Indonesia will create Southeast Asia’s largest marine park in the Savu Sea, Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Freddy Numberi said on Wednesday at the World Ocean Conference in Manado, Sulawesi.

The Savu Marine National Park will cover 3.5 million hectares in an incredibly diverse area where you can find no less than 500 coral species, over 300 recognized species of fish and a lot of charismatic wildlife like sea turtles, sharks, dolphins and whales. Out of 27 known species of whale, no less than 14 migrate through the Savu Sea to get from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. The Savu Sea is also an important spawning ground for many marine species, including the world’s dwindling tuna population.

Indonesia is famous for its prosperous marine environment, but this marine flora and fauna are today facing serious treats, including pollution, over fishing and the use of unsustainable fishing methods. Lax enforcement of Indonesian law has made it possible for fishermen to continue using illegal fishing methods such as dynamite and cyanide fishing.

Within the Savu Marine National Park, efforts will be made to eradicate illegal fishing practises while keeping certain areas open for local fishermen to continue traditional subsistence fishing. Tourism activities will also be allowed in certain designated areas within the park. Environmental groups, including WWF and The Nature Conservancy, will help set up the reserve together with the Indonesian government.

“Enforcement is one of the key questions we need to work out, said Rili Djohani”, marine expert at The Nature Conservancy. “It could be a combination of community-based and government patrols.”

The Savu Marine National Park is located within the so called Coral Triangle, a coral reef network bounded by Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, East Timor and the Solomon Islands.

The Spanish police have seized 11 tonnes of shark fins in destined to be shipped to Hong Kong.

According to a statement from the police, the shark fins did not appear to come from a protected species but were found in a warehouse that lacked authorization to export shark fins.

The confiscation took place in Huelva in south-western Spain, to where the fins had been transported from a port in Galicia in the north-western part of the country.

The shark fins have an estimated value of 136,800 Euros (186,335 USD). European Union countries are the main exporters of shark fins to China.

In many markets, shark meat does not yield a high price and fishermen therefore normally remove the fin from caught sharks and let the shark back to the sea. Without its fin the shark can no longer swim and will sink to the bottom where it either dies from suffocation (sharks need to swim to breathe) or gets eaten alive by other aquatic animals.

In parts of Asia, shark fins are used in folk remedies and to make traditional shark fin soup. As the standard of living rises in China, more and more people can afford to purchase shark fins and one pound of dried shark fin can now retail for over 300 USD.

The Florida legislature has unanimously passed a bill to create the “Florida Coral Reef Protection Act”.

The new act will protect Florida’s coral reefs from boat groundings and injuries caused by anchoring by providing penalties for anchoring on a coral reef or making any other vessel damages the corals. Depending on the nature and extent of the damage, wrongdoers will pay damages ranging form $150 to $250,000.

The “Florida Coral Reef Protection Act” applies to all State waters that contain coral reefs off the coasts of Broward, Martin, Miami-Dade, Monroe, and Palm Beach counties.

The legislature determined that coral reefs are valuable natural resources that contribute ecologically, aesthetically, and economically to the state of Florida. It also declared that it is in the best interest of the state of Florida to clarify the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s powers and authority to protect coral reefs through timely and efficient recovery of monetary damages resulting from vessel groundings and anchoring related injuries.

The passage of the act has been preceded by several months of negotiations among various state agencies, stakeholder and environmental groups, including the Marine Industry Association and Reef Relief whose involvement greatly contributed to the act becoming a reality. Another important participant was the Palm Beach County Reef Rescue which has worked with the regulatory community for several years to develop a more effective enforcement strategy against coral reef anchoring.

To see a link to the legislation click here

New laws proposed for managing the seas around Scotland include a year round ban against killing seals. If passed by MSPs, the new laws will make killing or injuring a seal an offence except under licence or for animal welfare concerns.

Licences will be given in certain circumstances, e.g. to prevent serious damage to fisheries. Killing without a licence will only be allowed in certain situations where animal welfare is a consideration, e.g. “mercy killing”.

Current legislation on seal conservation dates back to the 1970s and only makes license a requirement during the breeding season.

The curbs are a part of Scotland’s very first Marine Bill. The proposed laws will cover the Scottish sea from the shoreline to the 12-mile limit and is an attempt to balance competing interests through a legal planning framework.

The Marine Bill is not only focused on wildlife but aims to provide better protection for marine archaeology and wrecks as well. Under the Bill’s wider provisions, marine planning partnerships will be formed with local bodies, and a more straightforward licensing system involving less red tape is planned for areas like renewable energy.

After a request from the Mexico Fishery Management Council, NOAA’s* Fisheries Service announced an emergency rule to protect the threatened sea turtles living in the Gulf of Mexico.

The emergency rule, which was announced on April 30, will take effect on May 18. From May 18 and onwards, the commercial reef fish longline fleet active in these waters will only be allowed to fish seaward of a line approximating the 50-fathom contour in the Gulf of Mexico. (Current regulations allow the fleet to fish as close as the 20-fathoms line.)

The emergency rule will also outlaw all reef fish longline fishing east of 85 degrees 30 minutes west longitude in the Gulf of Mexico after the quotas for deep water grouper and tilefish are reached.

The Mexico Fishery Management Council requested the emergency rule after a NOAA observer study documented how the reef fish longline fleet was incidentally catching and killing a substantial amount of loggerhead sea turtles, a species listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act.

The emergency rule will be in effect for 180 days, but can be extended for up to an additional 186 days if necessary. The new rule will primarily affect those who fish for shallow-water grouper species, such as the popular food fish red grouper, since this type of fishing typically takes place in shallow waters within the 50-fathom contour off the west Florida shelf. Fishermen and groupers are however not the only ones occupying this area – it is also a very important feeding ground for sea turtles and therefore the place where most of the incidental sea turtle by-catches take place.

“We are working closely with the council and constituents to find more permanent solutions to protect sea turtles affected by this fishing gear,” said Roy Crabtree, NOAA’s Fisheries Service southeast regional administrator. “I hope we can identify options that not only provide sea turtles the protection they need, but minimize the economic affects to the fishing industry.”

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is also considering actions to address the problem on a long-term basis.

The emergency rule is implemented in accordance with both the Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that conservation and management measures minimize bycatch of non-target species and minimize mortality when bycatch cannot be avoided.

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

A New Jersey woman whose diet consisted almost exclusively of canned tuna for five years can sue a tuna fish producer over the mercury poisoning she allegedly suffered from, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday.

Deborah Fellner sued Tri-Union Seafoods LLC under the New Jersey Product Liability Act for failing to warn her of the dangers of eating the company’s canned albacore tuna. She claimed that the Tri-Union Seafoods tuna products that she ate from 1999 to 2004 contained methylmercury and other harmful compounds which caused her injury.

California-based Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, who market their products under the “Chicken of the Sea” brand, said the company was not responsible for her claimed illness, arguing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not consider canned tuna fish worthy of mercury warnings to consumers. The company referenced a 2005 letter the FDA sent former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer* that said state-mandated mercury warning labels were pre-empted by federal law.

The law suit was thrown out by U.S. District Court Judge Dennis Cavanaugh, but the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the class action.

“State law is not pre-empted whenever an agency has merely ‘studied’ or ‘considered’ an issue; state law is pre-empted when federal law conflicts with state law,” 3rd U.S. Circuit Senior Judge Walter Stapleton wrote for the appeals court.

In response to the ruling of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Tri-Union Seafoods asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case and the justices have now allowed the appeals court ruling to stand. The U.S. Supreme Court has not commented on their decision.

* Lockyer was trying to sue three tuna producers (one of them being Tri-Union Seafoods) for not complying with California’s Proposition 65. According to Proposition 65, businesses must provide “clear and reasonable” warnings before exposing people to known carcinogens or reproductive toxins.

The Suffolk Police has decided to call off their investigation into the mysterious disappearance of 27 koi and seven goldfish, since the culprit turned out to be a hungry heron.

When the expensive fish disappeared from their home in Carlton Colville, UK, the police suspected human thieves and promptly issued a witness appeal which asked if locals had seen “anything suspicious” or if they had been offered similar fish. The appeal was however recalled soon, as the police found out the true identity of the perpetrator.

A further statement issued by police explained: “This incident is now being attributed to a large heron.”
“We take all incidents very seriously and we were worried that someone might have made off with fish worth thousands of pounds”, a police spokesman explains. “Thankfully, on this occasion an arrest wasn’t necessary.”

This week, Science published the study “Can Catch Shares Prevent Fisheries Collapse?” by Costello[1], Gaine[2] and Lynham[3], which may be used as a road map for federal and regional fisheries managers interested in reversing years of declining fish stocks.

The study has already received a lot of praise from environmental groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) who says that the study shows how the overfishing problem can be fixed by implementing catch shares. “We can turn a dire situation into an enormous opportunity to promote better food security, create jobs and revive ecosystems,” says David Festa, vice president and director of the oceans program at EDF.

Catch share programs is intended to replace complex fishing rules and hold fishermen directly accountable for meeting scientifically determined catch limits. In a catch share program, fishermen are granted a percentage share of the total allowable catch, individually or in cooperatives. They can also be given exclusive access to particular fishing zones, so called territorial use rights. As long as the fishermen do not harvest more than their assigned share, they will retain a comparatively high flexibility and decide for themselves when to carry out the fishing, e.g. depending on market fluctuations and weather conditions.

“The trend around the world has been to fish the oceans until the fish are gone,” says Festa. “The scientific data presented today shows we can turn this pattern on its head. Anyone who cares about saving fisheries and fishing jobs will find this study highly motivating.”

As the fishery improves, each fisherman will find that the value of his or her share grows. This means that fishermen will be financially motivated to meet conservational goals.

In January 2007, a catch share system for red snapper went into effect in the Gulf of Mexico, causing the 2007 commercial snapper season to be open 12 months a year for the first time since 1990. According to EDF, fishermen in the area now earn 25% more and wasteful bycatch has dropped by at least 70%.

New animal cruelty laws in Switzerland deem recreational fishing as animal cruelty.

The law ban catch and release fishing as the authorities have found that this fishing technique is morally wrong as it in facts is the practice of torturing animals for fun. You will however still be able to fish if you kill and/or eat the fish you catch as this is not consider recreational fishing as it has another purpose than just your enjoyment. The new law also outlaws using live fish as bait. It does not appear to regulate other types of live bait items.

This new laws make the Swiss fishing laws some of the most strict / if not the strictest, in the world today.

Switzerland has adopted new strict animal cruelty laws. The new law contains more strict rules regulating how to keep most pets and domestic animal. An example is that many animals such as hamsters, lamas, alpacas and sheep no longer can be kept alone. They need to have visual contact with other specimens of the same species. Another example is that people who want to buy their first dog have to go to compulsory classes for “want to be dog owners” before they can legally buy a dog. The law details how all domestic animals should be kept regardless of whether they are kept as pet, for scientific research or in zoos.

I will not go into depth about exactly what this new rule stipulates but I will say a few words relating to fish keeping (If you live in Switzerland and want to know more about I recommend reading the original law text or contact a local authority).

The law bans the flushing live fish. You need to kill the fish before you can legally flush it. The law does not state exactly how the fish should be killed before being flushed.