalf of Sharkwater documentary producer Rob Stewart who was on island Monday to show support for the bill.

“Sharks have been on earth for over 400 million years and have survived five major extinctions. Their populations have dropped by over 90 percent in the last 30 years … an estimated 73 million sharks are killed every year,” Quiell read.

Local resident Mitchell Singler suggested that Bill 44-31, if passed into law, could boost tourism on island. He said it would highlight efforts being made to protect sharks and would attract tourists and divers just as Palau attracts tourists because of its marine sanctuary.

Up close and possible at Western Shoals

Up close and possible at Western Shoals

Monday, 08 February 2010 04:17
by Zita Y. Taitano | Variety News Staff

Guam’s clear and sunny weather yesterday was an opportune time for members of the public advocacy group We are Guahan and others to snorkel an area of Apra Harbor planned for dredging to accommodate a deep draft berth for aircrafts carriers.

Western Shoals is located directly across from the Guam Shipyard between Big Blue Reef, Jade Shoals, and Sasa Bay and is a favored dive spot. The preferred site detailed in the military’s draft environmental impact report is located along the shoreline of Polaris Point.

The group traveled to the marine site and was joined by more than 20 other concerned island residents who paddled in canoes from Family Beach at the Port of Guam area.

The We Are Guahan troop dropped anchor from a small fishing boat boasting a canvas emblazoned with the phrases “We are Guahan” and “We are Ocean.”

The Guam Police Department marine patrol kept a close watch on the activity.

According to Kara Flores Mays, co-coordinator of the tour to visit the threatened underwater habitat, after reading the location was a prime alternative for the military to dredge Apra Harbor the group decided to come see for their selves what was at risk.

“This is an area that is important to a lot of people,” said Flores Mays. “It’s important to divers, it’s important to people who snorkel and as you can see, it’s important to people in all these canoes.

Before a brief overview of the dive site presented by Dave Burnic, a biologist at Guam Coastal Management, Mays added, “It’s important for fishermen and there are a lot of people in our community who really love this area and can’t understand why it is being destroyed.”

The underwater location’s unique biodiversity was explained to the group so they would better understand the impact of dredging the area.

Burnic said at least a 100 species of coral thrive within the harbor, noting in the Caribbean, there are only 55 species identified there thus far.

“There’s are twice as many coral in this harbor as there are across thousands of miles of ocean and in other parts of the world so that’s really special,” the biologist explained.

He commended the organizers for bringing residents to the shoals so they could see firsthand the beauty of the reef and the marine life that depends on the area.

University of Guam Social Work majors Kleine Mallare, 25, of Dededo and Rose Hermoso, of Windward Hills, both felt the tour was very educational.

“I learned a lot especially since it’s my first time out here,” said Mallare. “I didn’t know what was going on.”

“No one can read an 11,000 page document to begin and for (We Are Guahan) to say ‘we can get involved and we’ll subdivide this and there are subcommittees,’ well you learn a little bit of that because it’s going to happen. We need to know and we need to put our input in there,” she said.

Hermoso added they were aware of the reasons for the tour and gave thumbs up to We Are Guahan for organizing the event because it gives them a better understanding of what is in the military’s draft environmental impact statement.

A paddler arose and chanted to ancient ancestors asking for blessings of guardianship over the sea to prevent the dredging.

A similar ceremony was held on board the boat and people were asked to pass two leis among the gathered crowd before Ka’isa Won Pat Borja, son of Gena and Melvin Won Pat Borja and Ma’ase, son of Monaeka De’Oro dropped them overboard in a somber ceremony.

PNC :: Lawmakers Hear From Fisherman's and Farmers Co-op's Concerns with Military Buildup

PNC :: Lawmakers Hear From Fisherman's and Farmers Co-op's Concerns with Military Buildup

Wednesday, 27 January 2010

Guam - The commitee on natural resources and federal affairs held a briefing on the buildup this morning.

They spoke to the Fisherman's Co-op the Farmers Co-op the Guam Organization of Saltwater Anglers and the Department of Agriculture. The focus of the meeting was to gather input from these organizations on their thoughts about the draft environmental impact statement. Fisherman Co-op general manager Manny Duenas says the Co-op is concerned about the proposed dredging of Apra harbor and the impacts it will have on the ecosystem as 25 acres of coral and marine life will be dredged. Duenas says they are concerned about the the dredge material that will be dumped off the coast of Guam without being tested for nuclear wasted and other contaminants.

Duenas says the Fishermans Co-op is also concerned about impacts to the Pagat and Sasayan valley area if it is used as a firing range. If this happens he says the area will be off-limits to fishermen and the firing range will litter the surrounding waters with ammunition.

Written by : Clynt Ridgell

Senator Pangelinan Implores Congresswoman to Participate in DEIS Review

Senator Pangelinan Implores Congresswoman to Participate in DEIS Review

Guam - Senator Ben Pangelinan has sent a letter to congresswoman Madeline Bordallo imploring her "participation in the review and analysis of the draft environmental impact statement."

Specifically Senator Pangelinan wants to draw the congresswoman's attention to the testimony submitted by the guam fisherman's co-op. The fisherman's co-op is concerned with the proposed dredging of the Apra harbor whereby the dredged materials which may contain contaminants will be dumped elsewhere in the ocean. The fisherman's co-op is asking that the "no action" alternative be selected as the establishment of an ocean dredged material disposal site in the waters of Guam will greatly affect the pristine condition of these waters.

Written by :
Clynt Ridgell

GUAM FISHERIES WATCH - NOAA Chief Warns: Stop Overfishing Our Bluefin Tuna!

GUAM FISHERIES WATCH - NOAA Chief Warns: Stop Overfishing Our Bluefin Tuna!

Written by Jeff Marchesseault, Guam News Factor Staff Writer
Thursday, 12 November 2009 13:58

GUAM - Unless fishermen cease the illegal, unreported and unregulated overfishing of bluefin tuna, we aren't going to have any left to eat.

That's the word from U.S. Commerce Under Secretary and NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco as the international body that manages Atlantic bluefin meets this week in Brazil.

NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is a division of the U.S. Department of Commerce and is tasked with conserving and managing America's coastal and marine resources.

Although this week's meeting of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) focuses on the species of bluefin tuna that inhabits the other great ocean, it can't be long before Pacific bluefin is back in the spotlight again.

According to Wikipedia:

Pacific Bluefin Tuna are overfished throughout the world. They are hooked on long lines or illegally netted where they swim, and many young bluefins are captured before they reproduce. Creating effective fishing policies for bluefin tuna is difficult because they are highly mobile and swim through the territorial waters of many different nations. Data about their movements and high levels of international cooperation are needed to ensure sustainable bluefin tuna populations.

Pacific bluefin tuna spawn in the Western Pacific between Okinawa and the Philippines and probably the Sea of Japan, then migrate over 6,000 nautical miles (11,000 km) to the Eastern Pacific, and eventually return to their birth waters to spawn again.

Here is the latest bluefin tuna news from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

United States Pushes For Strong Measures To Protect Bluefin Tuna

November 9, 2009 - Dr. Jane Lubchenco, under secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator issued the following statement urging the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) to heed the scientific advice and adopt measures that will end overfishing in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean and put bluefin tuna on the path to recovery. The ICCAT is scheduled to meet this week in Brazil.

“As a member of ICCAT, the United States has a responsibility to work with other countries to end illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and implement strong management measures that will end overfishing and help rebuild the stocks. “The status quo with respect to eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin is neither sustainable nor acceptable.

Conservation of this species depends on science-based management and effective compliance with the rules on both sides of the ocean. “I believe that to be most effective, the long-term management of the species must be led by ICCAT. I urge ICCAT to do the right thing – follow the science and implement strong new measures to protect the bluefin. I look to ICCAT for strong and definitive action at this week’s meeting.”

Background: ICCAT, an international body of 47 nations and the European Community, is responsible for the management of Atlantic bluefin tuna. The United States has repeatedly urged ICCAT to heed the scientific advice and adopt measures that will end overfishing in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean and put bluefin tuna on the path to recovery. This includes measures setting responsible, science-based quotas, stronger enforcement of those quotas, and closures during spawning periods.

The United States delegation to ICCAT travels to Brazil this week for the body’s annual meeting. This year, as in years past, the United States is seeking the strongest possible management for the conservation of Atlantic bluefin tuna. On October 14, the United States announced its support of Monaco’s proposal to list Atlantic bluefin tuna on Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), to prohibit international trade of the species.

The final U.S. decision on whether to vote for Monaco’s proposal at the 2010 CITES Conference of Parties will take into account whether or not ICCAT adopts strong management and compliance measures at this week's meeting. For further background, please see October 14 release.

NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.

Marine Preservers Based on Faulty Analysis

Marine preserves based on faulty analysis
By John S. Calvo • August 12, 2009
Guam PDN

The Bill 190 opponents state that the Marine Protected Areas have been successful. The only thing successful has been their propaganda.

In the absence of a thorough review of important maps, a field trip around the island shows various obstacles (accessibility, natural boundaries, military bases, private property) inadvertently but effectively create marine preserves. If we already have natural, political and social marine preserves that take up 50 to 75 percent of our coastal areas, then what is the need for additional preserves?
The creation of Guam's marine preserves in Public Law 24-21 primarily focused on regulating only one user group -- the fishing community. The proponents of the MPAs will state that they used the best available science. According to the Marine Preserve two-year report to the Legislature in July 5, 2005, "Harvest and participation data obtained through the Inshore Fisheries Survey Project (F-1R, Subproject F-1, Study 1, Job 2) were used to justify the establishment of the marine preserves."

There are some major failures of the survey analysis. Why were only so many fish caught? Why were the conditions of harvest not part of the survey? Why were the variables such as water quality, runoff, etc., not also studied to rule these factors out in the determination that fish stocks were down due to overfishing? Why wasn't the habitat studied to rule out the health of the habitat as the reason for a reduction in fish stocks?

Science is a process of deduction. The best available science existed at the time to do these things; why it wasn't done or considered is baffling.

Wolanski and Richmond's 2004 study on Fouha Bay notes, "Until recently, the major strategy for coastal reef management is to rely on marine protected areas. Managers draw a line around coral reefs on a map, inside of which extractive and destructive activities are prohibited or regulated. ... This management practice has proven insufficient where coral reefs are found near land and where human activities within adjacent watersheds contribute to the decline of water and substratum quality."

This study indicates that even if fishing is eliminated, an area will continue to decline if other threats are left unabated. It also indicates a failure of government of Guam agencies to work together to solve the island's land use problems. Why must the fishing community suffer for the effects of land use practices and poor natural resource agency management?

Division of Aquaric and Wildlife Resources staff has frequently noted at public meetings that the marine preserve areas provide a "spillover" effect, where fish stocks within the preserve area will continue to reproduce and essentially fill up the preserve, causing fish to "spill over" into adjoining areas. Another version of the theory is that protecting fish stocks within an area will allow those fish to reproduce and the larvae would be transported out of the area and settle in adjoining areas.

Marine preserve areas do not work for all species. Ken Longenecker and Ross Langston presented at the 2007 Hawaii Conservation Conference on the biomass of three fish species in Haunama Bay and Maunalua Bay in Hawaii. Their findings suggest that in order for MPAs to be a beneficial tool for fisheries enhancement, biomass in the closed area must be at least double the open area. In their study, they found this is not happening in Hawaii's most famous and oldest no-fishing area. Their study suggests that MPAs are not a beneficial tool for fisheries management for the species that were studied.

Mark Tupper of the University of Guam Marine Laboratory studied the "Spillover of commercially valuable reef fishes from marine protected areas in Guam, Micronesia." He notes that "for most species and sites, biomass was significantly higher within the MPA's than in adjacent fished sites. Movement of fishes into and out of the MPAs were determined by mark-recapture experiments, in which fishes were tagged both inside and outside of MPAs. Four out of five species studied showed little or no net movement out of the MPAs."

This study demonstrates that MPAs can enhance export of fish biomass to fished areas, but spillover is species-specific and depends on factors such as species size and mobility. The study notes: "For the combination of all species, overall spillover was lowest at the Tumon MPA, where only 1.7 percent of all tagged biomass was exported."

Another problem with the "spillover" theory is that it can't be assumed to work in any area that becomes protected. Spillover may work for certain species, but only if the boundaries and locations are chosen correctly.

The study by Tupper mentioned previously also noted that "Patterns of spillover were strongly influenced by physical habitat barriers, such as channels, headlands, or other topographic features. MPAs that are physically connected by contiguous reef structures will likely provide more spillover to adjacent fished sites than those that are separated by habitat barriers."

Tupper's conclusion states: "Knowledge of fish movement patterns with respect to reef topography may be useful for choosing MPA boundaries in order to maximize spillover of target species."

In determining the location of any marine protected area, it is also beneficial to consider those areas that already are least accessible due to the natural, political and other obstacles. For centuries these have provided for natural spillover, which have made the cultural and traditional fishing areas productive. Mitigation of land use detriments and a review and possible reassignment of coastal development and tourism activities to more suitable locations will enhance the natural resource and provide opportunity for sustainable use.

The decision to make these areas MPAs were primarily due to their "productivity," however, their productivity may have been caused by the fact that these areas were the spillover points from the less accessible and more dangerous fishing areas that surround them.

The spillover theory does have some merit, as it will work for certain species, if the location is chosen correctly and the boundaries are appropriate. However, applying the spillover theory to Guam's current marine preserve areas is far-fetched. The creation of the MPAs was not able to take into account these findings and the MPAs were put in places that the people of Guam used for fishing.

The Legislature should look at repealing or amending Public Law 21-24 so that other management tools (or proper MPAs) can be developed to protect Guam's coastal resources.

There are some problems with Bill 190, which can be fixed, but it does put the MPA discussion back on the table. Our natural resource agencies need to stop avoiding their responsibilities. We need accountability.

John S. Calvo is resident of Tamuning-Tumon.

Guam fishermen say no to Marianas monument

Thursday, 23 October 2008 00:00 By Mar-Vic Cagurangan - Variety News Staff

HAGATNA — The Guam Fisherman’s Co-Op rallies behind the CNMI government in opposing the White House’s proposed Mariana Trench Marine National Monument, saying the plan will equally hurt this island’s fishing industry.

At Tuesday night’s meeting, members of the fishermen’s group voted unanimously to support the CNMI government’s petition against the Bush administration’s plan to turn the waters surrounding the commonwealth’s three northernmost islands as a federal marine reserve.

Fisherman’s Co-Op president Manny Duenas urged Guam officials to join the CNMI government in its efforts to block the federal plan.

“We don’t want any more federalization of the Marianas. What we have in place works. The federal plan will affect the tradition that we have been practicing for over 4,000 years,” Duenas said yesterday.

He said the proposed monument extends to the southern side of Guam waters, which are rich in seamount resources.

“The deeper part of the Marianas Trench is covered by Guam waters. The monument will exclude 50 percent of the marine resources in the southern seamount,” Duenas said.

The Fisherman’s Co-Op, which has about 150 members, is the lifeline for many island fishermen, who catch marine products for family sustenance and commercial trade.

Duenas said about 15 to 20 fishermen who cover the southern seamount produce about 50,000 tons of fish a year.

“The fishermen in that area use most of their catch for family consumption, and the excess are sold to local markets. We don’t plunder our marines resources. We use them for sustenance and to keep the community alive,’ Duenas said.

Sen. James Espaldon, R-Tamuning, plans to introduce a resolution expressing Guam’s support for the CNMI government’s stand against the White House plan.

“I represent the voice of our people who are against this proposed monument. What’s worse is that this is being done through an executive order instead of congressional legislation, without any input from us,” said Espaldon, chairman of the Legislative Natural Resources Committee. “They’re claiming our lands and the seas around us. How come island residents don’t have a say on this issue? Is this part of the militarization plan? They are militarizing our lands; do they want to militarize the seas as well?”