Speaking for the Seas

Permanent Link:

Material Information

Title: Speaking for the Seas Examining and Promoting Sustainable Seafood in the Chesapeake Bay
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Smith, Courtney A.
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2012
Publication Date: 2012


Subjects / Keywords: Sustainable Seafood
Seafood Fraud
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: Technological developments in the fisheries sector allow fishing fleets to extract greater quantities of fish than ever before. To expand their allowable catch limits, some fisheries choose to evade regulatory efforts intended to protect marine stocks by illegally harvesting fish, causing further exploitation of the world's finite marine resources. To reduce the frequency of illegal, underreported, and unregulated fishing, fisheries can undergo sustainable certification, which verifies to consumers that the product was not harvested using harmful fishing practices. Consumers and harvesters benefit from the consumer's increased knowledge of sustainable alternatives can lead to support for eco-labeled products. Through social marketing, one can understand the perceptions of the consumer as they evaluate the benefits of supporting sustainable seafood products. The primary investigator developed a survey to aptly gauge this process, the results of which are in this paper. The focal species of the investigation was the Atlantic Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis.
Statement of Responsibility: by Courtney A. Smith
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2012
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Gilchrist, Sandra

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2012 S644
System ID: NCFE004673:00001

Permanent Link:

Material Information

Title: Speaking for the Seas Examining and Promoting Sustainable Seafood in the Chesapeake Bay
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Smith, Courtney A.
Publisher: New College of Florida
Place of Publication: Sarasota, Fla.
Creation Date: 2012
Publication Date: 2012


Subjects / Keywords: Sustainable Seafood
Seafood Fraud
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: Technological developments in the fisheries sector allow fishing fleets to extract greater quantities of fish than ever before. To expand their allowable catch limits, some fisheries choose to evade regulatory efforts intended to protect marine stocks by illegally harvesting fish, causing further exploitation of the world's finite marine resources. To reduce the frequency of illegal, underreported, and unregulated fishing, fisheries can undergo sustainable certification, which verifies to consumers that the product was not harvested using harmful fishing practices. Consumers and harvesters benefit from the consumer's increased knowledge of sustainable alternatives can lead to support for eco-labeled products. Through social marketing, one can understand the perceptions of the consumer as they evaluate the benefits of supporting sustainable seafood products. The primary investigator developed a survey to aptly gauge this process, the results of which are in this paper. The focal species of the investigation was the Atlantic Striped Bass, Morone saxatilis.
Statement of Responsibility: by Courtney A. Smith
Thesis: Thesis (B.A.) -- New College of Florida, 2012
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The New College of Florida, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Local: Faculty Sponsor: Gilchrist, Sandra

Record Information

Source Institution: New College of Florida
Holding Location: New College of Florida
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: local - S.T. 2012 S644
System ID: NCFE004673:00001

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text


! "#$%&'()*+,)-.#)!#$!/)#0$1&'&'()$'2)",+1+-&'()"345&6) ) $7$,#'#!!)+*) !3!-$&'$45#) !#$*++2)&'&-&$-&8#!) ) &')-.#)6.#!$"#$%#)4$9 ) ) ) ) 49 ) 6+3,-'#9) $ ) !1&-. ) ) ) ) ) ) $)-.#!&! ) ) ) ) !:;<=>>?@) >A)>B?) 2=C=D=AE)AF)'G>:HGI)!J=?EJ?D ) '?K)6AII?L?)AF)*IAH=@G ) & E)MGH>=GI)F:IF=II)AF)>B?)H?N:=H?D)FAH)>B?)@?LH??) ) 4GJB?IAH)AF)$H>D) ) 3E@?H)>B?)DMAEDAHDB=M)AF ) 2HO)!GE@HG)(=IJBH=D> ) ) ) ) !GHGDA>GP)*IAH=@G ) 1GQP)RSTR )


) ) == ) TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES... .. iii LIST OF TABLESv PREFACE .. v i ABSTRACT ....v iii INTRODUCTION .. .. 2 CHAPTER 1 .. 4 State of our Oceans: A review of current fisheries practices, aquaculture, and their impacts on marine ecosystems CHAPTER 2... .. 4 4 Seafood Fraud and Commodity Chain Management: Implications for Atlantic Striped Bass CHAPTER 3 7 1 Social Mar keting and It s Influence on Consumer Perceptions of Sustainable Seafood CONCLUSION .. 94 REFERE NCES ... 99 APPENDIX I ... ..... 1 07 Sustainable Seafood Guides APPENDIX II. .. .. 109 New College of Florida Informed Consent for Research Study A PPENDIX III. .. ...112 Sustainable Seafood Survey


) ) === ) List of Figures Figure 1 .1. Finfish and shellfish production for aquaculture and capture fisheries (p. 6) Figure 1.2 Top ten production countries for marine and inland capture fisheries (p. 8) Figure 1 .3. Female striped bass age at maturity. (p. 9) Figu re 1.4. Global use of fishmeal and fish oil (p. 11) Figure 1.5. A: extensive, B: semi intensive and C: Intensive fish farming methods. (p. 12) Figure 1.6 Salmon broo d stock development in an aquaculture park. (p. 16) Figure 1. 7 Areal view of the Mote Aqua culture Facility (p. 20) Figure 1.8. Bottom trawler. (p. 21) Figure 1.9 Map of Chesapeake Bay and it's position within the Continental United States. (p. 24) Figure 1.10. Maryland's commercial landings 1950 2000. (p. 26) Figure 1.11 Production in the Chesapeake: Balancing nutrients and food webs to maintain health (p. 27) Figure 1.12 The four stages of striped bass development. (p. 29) Figure 1.13 Projecting the Bay's future health. (p. 30) Figure 1.14. Atlantic Striped Bass Morone saxatilis. (p. 32 ) Figure 1.1 5 Trends in female spawning stock biomass over the past twenty years (p. 34) Figure 1.1 6 Striped bass population abundance for two age groups. (p. 35) Figure 1.17 Comparing the discards and landings from commercial and recreational catch within two consecutive years. (p. 37) Figure 2.1. Flowchart for Selecting an Acceptable Market Name. (p. 44) Figure 2.2. Global Finfish Supply Chain. (p. 49) Figure 2.3. European Commission requirements for Seafood Imports and Exports (p. 53) Figure 2.4. E vents from 2011 contributing to the Bay's health. (p. 55) Figure 2.5 Striped Bass Spawning Female Abundance 1982 2008 (p. 56) Figure 2.6 Anchor tag used on striped bass. (p. 61) ) ) =L:H?)UOTO ) 7BAI?)*AA@D)1GHV?>) D?GFAA@)IG;?IDO)WMO)XTY )


) ) =C ) *=L:H?) UORO ) ,?@)5=D >)DGI?D);Q)D>AH?O)WMO)XUY ) Figure 3.3 Monterey Bay Southeast region Seafood Watch card. (p. 77) Figure 3.4 One of five newsprint ads used in the "Save the Crabs, Then Eat 'Em" campaign. (p. 80) Figure 3.5 Conceptual framework of a conscious consumer. (p 81) *=L:H?) UOZ)*H?DBP)IAJGI)JHG;D)FAH)DGI?)G>)>B?)7GC?HIQ)*GH)=E)4GI>=G=EG;I?)!?GFAA@/)2A=EL)QA:H)MGH>])JG?HP) 4HAAVIQEP)'9O)WMO)`[Y *=L:H?) 6ORO ) &D>GE;:I)*=DB)4GaGGHO ) WMO)``Y *=L:H?) 6OU O) !M?J=GI)+M?HG>=AED)2=C=D=AED)AF)12)2',bD)'G>:HGI),?DA:HJ?)"AI=J?O)WMO) TSTY ) ) )


) ) C ) List of Tables Table 1 .1.Total production and utilization of inland and marin e fishing industries (7) Table 2.1. Seafood fraud and its potential health risks. (p. 40) Table 2.2. Seafood substitution for fresh marketed seafood. (p. 42) Table 2.3. Examples of Commonly Mislabeled Seafood (p. 46) Table 2. 4 Outcomes and incentives for individual tracing systems (p. 60) Table 2.5. Costs for tracing schemes. (p. 63) Table 3.1. 2010 Sustainable Seafood Survey. (p. 86 88)


) ) C= ) PREFACE When I first started work on my thesis, "S peaking for the seas: Examining and Promoting Public Awareness of Sustainable Seafood Initiatives in the Chesapeake Bay I was unaware of the rewards to following a project to completion. The project's life began as a research proposal in Dr. Frank Alcock's office, which had recently been denied fund ing by Sea Grant. The proposal listed a study aimed to determine the influential factors that contribute to a consumer's purchasing decisions. Components of the project included a survey as well as a cooperative between local restaurants and the primary in vestigators where menu items would be changed periodically to reflect sustainable alternatives. Both aspects of the proposal were driven by a common motive: what factors influence consumers to purchase s ustainable seafood alternatives and how can we reflec t this interest in a way that consumers will continue to carry on their support for and awareness of such initiatives? With this goal of educating consumers on traceability and certification, the project would create a platform to enhance sustainable fishe ries management. Knowing it s importance I took interest in the project almost immediately. With little knowledge I had on sustainable seafood and no prior experience, I agreed to adapt the proposal into my undergraduate thesis. Shortly after committing to such a large project, it became obvious that it required more time than I could afford. T he initial timeli ne for the project was two years and I had just under one year to conduct my research. Since my interests resided in the environmental aspects of t he project and focused less on policy, I turned my focus towards the issues at hand and how they were


) ) C== ) being transmitted to the public. Rather than adapting a restaurant's menu items to reflect the available sustainable alternatives, I wanted to examine con sumer preferences while purchasing seafood in stores and in restaurants. I chose to survey at local Farmer's Markets, a shopping environment where consumers have to interact with their food purchases rather than convenience. The project location changed to Baltimore, MD and its focus became the MSC Certification of the Atlantic Striped Bass U ltimately the theme of the project remained consistent with the original design: to gauge consumer perceptions of sustainable seafood by determining their level of support for certified products. What started as a graduation requirement quickly developed into an interpersonal adventure and even a career. Several side projects developed to supplement my thesis experience: a self taught interactive tut orial on Sustainable Seafood with six students; an active chair on Mote's Seafood Savvy coalition board as well as their Solutions To Avoid Red Tide (START) board; several visits to Mote's Aquaculture Park; participation in New College's Earth Day 2011 cel ebration; and an employment opportunity as an Animal Technician at University of Maryland Baltimore County's Aquaculture Research Center. My thesis carried me through my final year at New College, and provided me with a platform from which I was able to sp ring into the real world with a passion for sustainability and preservation of marine resources.


) ) C=== ) !"#$%&'()*+,)-.#)!#$!/)#0$1& '&'()$'2)",+1+-&'()!3!-$&'$45#) !#$*++2) &')-.#)6.#!$"#$%#)4$9 ) 6A:H>E?Q)!<=>B ) '?K)6AII?L?)AF)*IAH=@G P)RSTR ) ) $4!-,$6) -?JBEAIAL=JGI)@?C?IAMD)=E)>B?)F=DB?H=?D)D?J>AH)GIIAK)F=DB=EL)FI??>D)>A) ?c>HGJ>)LH?G>?H)N:GE>=>=?D)AF)F=DB)>BGE)?C?H);?FAH?O)-A)?cMGE@)>B?=H)GIIAKG;I?)JG>JB) I=<=>DP)DAA)?CG@?)H?L:IG>AHQ)?FFAH>D) =E>?E@?@) >A)MHA> ?J> ) AJVD);Q) = II?LGIIQ)BGHC?D>=EL ) F=DBP) JG:D=EL)F:H>B?H)?cMIA=>G>=AE)AF)>B?)KAHI@d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


) ) T ) INTRODUCTION In today's consumer market, a product can be obtained at any time if those interested are willing to pay the price for availability. When supplies are not available and fisheries cannot meet demands due to availab ility or catch restrictions, illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fisheries exploit consumers by mislabeling catch, under reporting weights, and participating in illegal trade. The consumer believes they are being provided with the product they desire, while the fisheries profit from consumer ignorance. Aside from the legality of the seafood market there are also a number of conservation risks in attempting to meet demands, as fishery restrictions are not clearly defined or enforced to eliminate illegal fishing operations. To prevent further exploitation of the oceans and wild seafood stocks, it is necessary to implement and enforce legal actions that account for the traceability of fish stocks as well as intimidate fisheries into using approved fishing gear, accurately report catch es, and using a precautionary principle to secure product in the seafood market for future generations. Such are the concerns of the legislatures responsible for the health of Atlantic Striped Bass stocks in the Chesapeake Bay. Despite Maryland Department of Natural Resources and Atlantic States Fisheries Management Commission attempts to eradicate unsustainable fisheries activities, illegal harvesting continues to impact the health of the ecosystem and the industry. By reviewing these issues in greater detail, it is my goal to provide recommendat ions for increasing the success of rockfish mitigation efforts.


) ) R ) The members of the fisheries are responsible for using legal and sustainable fishing practices when harvesting fish, but it is the consumer who is largely responsible for holding these people at all level of the fisheries accountable. Seafood suppliers who profit from using illegal fishing activities to harvest seafood may not recognize the mutual benefit of meeting consumer demands for sustainable products. Outreach initiatives like eco labeli ng inform consumers of sustainable fishing practices and offer way s to recognize products meeting the s e criteria rather than simply choosing a product based on the fish species. A n eco label is the only industry tested way to guarantee that the product ins ide the bag is as labeled A survey was conducted to determine which factors most influence consumer purchasing de cisions while they are shopping for seafood. Results indicate that shoppers are empathetic t o the need for stock protection but lack proper resources to educate themselves on the reasons why maintaining stocks is necessary or what actions they must take to increase the success of mitigation efforts. Without a definite understanding of how consumers can contribute to sustainable seafood initiat ives, the potential for educational outreach programs to reduce overexploitation of endangered fish stocks is severely limited.


) ) U ) CHAPTER 1 State of our Oceans: A review of current fisheries practices, aquaculture, and their impacts on marine ecosystems Unsustainable fisheries' catch practices are detrimental to marine ecosystems. Through use of intrusive harvesting methods such as trawling, netting, and longline fishing, marine habitats are cleared of juvenile and adult fish while annually producing seve ral thousand kilograms of by catch, or unintended catch of a non target species. Of primary interest in marine fisheries conservation is reducing the frequency and productivity of pirating as well as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (IUU Fishing ), which constitutes 20% of fish currently on the market. It is important to recognize the composition and health of marine ecosystems and its relation to the detrimental effects of unsus tainable fisheries management. Fishery h istorical data, along with a general background of recent environmental issues related to overfishing, fishing methods of concern, industrial fishing, aquaculture, by catch, and mitigation methods precludes information regarding the Atlantic Striped Bass and its primary habitat, the C hesapeake Bay. Fisheries Decline and the Realization of "Sustainability" People have fished the oceans for thousands of years, but the practice did not industrialize until the early 20 th century when mechanical developments such as the steam trawler captur ed higher yields of fish than ever before. With these advancements came a growing global fishing effort, improved technology, and a developed knowledge of marine biodiversity and ecosystems. These allowed for a dramatic increase in our


) ) e ) capacity for the co llection and translation of data, as well as an increase in the annual catch quotas during the 1950s and 1960s (Allsopp et al. 2009). High production levels for resource extraction have proven unsustainable (Hueling & Reijnders, 2004). Fishing which occurr ed for thousands of years in north Atlantic waters became decreasingly productive at the turn of the 20 th century. The first notice of heavily depleted fish stocks occurred in the late 1940's when groundfish populations from inland waters experienced rapi d decline caused by a weak scientific base s for fishery's management decisions ( Hutchings & Rangeley, 2011 ; Sharma et. al. 2010 ). A most famous instance occurred between 1950 and 2000 when the Newfoundland Atlantic cod ( Gadhus morhua) fishery experienced u nprecedented losses from overfishing. The 500 years of bountiful fishing off the Nor thwest Atlantic coast of Canada's stocks began to change in the 1960's when the fishery first noticed a depreciable decline in stocks. Changes in the extent of fishing grou nds, cod landings, and substantial catch size reductions indicated a problem with current practices, but the perceived need to maintain the market as usual resulted in further stock declines until near extinction of predatory fish in the area By 2000 tot al landings were less than one million tons of North Atlantic cod, almost a third of the amount of cod caught in 1970 (Brander, 2006). Fishermen experienced the same deprivation from poor cod fisheries mana gement, and in total overfishing resulted in the loss of approximately 40,000 jobs, weakening the l ocal economy (David & Gartside, 2001).


) ) f ) To alleviate the strain inflicted on the fish populations, Canada declared a 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) prohibiting fish ing fleets from capturing stocks past three miles off the coast, in order to pressure fro m foreign fisheries but allow the local industry to continue. By 1981, the economic incentive to reduce fishery activity was not great enough to prevent overharvesting, a nd the cod stocks collapsed by 1991, resulting in a moratorium and closure of commercial great northern cod fishing by 1992 ( Mason 2002). The deterioration of the cod fishery and its tremendous economic loss es provided an eye opening experience for simila r industries who had not considered implementing precautionary principle s However, the cod fishery is not the only fishery to experience economic collapse as a result of overfishing By acknowledging the growing importance of sustainable initiatives, fish eries can guarantee a healthy stock for future generations. Fisheries implementing proper management will benefit from abundant stocks that result from sustainable initiatives like traceability. Global Fish Stock Assessments Scientists became increasingly conscious of the causal factors to fisheries collapses as the seafood industry experienced rapid decline s of heavily fished species. By the mid 20 th century, the decline of fish stocks was aptly attributed to overfishing and policy makers began seeking a s olution to secure the health of commonly fished stocks. United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) began the first efforts to monitor global fisheries in the early 1960s (FAO 2005). Current annual FAO reports s how that nearly a quarter of fish stocks were over exploited by the early 2000s.


) ) Z ) Data collected in 2005 (Figure 1.1 ) measured finfish and shellfish extracted for human consumption at 63.23 million tons, or 69% of total production. C apture fishery produc tion was at 21.4 million tons of seafood for conversion into fishmeal and fish oils, with an additional 6.9 million tons intended for miscellaneous purposes (e.g.. fertilizers). In the same year inland and marine fisheries captured a combined 92 million t ons of seafood, but more recent data indicates that these figures are on the decline (Table 1.1). The opposite trend is seen for aquaculture production, which increased gradually within the same five year period. It is possible that the correlation between the two figures is a significant indicator that the increase in aquaculture production is a response to declining wild harvest availability. "#$%&'!()()!"#*+#,-!.*/!,-'00+#,-!1&2/%34#2*!+2&!.5%.3%04%&'!.*/!3.14%&'!+#,-'&#',)!6-'&'!.&'!472!%,',! +2&!+#, -!-.&8',4'/!#*!3.14%&'!+#,-'&#',9!4-'!+#&,4!:'#*$!.!&'/%34#2*!+#,-'&;!7-#3-!4&.*,+2&<,!+#,-!#*42! +#,-!2#0!.*/!+#,-!<'.0)!6-'!3.14%&'!1220!.0,2!32*4&#:%4',!42!4-'!-.&8',4,!.&'!#*4'*/ '/!+2&!32*,%<14#2*)! =2%&3'9!">?@! ABBC


) ) X ) By 2005, an astounding 50% of marine fish stocks were classified as fully exploited, particularly in the Western Central Atlantic, Eastern Central Atlantic, Northwest Atlantic, Western Indian Ocean, and Pacific Northwest regions of the ocean. With half of all catches at their maximum sustainable limits, the risks for further overfishing significantly increas ed, stifling the potential for future fishery expansion and management (FAO 2007). The market for marine and inland capture fisheries is shared between several nations, as is the responsibility for proper harvesting and fair trade. Figure 1.2 shows the t op ten producers for marine and inland capture fisheries, measured in millions of tons. 6.:0'!()()624.0!1&2/%34#2*!.*/! %4#0#D.4#2*!2+!#*0.*/!.*/!<.&#*'!+#,-#*$!#*/%,4&#',)!>0,2!,-27*!#,!4-'! /#,4&#:%4#2*!2+!4-','!1&2/%34,!+2&!%,'!:;!.5%.3%04%&'!+.&<,)!=2%&3'9!">? @ ABBC


) ) [ ) Though several count r ies contri b ute to the global fishery market and management, by far the largest producer country for inland and coastal fisheries is China, with ha rvesting production figures rea ching 14.8 million tons in 2 008, with Peru as the next largest producer at 7.4 million tons At 4.3 million tons, United States global production does not equal one quarter of China's capacity. It is evident that with such high levels of fishing, additional precautionary measures must be implemented to ensure the conservation of marine ecosystems and the sustainability of fisheries into the foreseeable future. Global Extraction: Industrial Fishing and the Predatory Fish Market Fishing for Predatory Fish Species Fisheries operate within three industries: the predatory fishing industry, industrial fishing, and aquaculture. Fish are defined by their position on the food web, known as a trophic level; the higher a species is on the food chain, the greater percentage "#$%&'!()A!621!4'*!1&2/%34#2*!32%*4&#',!+ 2&!<.&#*'!.*/!#*0.*/!3.14%&'!+#,-'&#',)!=2%&3'9! 777)+.2)2&$E/23&'1EB(FE#(GAB'E#(GAB')1/+


) ) ` ) of lower trophic level fish and algae consumed. Predator y fish are in the highest trophic level with a diet consisting of smaller marine organisms and pelagic fish captured for industrial fishing. As a result, the only option for capturing and harvesting predatory fish requires what Pauly and Watson (2003) des cribed as "fishing down the food web where fisheries deplete marine ecosystems by sequential ly fishing lower trophic level species Fishing in this instance often result s in top down control of stocks One possible outcome of overfishing is reduced genetic variability caused by the limited gene pool. B y reducing the quantity of fish present, there is an intrinsic reduction of possible mates, requiring closer genetic ties between fish lineages Additionally, larger fish like the Atlantic striped bass require more time to reach reproductive maturity ( Figure 1.3 ). Of particular concern is the current extractive level by which predatory fish are removed for the market. This method of fishing down the food chain le aves populations vulnerable to loss of yo unger juvenile members of the community. Fish "#$%&'!()F)!"'<.0'!,4'/!:.,,!.$'!.4!<.4%)! =4'/!:.,,!+'<.0',!/2!*24!<.4%&'!%*4#0!4-';!&'.3-! .$'!H)!6-#,!4&'*/!#,!,#<#0.&!+2&!.!*%<:'&!2+!1&'/.42&;!+#,-!,1'3#',)!!=2%&3'9!! -4419EE777)<.,,)$28E/+7'0'E/<+E&'3&'.4#2*.0+#,-#*$E,4'/:.,,)-4<


) ) TS ) ecosystem imbalances result in a reduction of juveniles and reduced catch sizes, as the fish stock development is restricted by a limited time frame for growth to occur ( Jennings & Kaiser, 1998). Christensen and colleagues (2003) conducted a study to assess the current state of predatory fish stocks in the North Atlantic in review of data collected from 1900 to 19 99. T hirty one fish species were analyzed, including cod ( Gadus morhua), dogfish ( Squalus acanthia s), haddock ( Melanogrammus aeglefinus), hake Merluccius merluccius), herring ( Clupea harangus), mackerel ( Scomber scombus), salmon ( Salmo salar), and whiteing ( Merlangius, merlangus) Results indicated that within the past 50 years, the average amount or b iomass of predatory fish present have severely declined by two thirds of what it would be without overfishing. When broadening the scope of the study to consider the past 100 years of data, the decline was seen a s less drastic, with an 11% decline of fish stocks fr om their previous levels and a 90% decline in the total quantity of these fish before the expansion of industrial fishing in 1952 These figures are indicating the gradual removal of large, long lived predatory fish stocks and are cause for concern when considering the role these fish play in the food chain. Industrial Fishing The primary industrial fishing enterprise is to convert fish into goods such as fish oil and fishmeal which are often subsidized as fish feedstuffs for livestock, poultry, and predatory fish harvested in aquaculture farms. Naylor and Burke (2005) explain that fish targeted by industrial fishing are low on the food chain, as they make up the base for the marine food web and are the primary source of nutri ents and sustenance for many


) ) TT ) commercially valuable fish, marine mammals, and seabirds. Small pelagic fish species such as anchovies, herrings, and sardines are targeted for their size, expedient reproduction and recovery, and schooling behaviors. One of the main issues surrounding industrial fishing is its impact on marine ecosystems, as figures from a study by Myers and Worm (2003) attribute as much as an 80% reduction in the biomass of fish communities over the past 15 years of exploitation, due to the indirect effects of industrial fishing. Huntington (2004) reviewed six industrially fished spec ies used for feed in Scotland. The r esults indicated that most fisheries were unable to meet the sustainability requirements implemented in the area. The fisheries continued to use unsustainable fishing practices to harvest a number of fish considered overfished or recovering, including the recovering Chilean jack mackerel, Trachurus murphyi and the blue whiting, Micromesistius poutassou. Deutsch and collea gues (2007) suggest that even with reduced pressure on industrially fished species, those occupying higher levels of the food chain and at higher trophic levels are unlikely "#$% &'!()H)!I02:.0!%,'!2+!+#,-<'.0!.*/!+#,-!2#0)!>5%.3%04%&'!/2<#*.4',!4-'!%,'!2+!#*/%,4&#.0!+#,-! 1&2/%34,!:'3.%,'!+.&<'/!+#,-!&'5%#&'!.*#<.0!1&24'#*!42!,1.7*!.*/!,%&8#8')!=2%&3'9!J#K'!ABBC)


) ) TR ) to recover as a result of continuous pressure on fish from lower trophic level spe cies and increased demand for fishmeal for the aquaculture industry (Figure 1.4). Aquaculture: Movement towards controlled fisheries The imme diate solution to securing seafood stocks by reducing stress on wild fish populations is aquaculture, or fish farming. NOAA (NOAA Aquaculture Program website, 2011) defines aquaculture as "... the propagation and rearing of aquatic organisms in controlled or selected aquatic environments for any commercial, recreational, or public purpose." Aquaculture production is gaining popularity, with a ten fold increase in global and Asian production over the past 30 years with support from investors to use coastal a quaculture versus the more deleterious inland farms (Silva, 2009). Three primary methods for fish farming exist : extensive, semi intensive, and intensive fishing (Figure 1.5). Extensive farming involves no feeding of culture organisms and is considered the most sustainable, as fish feeds in these farms are primarily vegetarian and do not impact other fish population s Intensive aquaculture uses "#$%&'!()C)!>9!'L4'*,#8'@!M9!,'<# N #*4'*,#8'!.*/!O9! P*4'*,#8'!+#,-!+.&<#*$!<'4-2/,)!=2%&3'9!O.&8.002!'4!.0)! ABBG


) ) TU ) a high protein feed made from fish meal. In between these two extremes is semi intensive farming, where fish are fed a mixed diet of vegetarian feed and fish meal. Intensive and semi intensive farms provide greater benefits to restoring fish populations as a large part of s pawning produ ctivity is internally generated. A facility such as this can breed most of their fish on site rather than extensive aquaculture which necessitates a broodstock population (Carballo et al, 2008). Inte nsive and semi intensive farming methods ar e considered more sustain able than extensive aquaculture, but intensive farming requires higher energy inputs and greater start up costs (Muir, 2005 ). Aquaculture uses both freshwater and marine based production, but their location and methods vary slightly. To facilitate the mass quantities of biological waste that is produced by aquaculture while maintaining sufficiently high water levels there must be an adequate sup ply of water in proximity to the farm. Freshwater aquaculture farms are usually constructed on agricultural lands or along preexisting water supplies such as ponds or mangroves, while marine aquaculture farms utilize coastal areas, ponds, or cages and pens in the open sea for containment (Muir, 2005), which can lead to waste runoff in the waterways as well as newly introduced diseases for the farmed fish. The fishing industry is highly dependent on aquaculture production, as aquaculture contributes 53% of i ts total world production and 87% of the total fish oil production according to data collected by Naylor and Burke (2005). Oftentimes when aquaculture production expands, predatory fish harvesting and capturing also expands. The demand for industrial fishing increases as greater supplies of fish oil and fishmeal are required to maintain the levels at which predatory fish are being farmed (Tacon et al. 2006). This results in a net loss of protein, as predatory fish production requ ires massive


) ) Te ) quantities of food in their diet in order t o compensate for their growth. However, an increasing trend in aquaculture is the transformation of trimmings from fish, plants, and other animals into animal feeds and oils rather than sourcing the d iet entirely from wild caught resources ( Place & Watson, in press from UMCES, 2011) It is possible that aquaculture farms can increase their sustainability by managing thei r stocks in a way that reduces wastes, such as converting facility mortalities int o feed. Still, the amount of feed require d is unsuitable for sustainable production. In the same way a partial or full vegetarian diet is not suitable for every fish species, as some species of carnivorous fish are unable to digest vegetarian feeds and mus t be fed a diet of animal proteins supplemented with vitamins and antibiotics. Allsopp and colleagues (2009) report that larger fish like salmon require 2.5 5 times as much fish feed by weight as the amount of fish obtained from final production, equating 1 kg of predatory fish produced for every 5 kg consumed. The ratio for tuna can be as high as 20 kg of fish feed required for every 1 kg produced (Volpe, 2005). Regardless of achieving certification, such high inputs of wild fish for feed could not be sust ainable unless the fish used to make the feed comes from sustainably managed fisheries, and if there is no net loss of fish biomass. Predatory fish farming places strain s on the environment and has anthropological repercussions. Intensive and semi intensiv e aquaculture production uses the industrial fishery's "trash fish" stocks as fishmeal, developing nations rely on the same species of fish as a primary source of sustenance and protein. Tacon and associates (2006) explain that an increased demand for high value predatory fish means an increased demand for


) ) Tf ) industrial fish, and as a result low value fish costs increase to prices that rural or poor countries may not be able to afford, i.e. economics, and not human need, drive the market supply. This creates f ood insecurities because the demand for industrial fisheries to designate their stocks for direct human consumption increases in response to a growing human population. The FAO recognizes the problems developing countries face from increased aquaculture, and in response dictate that there is a need for governments within major aquaculture producing countries to prohibit the use of trash fish' or low value fish species as feed for the culture of high value fish or shellfish species, and in particular w ithin those countries where trash fish' is consumed directly by the rural poor," ( phide Tacon et al. 2006). Halweil (2008) reported that much of the seafood grown in facilities is exported to foreign markets thousands of miles from their production sites. Some markets acquire their fish from distant ecosystems that do not directly affect local marine habitats or the exchange of biolo gical materials through environmental processes. Reduced public concern for oceanic health can be altered by incorporating local fisheries into the market and creating public concern for the relationships between consumer and consumption. Educating consu mers where, why, and how seafood travels from marina to market gives them an opportunity to create spatial relationships with their purchases. By relating these issues on a localized scale, communities are more likely to accept and understand the importanc e of and neces sity for sustainable fisheries. Still, demands for predatory fishing are not likely to diminish even when consumers are informed about the issues because the incentive to shop sustainably may not be able to outweigh the satisfaction achieved by obtaining a desirable seafood product. This is especially true for sports fishermen who may decide to circumvent the law in order to obtain their "prize


) ) TZ ) fish". Not only would these fishermen or fishing fleets be breaking laws regarding offshore fishing or allowable catch limits, but they may also lack proper dehooking equipment or may fail to use it to ensure the least damage to their unintended catch. Still, many of these boats are likely to have the equipment on board in the event that a law enforcemen t officer boards to investigate their fishing methods but cannot be made to use it. Though sustainable initiatives may not be effective for all consumers, it at least provides them with an opportunity to consider the implications of their choices whereas previously such information was not available. Sustainable aquaculture is possible through semi intensive and intensive farming methods. In semi intensive farming, farmers supplement a species natural diet with food #$%&'()Q )!=.0<2*!:&22/,423K!/'8'021<'*4!#*!.*!.5%.3%04%&'!1.&K)!=.0<2*!.4!4-#,!1.&K!.&'! ,'0'34'/!+&2+4'&!472!;'.&,!4-'!+.3#0#4;!3-22,',!.!*'7!:&22/,423K!+&2

) ) TX ) sourced from agricultural byproducts such as manure and rice bran (Carbello et al. 2008 ). Intensive aquaculture sources most if not all of the feed and fertilizer from naturally sourced materials. Unlike semi intensive aquaculture that add limited amounts of fish protein into the daily diet, intensive methods incorporate little to no natural products and the organisms under production rely heavily on added proteins to meet their dietary needs. Most farming of predatory species is considered to be intensive, as there are limitations to acceptable dietary substitutes (Allsopp et al. 2009). It i s difficult to exclusively use any of these methods in a n aquaculture facility holding more than one species as each requires its own feed diet. To ensure the sustainability of farmed fi sheries, aquaculture farms must reduce the number of escape d non native fish species from open wate r encasements into the wild and reestablish wild fish stocks extracted for seed stocks (Figure 1.6 ) Efforts to reduce the presence of foreign diseases in the farms and natural ecosystems is necessary to ensure proper health regulations are met and human health is not affected. Sustainable Aquaculture Support for sustainable aquaculture farms has increased over the past several decades, as people beg a n to recognize the irreparable harm caused to marine ecosystems as a r esult of destructive fishing methods. Halweil (2008) reports several initiatives that should be instilled in consumer minds to reduce the ensuing damage from fish farming, such as excessive use of small fish stocks for fish meal purposes, the removal of ju veniles from natural habitats to increase harvestable yields, and the spread and control of disease


) ) T[ ) and fish waste runoff into nearby waterways as a consequence to poor drainage systems in manmade estuaries. The Maryland Aquaculture Coordinating Council c onstructed a set of fishing guidelines that guarantee d a continual stock of product. To be successfully sustainable, growers must work to increase survival within the facility. Contained systems like a fish cage in an aquaculture park are more susceptible to disease than fish that develop in the wild (MD Aquaculture Coordinating Council, 2007 ) However, wit hin the confined environment of an aquaculture tank, there are great risks to be considered and greater management must be implemented to ensure the safe ty and survival of the product. E lements such as maintenance of water quality and competition for food amongst species are factors that do not predominate in the wild. Farmed fish grown from larvae have no prior experience with natural stimuli, increasing their vulnerability to natural predators presiding within the same waterway as the farm Managing heal th is necessary and only typically possible with the administration of antibiotics. Growth of product should consider the market for which the fish is intended (MD Aquaculture Coordinating Council, 2007). If demand requires more fish than the facility is c apable of producing, it is important that the growers continue to meet set guidelines to ensure proper growth of product. Likewise, product continuity ensures that consumers receive a consistent product that meets their needs as well as the needs of govern ing bodies, which enforce the guideline s on aquaculture production. For fisheries to achieve a healthy level of extraction from the marine ecosystem, there must be a movement towards more sustainable aquaculture production that limits extraction of wild fi sh by developing a system of self replenishing stocks. Fisheries and


) ) T` ) seafood consumers much recognize the societal and ecological burdens these production methods have on the environment. Closed production systems by which fishing is contained within an es tablished, controlled zone can reduce nutrient pollution that leaches into local water supplies, bordering mangroves, and natural wetlands. Wastes that are considered pollutants can also be reconstituted as biological fertilizers by implementing an integra ted multi trophic aquaculture (IMTA) system. IMTA's use wastes produced by cultured fish as food for trophic level species that work to balance the overall chemical composition of an aquaculture, mimicking the same natural processes of a marine ecosystem's food chain. Here, a balance exists between waste production and extraction, as cultivation of aquatic plants, seaweeds, and oysters that construct the base of the trophic system provides the system with an order to extract organic matter and di ssolve inorganic nutrients (Allsopp et al. 2009). However, this does seem to present certain issues concerning the effects of wastes a ccumulated in these systems. Recycling finfish organic wastes in these fed aquaculture systems cannot guarantee complete r emoval of organic and inorganic wastes, as current practices attemp ts to limit the accumulated che micals and drugs in species they are extracting (Buschmann et al. 2009) To provide consumable resources, these issues with IMTA systems must be addressed. Si milarly, aquatic polyculture, by which many species are bred together in the same environment, can be used to reduce waste byproducts through the co cultivation of many different species such as China's abstraction of rice and fish, rather than obtaining s everal species of varying trophic levels (Neori et al. 2004). This method of fish farming is currently in place at the Mote Aquaculture Farm in Sarasota FL (Figure 1.7 ), where


) ) RS ) biological fish wastes are reconstituted as nutrients for plants through an int ensive drum filtration system. The sand filled drums act to separate particles from the water, which are then used to enrich soil used for aquatic plant nurseries at the facility. They also convert fish trimmings to fish meal and fertilizer so the left ove r fish is not wasted ) ) There exists a growing need for the impending fish shortage to gain public recognition. Movement towards sustainable aquaculture will not occur without a collaborative effort between consumers and stakeholders to reevaluate fishery management. Reducing the stigma of consuming lower trophic level organisms such as seaweeds, shellfish, and herbivorous fish is an important step towards sustainable production. Halweil (2008) reports several incentives to eat lower on the food chain, #$%&'!()V )!>&'.0!8#'7!2+!4-'!W24'!>5%.3%04%&'!".3#0#4;)!P,20.4#*$!4-'!+.3#0#4;!+&2

) ) RT ) including the numerous healt h benefits obtained through seaweed consumption, and a reduced risk of contamination that frequently plagues predatory farmed fish. Wild catch: fishing methods and their relative issues The most common fishing methods of concern are trawling, long lining, seining, and drift netting Massive quantities of by catch, or accidental catch' of untargeted species become entangled in nets and hooks as a result of poor management and consideration for ecosystems. Th ere is little hope for the expansion of sustainab le management of fish stocks in open waters without the acknowledgement of precautionary principles that protect marine ecosystems ) "#$%&'! ()G )!M2442

) ) RR ) regions close to the seabed. Their use over the past hundred years has been controversial, with the first recorded trawler banning in 1499 by Flanders natives (Berrill, 1997). The most destructive of these methods is using "draggers" for bottom trawling, w here the nets are dragged directly on the seafloor and brought up periodically along with the fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds in the form of natural landscapes including several species of coral, rock, and sand dwelling invertebrates. When first impl emented by the Newfoundland fisheries in 1970, the draggers could net as much as 25,000 pounds of fish in a single haul, a number that far exceeds the capacity of ins hore fishermen of the time (Mas on 2002). Bottom trawling is not limited by any bottom typ e, making it by far the most destructive form of fishing, especially in regions where fish are known to congregate such as seamounts and coral reefs. If fisheries continue to use aggressive bottom trawling methods, it is possible that there will be limite d habitat available for those fish that rely on the vast topography of the seafloor to provide shelter from predators or spawning grounds for bottom dwelling species. The greatest risks of trawling are associated with the impact it has on deep water fish a nd predatory species characterized by slow growth rates and long life expectancies Allsopp and colleagues (2007) explain that these fish are not as resilient to overfishing as smaller fish. In the former group reproductive development occurs at a much ol der age and females typically produce more eggs with increasing age. By removing these fish from their environment prematurely, overall yields of juvenile fish are jeopardized, and there is a reduction in the number of breeding fish in the waters. Fortunat ely, stocks can recover with reduced fishing pressures. Pipitone and associates ( 2000 ) reported an "eight


) ) RU ) fold increase in fish biomass over the four years following a trawling ban in the Gulf of Castellammare." (Pinnegar et al 2000, p. 190). Wild Catch Bycatch By far the most stifling aspect of current fishing methods is the quantity of marine mammal, turtle, seabird, and fish by catch that results. Wilcox and Donlan (2004) report that with 8% of all catch, or 7.2 million tons of biomass, discarded as accidental catch" every year, there is a marked impact on marine mortality rates as well as species conservation. Though advancements in sonar technology have reduced quantities of unwanted by catch es the high correlation between by catch levels and IUU f ishing indicate that the only way to resolve the issues completely is through regulation and enforcement of sustainable marine laws and governance. Changes in fishing methods through modification of preexisting gear and the implementation of low cost mitig ation measures reduce the frequency of by catch (Gilman et al. 2005). There must be a shift in established regulations and policy to provide fisheries with an incentive to reduce accidental catch. Of optimal importance is the allocation of reparative costs for by catch mitigation. One solution is to develop compensatory mitigation for fisheries, where revenue generated from the impacts incurred by the ocean as a result of exhaustive fishing methods is allocated to a common pool resource reserved for initiat ives supporting high impact conservation actions. Attaching additional fees for fisheries exceeding allowable accidental catch es provides an economic incentive for reducing by catch while creating a pool for funding activism as well as the development of b y catch avoidance technology. Regardless of the economic incentive presented by mitigation


) ) Re ) methods, the most important factor in determining the sustainability of fisheries lies in individual incentive for the harvester (Hilborn et al. 2005) Thus it is n ecessary to evaluate issues in sustainable fisheries development at both ends of the cycle, first considering the fishery, then evaluating the consumer. The Chesapeake Bay Habitat: Why North America's Largest Estuary needs protection The Chesapeake Bay, t he most important ecosystem on the Northeastern shoreline (Ernst, 2003), is home to thousands of marine plants, zooplankton, crustaceans, fish, and marine mammals. It plays a key role in the lifecycle of the Maryland Striped Bass and lends its habitat to a large majority of rockfish juveniles as they transform from larval "#$%&'()Y)!W.1!2+!O -',.1'.K'!M.;!.*/!#4S,!12,#4#2*!7#4-#*!4-'!O2*4#*'*4.0!U*#4'/!=4.4',)! Z#$-0#$-4'/!.&'!4-'!J.4%L'*4!.*/![.*4#32K'!\#8'&@!:24-!%4#0#D'/!:;!,4'/!:.,,!,1.7*#*$!,423K,)! =2%&3'9!='32&!]!Z2%/'@!(YYG)


) ) Rf ) stage to spawning individuals. The Bay's niche in coastal ecology has made it a focal point for conservation efforts as it gains national recognition for its species diversity and economic importance. The formation o f the Chesapeake Bay (Figure 1.9 ) began 18,000 years ago when glacier melts from the last Ice Age caused massive flooding throughout the Eastern seaboard. The watershed exceeds 4,500 square miles and extends to a length of 200 m iles and 35 miles wide within six states (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia), qualifying it as the largest of 850 estuaries in North America (Ernst, 2003 ). Water sources derive from 150 waterways, such as rivers, strea ms, and the Atlantic Ocean. The bay shares 11,700 miles of shoreline with the Atlantic Ocean and is heavily influenced by its daily movement. Ocean tides bring a twice daily supply of saltwater to the bay's inland freshwaters. This brackish and vegetative habitat provides an excellent habitat for developing fish and crustaceans that rely on the Chesapeake's nurseries as primary feeding grounds. The relatively shallow nature of the bay with reasonable water clarity allows the sun to reach the grasses and pla nkton residing on the seafloor providing food for zooplankton and crustaceans, a favorite prey of juvenile rockfish. Efforts to catalogue the bay's health and biodiversity began in 1880 with the first fishery's survey (Ernst, 2003) T he survey successfully catalogued over 123 million pounds of fresh oysters in the bay. These results caused scientists to attempt environmental management as they gained an increased awareness of the importance of maintaining healthy ecosystems. Determining who was responsible for designating the vague boundaries in waterways became the first attempt for bay management. Maryland


) ) RZ ) and Virginia were the first to consider a b i state resource management plan in 1924, which resulted when the states developed a certified fishery board for resource management in the late 19 th century. Since it s founding the commercial fishing industry has consistently yielded millions of tons of landings annually (Figure 1.10 ). The bay is home to a plethora of aquatic species and a large human population. The bay's human population far exceeds that of the first North American Indian occupants who lived on the land 11,000 years ago. Ruark (2010 ) es timates population growth in the Chesapeake Bay watershed at 150,000 people every year, with populations rising 40% from 2000 to 2009 Populations are expected to increase over the next 10 years, with an estimated 20 million people living in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by 203 0 ( Chesapeake Bay Program, 2000 ) ) #$%&'()(B )!W.&;0.*/^,!32<<'&3#.0 0.*/#*$,@!(YCB N ABBB)!=2%&3'9![. 4#2*.0 W.&#*'!"#,-'&#',!='&8#3'! ABB()


) ) RX ) Mid Chesapeake Bay Food Web (Figure 1.1 1 ) was constructed by the Maryland Sea Grant (MD Sea Grant Website, 2011). Sunlight carbon and nutrients from the surrounding environment provide plants and phytoplankton with a renewable energy source that is readily available to them (that is to say, under preferred conditions w here there is little or no eutrophication and full spectrum sunlight). This energy is then absorbed by the chlorophyllic organisms in the lower pelagic waters and transformed into the proteins that more developed organisms need to survive and replicate. Zo oplankton and bacteria that feed on plants become the primary food source for the organisms residing in the next level of the food chain. Crustaceans in turn become the primary food group of larger more developed organisms considered the primary consumers. This "#$%&'!()(()!J&2/%34#2*!#*!4-'!O-',.1'.K'9!M.0.*3#*$!*%4&#'*4,!.*/!+22/!7':,!42!<.#*4.#*!-'.04-)! =2%&3'9!WX!='.!I&.*4!AB((


) ) R[ ) includes species such as rays and fish, including the Atlantic striped bass ( MD Sea Grant website, 2011). It is at this point in the food chain that top predators begin to feed upon each other, are captured by humans who are the top consumers, or di e of natural causes in their habitats. What remains of the primary consumers becomes food for decomposers which fix consumer nutrients remains to be used by the primary producers, who absorb energy from the nutrient rich decomposing phase. Thus, the circle continues where it first began at the primary producers. This is also considered a trophic cascade, where three or more trophic levels are connected by predation (Pinnegar 2000). As a lower trophic level organism, plants are one of the most important e lements to a healthy marine eco system, as any species' population dynamics depend on plant abundance and accessibility. Figure 1.1 1 illustrates the importance of each member of the food web, an intricate system that requires balance across the chain in ord er for successful growth and reproduction of any of its encompassing species. Without one piece of the puzzle, the picture can never be completed. This is why it is not only necessary to consider the species in question (in this case, Striped Bass), but on e must review the entire ecosystem to understand the factors that contribute to a healthy balance and proper food availability. The Eastern Shore's coastal ecosystem depends on striped bass ( rockfish ) as a primary predator. Their life cycle consists of four stages of development (Figure 1.1 2 ). Striped bass larvae consume marine zooplankton, while the juveniles and adults eat small fish and invertebrates such as crustaceans, insects, and annelid worms. Atlantic striped


) ) R` ) bass typically grow to a maximum size of 59 inches long and range between 55 77 pounds in adulthood on this diet (NOAA FishWatch 2012 ). Young rockfish also play an important role as predators in their ecosystem, consuming a diet of inclu ding bluefish, weakfish, cod, and silver hake. Increased human population s threaten marine environments and the bay's health. S ewage, agricultural runoff, and atmospheric pollution from human waste and agriculture result in a reduction of oxygen levels in the water. Reduced oxygen leads to increased nitrogen production, an effect that leads to harmful algal blooms (HAB) which filters sunlight intended for bottom dwelling plants. Without the full spectrum of the sun, plants are unable to re produce and the food web becomes altered as food supplies for smaller marine organisms diminish. Without the organisms t hat feed on the seagrasses, there is no food for the fish to consume, and the land becomes an uninhabitable barren wasteland. "#$%&' ()(A)!6-'!+2%&!,4.$',!2+!,4'/!:.,,!/'8'021<'*4)! =2%&3'9! -4419EE777).&K.*,.,,4'&,)32

) ) US ) This occurred for a brief period in 1999, when 200,000 fish died as a result of oxygen depletion in the water (Ernst, 2003). Difficulties arise when trying to determine the extent to which human presence has influenced an ec osystem as expansive and mysterious as the Chesapeake Bay. In an attempt to quantify the health of the bay, political officials established a State of the Bay Report as part of the National Estuary Program The report measures the actual abundance of the B ay against the estimated abundance determined by scientific "# $%&'!()(F)!J&2_'34#*$!4-'!M.;S,!+%4%&'!-'.04-)!6-'!O-',.1'.K'!M.;!"2%*/.4#2*S,!=4.4'!2+!4-'!M.;! \'12&4!-.,!<2,4!&'3'*40;!$#8'*!4-'!:.;!.!,32&'!2+!F(@!.44&#:%4#*$!4-'!-'.04-!.4!.!$&./'!2+!`O N `))!>,! 3.*!:'!,''*!+&2

) ) UT ) modeling. In 2001, figures from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation showed the bay as 73% less productive than what would be expected in an undisturbed natural state. Not only does this allude to the le vel at which humans are causing detriment to the bay, but it is also a decrease in environmental health from the previous year's report (Figure 1.1 3 ). Protecting the bay from human waste is of utmost importance to maintaining a healthy ecosystem. There are tremendous financial costs to reduce human impacts on the environment. Estimates from the officials at the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (2002b) attribute the cost of protecting the bay at around $20 billion (also see Blakenship, 2002c for rece nt estimates). Regardless of the money that can contribute to coastal protection, there is no way to compensate for the natural habitat destroyed by development and sprawl throughout the watershed, averaging more than 3,000 acres of forest lost per year fr om 1998 to 2007 ( Lister et al. 2009 ). Development was responsible for as much as 91% of total forest loss calculated at 66,000 acres in this nine year time frame. Aside from the environmental implications associated with a loss of the bay, there is no repl acement for the employment opportunities lost from the exploitation of marine resources. The fisheries in the Chesapeake Bay alone lost an approximate 7,000 fish related jobs during a massive decline in rockfish populations in the 1970's and 1980's (Estima tion by Chesapeake Bay Program ).


) ) UR ) Maryland Striped Bass: Chesapeake Bay s most prized resource Morone saxatilis, or common name Atlantic Striped Bass is considered one of the state of Maryland's most valued marine resources. With the fish's popularity came a number of nicknames, including striper, rockfish, linesider, roller, squidhound, and greenhead (ASMFC 2004). Though called by many names, the rockfish is identifiable only by its fully compressed body with 8 characteristically dark continuous strip es along its side (Figure 1.14 ) They live along the eastern shore from Maine to North Carolina, but spend most of their lives near their spawning sites in the Chesapeake Bay. The majority of rockfish live within the three major stock locations: the Hudson River, Chesapeake Bay, and Delaware River (NOAA NMFS FishWatch 2011). The Chesapeake Bay and its extensive watershed make it the largest estuary in the country and an invaluable resource for Morone saxatilis. Within its waters resides a major population of pre migratory striped bass ranging from 10 years of age or younger as well as coastal migratory stocks ranging from age 2 to 30 (ibid). The Chesapeake Bay is the largest wild M. saxatilis stock nursery, with 70 90% of all Atlantic Striped Bass "#$%&'!()(H)!>40.*4#3!=4'/!M.,, "!#$%$&'!()*)+,-,(.! 6-'! +#,-S,!/#,4#*34#8'!,4',!.02*$!#4S, ,#/'!<.K'!#4!'.,#0;! &'32$*#D.:0')!=2%&3'9!-4419EE777)4-' N 3211'&72&K,)32

) ) UU ) populat ions on the East coast migrating to the bay to spawn and remaining there for th e lar vae and juvenile life stages (MD DNR 2007). Striped Bass Stock Assessments In 1970 Maryland striped bass experienced reduced juvenile productivity and spawning activity, causing stocks to suddenly decline. Congress determined that environmental pollution, altered habitats, increased fishing pressure, and inadequacy of fisheries management resulted in a decline of M. saxatilis landings. They decided that the fisheries requ ired new management strategies to preserve the species' intrinsic and economical value s and historical importance commercially and recreationally (Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission 2009). Rockfish stocks recovered after Congress passed the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act in 1988, proposed by the Atlantic States Marine Fish eries Commission ( ASMFC ) The act placed a moratorium on striped bass fishing that forbade the landing or attempted catch of striped bass within the coastal state boundaries. Stock recovery peaked in 1995 and rockfish are no longer at risk for overfishing ( ASMFC 2009). Th ough M. saxatilis stock estimates have significantly improved since the ma jor decline in the 1980's, data show annual fluctuations of stock over the past several years. Data collected for the Biennial Report to Congress shows the trend in female spawning stock mass from 1982 to 2004 have a positive increase, with a maximum abundance seen in 2002. The numbers seen in early assessments from the 1980!s are astoundingly low at under 5,000 metric tons from 1982 1989 (Figure 1.15 ). This could be the result of limited technological sampling means, but is most likely the effect s from overfishing


) ) Ue ) striped bass populations during this time. Abundant stock biomass from 1990 to 1996 can be attributed to the 1984 moratorium on Atlantic striped bass in r esponse to the failing stocks An increase in spawning females is a positive indicator of a stock's future. With an increasing population of mature females comes the promise of a sustainable and healthy stock level The 2005 Biennial Report also indicates striped bass population abundance of fish age 8 and greater steadily increased from 1990 to 2002, after a seven year period of consistently low stock levels ( Figure 1.1 6 ). A similar trend is seen in populations age 1 and greater, with an increase in population abundance seen as early as 1986. Data from 2000 on show variable levels of abundance growth, but appear to have remained consistent within a range of 6 to 8 million fish reported annually (Biennial Report, 2005). I t is necessary to consider the trends t o understand wh at causes the decline in stocks. Counts for each new year can vary by 1 2 million fish. This is a seemingly minor numbe r "#$%&' ()(C)!6&'*/,!#*!+'<.0'!,1.7* #*$!,423K!:#2<.,,! 28'& 4-'!1.,4!47'*4;!;'.&,)!"&2! \',%04,


) ) Uf ) considering populations exceeded 60 million fish in 2006, but appears more severe when pairing these values with those from the first collection year in 1982 when populations of older fish did not exceed 3 million fish. Though earlier sampling methods wo uld have limited the accuracy of data collection, the slight fluctuation in population abundance in the past several years is worth further investigation regardless of the seemingly all time high for Young of the Year (YOY) statistics. With last years YOY reporting much lower levels, it is questionable whether next year s stocks will experience a similar trend. Landings from 2006 to 2008 dropped from 2.7 million metric tons to 2.2 million metric tons, a decline of 17 percent (ASB Stock Assessment Summary 2009). This could be indicative of a decline in female spawning stock biomass, used as the indicator for stock health. However, because stock data are maintained through recreational fishing surveys and catch limits placed on the species, it is more likely that the decline in "#$%&' ()(Q )!=4'/!:.,,!121%0.4#2*!.:%*/.*3'!+2&!472!.$'!$&2%1,)!=2%&3'9!ABBH!eJ>!&',%04,)


) ) UZ ) landings is the result of environmental fluctuations and possibly more responsible fishermen taking greater precautions to ensure their catch is within legal size limits and accurately reported. A 64 percent decline in discard mortalities from 2.1 million fish to 950,000 fish during the same time frame as reported in the 2009 Atlantic Striped Bass Stock Assessment is no doubt a resul t of increased responsibility and awareness of fishing methods. Striped bass certification began in January 2004 but was postponed until assessment reopened in August 2011, which will be discussed in further detail in Chapter 2. Fishing for Maryland Striped Bass: Commercial, Recreational, and Aquaculture Production Recreational fishermen account for the majority of striped bass catch es and with 78% of Atlantic stock landings from 2000 to 2008 The majority of catch es were from Maryland and three othe r northeastern states (NOAA FishWatch 2008). In 2008, recreational fishers caught 2.2 million striped bass weighing 12,310 metric tons, showing drastic improvement from the 336 metric tons landed in 1989, shortly after Congress passed the moratorium. Fig ure 1.17 shows data from the Atlantic Striped Bass Studies 2005 Biennial Report to Congress. Note the increase in discards from 2003 to 2004; although this trend could be the result of storm activity, poor water conditions, pollution, or rapid temperature fluctuations, it is not unlikely that the spike in discard numbers was caused by the use of harmful fishing methods, an increase in juvenile catch (younger fish are less resilient to catch stress than adult fish), or even greater extraction of the species as a whole. Twice as many commercial discards were seen in 2004 than the previous year,


) ) UX ) while recreational landings decreased but discards increased (Biennial Report 2005). Landings from one year to the next remained consistent, a trend that is indicative of overfishing behaviors. Not surprising is the decrease in recreational landings and consequential increase in recreational discards for 2004. Recreational fishermen are also obliged to follow size regulations, and with a rapid increase in juvenile populations, the number of juvenile s caught should be expected to increase. Fishermen are required to release juveniles, but the st ress and damage caused from hook and line fishing is occasionally detrimental to younger fish resulting in mortalities from blood loss or failure to recuperate. An effective way to learn about marine ecosyst ems is to survey stock health. S cientists were a ble to retrieve a rockfish sample considered representative of the total Chesapeake stocks with two sweeping passes with seine nets 100 feet off the beach (DNR YOY website, 2011) These data are processed by "#$%&'!()(V)!O2<1.&#*$!4-'!/#,3.&/,!.*/!0.*/#*$,!+&2

) ) U[ ) the Maryland Department of Resource and published as their "Young of the Year" survey, which reports on the annual spawning success of the stock. The 2011 survey (DNR YOY website, 2011) resulted in a score of 34.6, a valu e far exceeding last year s count of 5.9 and the survey's long term average of 11.9. Such a drastic change in populations from last year to the next is attributed to fluctuations in varying conditions during the time at which they conducted the survey. This includes water temperature, currents, time of day, among other factors. R esults from the 2011 survey indicate the first successful spawning year class since 2003, and the forth largest year class on record since the moratorium was lifted in 1990 (DNR YOY website 2011). Even though the survey indicates that spawning stocks are f lourishing, the number of small stripers along the coast is critically low. It will take four years for the striped bass collected in this survey to reach the legal catch size of 18 inches, and another eight years for them to become long enough for coastal angling for capture by commercial fisheries. Though the survey may report tremendous health in fish stocks, releasing this information in a positive manner could result in false hope for fishermen who increase their level of fishing because they believe t here were more fish for them to catch. The survey also does not consider the effects of mycobacteriosis, a disease plaguing Chesapeake fish stocks. If the bacteri a le d to elevate d striped bass mortality, it could reduce the young striper abundance result i ng in less stocks than reported. Regardless, any increase in striped bass spa wning stock populations is good. W hether publicity on the matter shines a positive or negative light on the issue informs people on the subject and maintains interests in ecosyste m health. Striped Bass Bycatch in the Chesapeake


) ) U` ) With a current global harvesting rate equating bycatch to be as much as one out o f every four fish captured, it is questionable whether wild caught fisheries can continue to be sustainable with today's aggressive demand for seafood and its detrimental fishing methods. On the bright side, there is one fishery that manages to reduce the extent of their bycatch figures d ue to sustainable harvesting methods using noninvasive equipment that allows for maintained ecosystems: the Atlantic Striped Bass Fishery. While the most recent global estimates attribute commercial discards at 7 million tons per year, the number of stripe d bass discards were counted as low as 216,753 fish in 2006 (ASMFC Fisheries Management Plan 2010) The highest number of losses was due to anchor gill netting, pound nets, and hook and line fisheries. Unfortunately, the number of dead fish reported has i ncreased over the past two decades. Catch and release fatalities in 1990 were recorded at around 132 thousand fish, while seven years later the 1997 report had risen to 1.2 million fish (MD Striped Bass Stock Assessment, 2009). T he 2006 Stock Assessment Wo rkshop Data showed a maximum loss of 2 million fish. More astounding than these figures is the ages of the fish it describes, with the majority of fish discards ranging from 2 6 years old (Stock Assessment 2009 ). Fish within this age range qualify as juve niles, wh ich in a few years time develop into the breeding population. Females at this stage of development are not yet capable of reproduction and so their loss has a greater impact on the ecosystem and future stock analysis than male fish at this age.


) ) eS ) CHAPTER 2 Seafood Fraud and Commodity Chain Management : Implications for Atlantic Striped Bass Attributed as the most highly traded food internationally (Smith et al 2010), seafood represents one of the world's most important resources. As a food supply, seafood contributes to at least 15% of average animal protein consumption for nearly 3 billion people worldwide, while providing as much as 50% of protein consumed fo r some island and West African populations (FAO 2008). As an industry, the seafood market employs 4.3 million people worldwide with an additional 52 0 million people relying on income from seafood production ( FAO 2008). Though recognized for its tremendo us social and economic value, seafood products continue to be undervalued as natural resource prices fail to accurately reflect sustainability costs (Arrow et al 2004). Seafood Fraud and IUU Fishing Seafood fraud occurs most notably as transshipment, over treatment, species substitution, a nd short weighing (Table 2.1). Worldwide i llegal fishing activities average at as much as one fifth of reported catches (Oceana 2012), with some areas harvesting much as 37 percent illegal catch es (Agnew et al. 2009) A study by Jacquet and Pauly (2008) found fraudulent labels on over one third of imported seafood Further studies (Miller & Mariani 2010, Buck 2007) indicate that mislabeling of more popular fish occurs 25 to 70 percent of the time, where fisheries r eplace high demand fish such as red snapper, wild salmon, and Atlantic cod with those species that are less desirable, less expensive, and mor e readily available.


) ) eT ) 6.:0'!A)()!!='.+22/!+&.%/!.*/!#4,!124'*4#.0!-'.04-!&#,K,)!=2%&3'9!I>?!ABBY!.,!3#4'/!+&2

) ) eR ) High demand species like wild salmon or blue fin tuna are more likely to be mislabeled than others, as customers expect restaurants to meet product demands regardless of the season or harvest regulations (Jacquet et al. 2009). The menu value that can be placed on species like wild salmon or blue fin tuna and the willingness of the consumer to pay for convenience may tempt suppliers to substitute a less valuable product for one in high demand (Table 2.2) Consumers intend ing to support ethically harvested and quality guaranteed products unknowingly create the opposite effect by purchasing the mislabeled product. Suppliers profit from deceiving the customer while maintaining the i llusion that they can meet consumer demands year round even when products are no longer in season. One way for people in the fishing industry to misreport weights is by adding a filler product made from a different species of fish. Made by combining the original product with other fish species and color additives the filler creates a "more attractive" product that is bigger and brighter colored than the original. Fish undergoing this form of processing pose a potential health threat to consumers (Buck 2010 ). As an illegal underground operation, i t cannot be guaranteed that the filler product is contaminant free or that it meets FDA standards. Because the natural toxins in seafood do not affect the product's smell taste, or appearance (Schnorf et al. 2002 )," there is the chance that consumers usin g color or smell as safety indicators may unknowingly purchase contaminated fish that is under the guise of an FDA approved product. Such f alsely obtained food security could lead to massive health issues, as may have been the case in 2007 when finfish ranked as the largest cause of outbreak from a single product (CDC 2010). It is also possible that a consumer could


) ) eU ) experience an experience an allergic reaction to the unknown filler ingredient s. The only way to 6.:0'!A)A)!='.+22/!,%:,4#4%4#2*!+2&!+&',-! <.&K'4'/!,'.+22/)!Z#$-!/'<.*/!+#,-!.&'!2+4'*!,%:,4#4%4'/! +2&!.!0',,!8.0%.:0'!.*/!<2&'!.33',,#:0'!,1'3#',)!>33',,'/!.4! -4419EE23'.*.)2&$E,#4',E/'+.%04E+#0',E&'12&4,E"#,-;fM%,#*',,f%1/.4'/)1/+ )


) ) ee ) preserve public health and ensure the seafood product quality is to eradicate illegal fishing operations. $)MHA@:J>)JGEEA>);?)GJJ:HG>?IQ)=@?E>=F=?@)K=>BA:>)@?>?H<=E=EL)=>D)DJ=?E>=F=J) EGA)=@?E>=FQ)G)MHA@:J>);Q)=>D)DJ=?E>=>=F= J)@?F=E=>=AE)JH?G>?D)@?DJH?MGEJ=?D) =E)DM?J=?D)=@?E>=F=JG>=AE)=E)>B?)MIGJ?P)Q?>)>A@GQbD)KBAI?DGI?HD)GI) ?cJI:D=C?IQ)G@C?H>=D?)G)MHA@:J>bD)C?HEGJ:IGH)EGA)@?DJH=;?) ) D?C?HGI)@=FF?H?E>) DM?J=?DO),?M?G>=EL)>B?)DG?H<=EAIALQ)FAH)G)CGH=?>Q)AF)D?GFAA @)MHA@:J>D))<=DI?G@D) JAED:O)3EG;I?)>A)@?>?H<=E?)>B?)>H:?)=@?E>=>Q)AF) G)F=DBP) >B?)JAED:B?Q)M?HJ?=C?)GD)>B?) @?D=H?@)MHA@:J>O)&>)=D)MADD=;I?)FAH) two entirely different species of fish to s hare the same name, or one species may correspond with several different names depending on the country and region (Ababouch for FAO, 2005). To eliminate inconsistencies in identifying species, the FDA designed "the Seafood List" in 1993 to homogenize the vocabulary used throughout the market (GAO, 2009 ). FDA updates the list annually by following a set of principles to determine the validity of a name when assimilated into marketplace terminology (Figur e 2.1). Wholesalers must use the correct nomenclature to adhere to FDA regulations, but even the Seafood List cannot eliminate inconsistencies in identification S everal species continue to share a single common name without any additional indicators. The bass is one example which falls under three designations (Bass, Sea Bass, or Seabass) each containing several species (17 bass species, 15 sea bass species 3 seabass species ) each with it's own list of vernacular names. The striped bass, Morone saxatilis has three acceptable listed vernacular names (FDA Seafood List, 2009).


) ) ef ) A similar effect occurs when a product is mislabeled to increase its marketability and deceive consumers (Table 2.3). Designating a new name for a less desirable fish may increase consumer interest in the product but does not provide them with a consistent pro "#$%&'A)()!"0273-.&4!+2&!='0'34#*$!.*!>33'14.:0'!W.&K'4![.<')! =2%&3'9! -4419EE777)+/.)$28E"22/EI%#/.*3'O2<10#.*3'\'$%0.42&;P*+2&<.4#2*EI%#/.*3'X23%<'*4, E='.+22/E%3<((FAQB)-4

) ) eZ ) duct. One species affected by this type of marketing scheme is the Patagonian Tooth fish, more commonly known as the Chilean Sea Bass. Its popularity in the early 2000's as a bass fish caused fisheries to nearly deplete the entire stock in just under 20 years. Marketing the toothfish as a bass proved to be an effect sales tactic, but the high demand for bass endange red the health of the stock. Suppliers manipulate consumer s when they intentionally tamper with product labels for profit. Similar to renaming a fish, mislabeling species also markets a less desirable fish under the guise of a highly valued species to increase profits and meet consumer demands. The difference is that unlike a renamed fish where consumers choose what they buy, there is no way to know what you are getting with a mislabeled species. Mislabeling occurs most often wi th highly desirable species such as "red snapper", which shares its name with a variety of fish species (Stiles et al. 2011). The FDA's "Seafood List" aims to prevent the frequency of species misidentification or misnomers but s ystematic inadequacies such as limited regulating obstruct the program's effi ciency Updates to the list can occur infrequently that the most recent changes to the list revealed over 400 required name changes (GAO 2009).


) ) eX ) Another form of seafood fraud involves tampering with product weights by excessively glazing and breading. Glazing is a fairly common and acceptable practice for fisheries processing frozen sea food products. Applied to each fish is an ice glaze that helps maintain product quality during storage and distribution. State and federal laws require all fisheries report catch weights prior to glazing, but some packers have been known to misreport their product weight, with ice contributing as much as 40% of the product weight and an additional $23 per pound of product (National Conference on 6.:0'!A)F)!RL.<10',!2+!O2<<2*0;!W#,0.:'0'/!='.+22/)!P4! 1.;,!42!K*27!7-.4^,!&'.00;!2*!4-'! <'*%)!"&2

) ) e[ ) Weights and Measures, 2010). Fisheries may perceive misreporting weight information as profitable decision, but i ts effects on consumer budgets and stock availability will deteriorate any opportunity for sustained profits. Overbreading creates the same effect, where shrimp and other breaded products account for more weight than the meat and thus do not meet federal regulations. An investigation of frozen products from 17 states in the United States discovered over 21,000 packages where as much as 40 percent of the product's weight was ice (Oceana 2012). In the market, this weight differe nce cost consumers as much as nine dollars per package (National Conference on Weight and Measures, 2010). Control and mitigation efforts to eradicate illegal fish markets Global concerns are rising as IUU fishing results in a $4 9 billion deficit from the seafood market economy every year, with the majority of illegal catch occurring in patrolled Environmental Economic Zones (EEZ) (Roheim 2008). Though efforts exist to eradicate IUU fishing, they are not widespread enough to eliminate illegal harvesting an d have little impact on reducing the frequency of illegal catch. There are three government organizations charged with enforcing fisheries regulations: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS), and Customs and Borde r Patrol (CBP). A GAO (2009) review determine d the effici ency of these programs indicated that the FDA examines only 2% of seafood imported into the United States and does not account for economic fraud risks. Laws such as the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) have been implemented as a result of the FDA's Better Seafood


) ) e` ) Bureau and work to reduce the frequency of seafood fraud in the market. However, with only 85 of 1,350 employed agency inspectors currently working with seafood related issues in the FDA (Buck 2010), there is not enough support to implement these regulations effectively and ensure they are being followed. If we expect to see a positive change in the level of seafood fraud occurring in t he largest import industry in the world, there needs to be greater support and manpower behind enforcement and regulations. Establishing Traceability vernacular in the marketplace Traceability is an important step towa rds reducing seafood fraud and IUU fishing. It provides a systematic method to identify and track a product from source to store (Roheim 2008). Traceability creates consumer confidence in the marketplace, which leads to their continued support of products they know exemplify environmental consciousness. Efforts designed to trace the source of a product requires several change s of hands during processing from source to site (Figure 2.2). Today's supermarkets provide little information on the source from which they received their product or its sustainability factor. More importantly, there are issues with defining these terms to consumers. One of the biggest problems with marketing sustainability is the lack of an acceptable definition for commonly used terms l ike "sustainable" or "country of origin" (Buck 2010 ) Details on a product's sustainability may be l isted on the packaging of a seafood product but there is no mandate for publishing information on processing It is also difficult to determin e from these labels whether the listed information pertain s to the


) ) fS ) catch location, the flag flown by the vessel that caught the product, place of harvest, or where the prod uct was processed. These factors and several others contribute to our knowledge on whether the product was legally harvested and processed. Without listing this information, there is no way to determine where the product originated, by which method it was harvested, or the e nforced catch regulations. Lacking such knowledge also poses a potential health risk, as "#$%&'!A)A)!I02:.0!"#*+#,-!=%110;!O-.#*) T#4-!,2!<.*;!3-.*$', 2+!-.*/!#*!4-'!,%110;!3-.#*@!3&'.4#*$!.! 4&.3'.:#0#4;!1&2$&.

) ) fT ) the acceptable levels of mercury and other toxins in the body due to fish consumption vary by country (Health and Environment Alliance, 2006). Without knowing this inf ormation consumers will not be able to make an environmentally conscious purchase. The same concerns arise when defining sustainability. There is currently no government designated terminology in place for the term, making it difficult for consumers to d etermine what factors distinguish sustainable products from unsustainable (Jacquet et al. 2009) Seafood guides like the Monterey Bay Aquarium cards often designate the same species as a "good choice" or "at risk" species depending on the method of catch o r harvest location (Monterey Bay, 2011). Though this is an effective way to inform shoppers of a more sustainable option for the product, it is confusing and could lead consumers to purchase the product under the assumption they are buying the sustainable option if harvesting information is not available. It is not practical to define sustainability absolutely at this point, as currently no description exists to translate the intent of the term sufficiently Jacquet and colleagues (2009) suggest that the te rminology used in defining sustainability incorporate s socio economic attributes, food security, unique ness, a focus on locality, and peer review of the assessment decision, as well as environmental implica tions for outreach programs. An anthropological ap proach to defining and applying sustainability emphasizes a connection between the sociocultural, economic, and biological concepts (Clay and Olson, 2011), whereas a biological approach suggests the definition reflects a fishery's ability to harvest a stoc k within the limits of i t's maximum sustainable yield (Shelton and Sinclair, 2008). Regardless of which definition is perceived as true it is a fishery's ability


) ) fR ) to meet management targets, avoid limits, and practice legal harvesting that appropriates the term "sustainably managed" (Shelton, 2009). Though the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) ensures proper labeling on imported products, it is the processor and importer's responsibility to ensure its safety, wholesomeness, identity, and economic integrity (Buck 2010). To uphold their responsibilities as the primary investigator of imported seafood product, the FDA must implement stricter regulations for search and seizures of illegal products during inspections and increase the level of government support to facilitate increased employment of patrolling officers who police shipments. Implementing Traceability Schemes in International Waters As food supply chains in today's market lengthened, complicated, and accelerated, the implementation of traceability schemes to prevent seafood fraud becomes necessary on a global scale (Spink et al 2010). Setting an example for use of tracing systems in international waters is the European Union's seafood trade industry. The Food Standards Agency developed two tiers to traceability within the European Community's sea food industry. The first tier of "internal traceability" pertains to the first li nk in the chain of custody (Moe, 1998; FSA 2002). The internal form provides individual firms the ability to track a company' s product internally, but unfortunately there are limitations to the amount of detail transmitted past the first step (Golan et al 2003). The second tier of "chain traceability" relies on vertical integration to transmit information through the entire com modity chain. Such detailed traceability can only be achieved by considering


) ) fU ) the compatibility, data standardization, and understanding of the traceability process by quantifying each individual product (Thompson et al 2005 ) In January 2010 the European Union (EU) agreed upon a new legislation for IUU fishing of imported goods. The new law required documentation for imported seafood products from non Union states intended for sale within the EU market. Legislation (EC) No 1005/2008 states: "The current sy stem [prior to this legislation] applying to fishery products caught by third country fishing vessels and imported into the Community does not ensure an equivalent level of control. This weakness constitutes an important incentive for foreign operators car rying out IUU fishing to trade their products in the Community and increase the profitability of their activities. As the world's largest market for, and importer of fishery products, the community has a specific responsibility in making sure that fishery products imported into its territory do not originate from IUU fishing. A new regime should therefore be introduced to ensure a proper control of the supply chain for fishery products imported into the Community" (Europe an Community Council 2008). The EU requires chain of custody documentation for every seafood product imported into their market to reduce sales of illegal, unreported, and underreported goods (Figure 2.3) The requirement is part of an ongoing effort to acknowledge a persisting problem with food safety regulations and a failure to recognize the inadequate management currently in place for effe ctive stock management. All parties of the chain of custody process are responsible for the product's documentation verifying proof of origin. The cat ch documentation must be transferred from each member of the chain to the proper authorities during each step of the traceability scheme. Once the proper authorities for each country verify the product's origin, it is accepted for importation (NOAA a 2010 ).


) ) fe ) If the United States exports seafood products to the EU, the US must first obtain permission from NOAA's Seafood Inspection Program by submittin g a US Catch Document for each individual trade opportunity. (NOAA b 2010). Once approved, United States fisheries are permitted to trade their catch to the EU market one transaction at a time. Though the EU's legislation attempts to limit IUU fishing c ommodities from entering their market, there are a number of loopholes available for pirated fish products. The documents target illegal fishing, but do not actively work towards illuminating fraud and addressing sustainability issues Several freshwater, shellfish, and aquaculture products are exempt from documentation and thus are not being traced or verified as legal catch (European Community Council 2008). With a discrepancy such as this, there is an "#$%&'!A)F )!R%&21'.*!O2<<#,,#2*!&'5%#&'<'*4,!+2&!='.+22/!P<12&4,!.*/!RL12&4,)!"&2

) ) ff ) opportunity for fisheries to tak e advantage of the limited law enforcement and exploit resources. Managing stocks for Atlantic Striped Bass Fisheries


) ) fZ ) Known as one of the first fish species in North America to be managed by society (Mann 2005, 2007; Smith & Olsenius 2007), the Atlantic striped bass ( Morone saxatillis) provides a number of ecosystem services to the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Its predatory activities while traveling through waterways create a trophic linkage that scientists view as an indicator of coastal Atlantic health an d habitat quality (Able 2004). Unfortunately the bay's deteriorating ecosystems are compromising the health of striped bass stocks. For the past five years the bay's health index did not exceed a "C" grading which indicates moderately poor ecosystem healt h. An assessment from 2004 discovered a 4% decline in the bay health index, the result of moderately poor chlorophyll conditions, water clarity, aquatic grasses, and benthic community (Chesa peake Bay Report Card 2010). Increased contaminants, adverse fl ow regimes, functional loss from uplands development, and reduced access continue to compromise bass spawning sites affect the striped bass along with many other aquatic species (ASMFC 2003). Reduced habitat results in less striped bass spawning but also at a loss are the recreational fisheries. From 2004 to 2010, the decline of recreational catch es averaged ar ound 70% (ASMFC, 2011 p. 9), a substantial loss for any fishery. The most recent Chesapeake Bay Report card (Figure 2.4 ) earned a grade of "D+", which is reportedly the second lowest rating since assessments began in 1986 (Chesapeake Bay Report card 2011). )


) ) fX ) Recognizing the species' importance to the Bay and the economy, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission was formed in the 1980's to protect striped bass stocks. As the leader in striped b ass conservation and legislation, the commission's primary vision is to protect Atlantic coast fish stocks. Their mission statement describes the commission's goals, reading "Healthy, self sustainable populations for all Atlantic coast fish species or successful restoration well in progress by the year 2015," (ASMFC 2009). To meet Atlantic striped b ass stock goals the commission created the Atlantic Striped Bass Interstate Fishery Management Plan (FMP) in 1981, under the legisla tion of the Striped Bass Conservation Act (NOAA 2011). A key component to the FMP is Amendment 6, added in 2003. The amendment focuses on the need for legislation "to perpetuate, through cooperative interstate fishery management, migratory stocks of str iped bass; to allow commercial and recreational fisheries consistent with the long term maintenance of a broad age structure, a self sustaining stock; and also, to provide for th e restoration and maintenance of their "#$%&'!A)H)!R8'*4,!+&2

) ) f[ ) essential habitat, (ASMFC 2003, p. 19) More recently the commission established their second addendum to the Amendment, opting for annual roll over unused quota credits for fisheries that fail to meet their catch limits. By adjusting the amendment's target goals ASMFC can manage the most pressing conservation needs Objectives for the new amendment include managing harvest size limits, reducing fishing juvenile mortalities improving coast wide management plans, securing economic stability for fisheries, managing data collection costs, implementing long term managem ent, and setting lower fishing mortal ity targets. Founded with a mission of striped bass conservation, A MSFC recognizes the stress fisheries place on the striped bass populations and works to encourage a progressive ris e in spawning stocks (Figure 2.5 ) "#$%&'!A)C)!=4'/!M.,,!=1.7*#*$!"'<.0'!>:%*/.*3'!(YGA N ABBG) \'3'*4!/.4.!,-27!.! ,1.7*#*$!+'<.0'!.:%*/.*3'!+.&!.:28'!4-'!4.&$'4!&.*$'!2+!.&2%*/!GC!<#00#2*!12%*/,)!=2%&3'9! [?>>!O-',.1'.K'!M.;!?++#3'!aAB(Ab)


) ) f` ) In stances of Seafood Fraud and Illegal Fishing of the Atlantic Striped Bass Maryla nd's Conservation Law Enforcement Act of 2010 stands as the Maryland State Senate's most recent attempt to address issues in unsustainable fishery practices. The law addresses several unfavorable environmental and political problems responsible for draining the state's natural marine resources Among other points, the Act reflects a growing concern for Bay ecosystems and species recovery. The Senate's focus on increased patroll ing and enforcement in the Bay represents the necessity for continual resource protection, even when stocks are not at risk of overfishing The immediate need is for conservation enforcement and can be best summed by the words of The Fraternal Order of Pol ice Lodge 8, speaking before the House Environmental Matters Committee in favor of the Conservation Law Enforcement Act of 2010 : In 2009, there was a reported increase of 3,115 incidents over the 21,400 incidents reported in 2008. We understand the State cannot spend money it does not have. However, it must always remember that the protection and welfare of its citizens and unique natural resources are of prime importance. In our present state of low personnel in the field, NRP cannot wait for the economy to rebound. We need to start hiring people now just to stay ahead of our current crisis of reduced enforcement personnel or the citizens of this great State will witness a further erosion of Maryland's valuable resources (MSSA, 14) Three years after its i nitial proposal in 2007, the Senate passed the Act and the State began allocating funds for Maryland's conservation law enforcement officers. A few months later w ith the help of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and Maryland Natural Resource Police, the Mar yland's conservation law enforcement officers via the Interstate Watershed Task Force uncovered an illegal striped bass trade operation that had been


) ) ZS ) under investigation for seven years ( US. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012 ). During that time the watermen fished well over their annual quota, capturing oversized striped bass off season selling to buyers who falsified records to purchase the illegal fish ( MSSA 16). In all, the state convicted 19 men and ordered 15 prison sentences, an apt and hefty punishment for environmental crime. Without the Conservation Law Enforcement Act of 2010, Maryland's Natural Resource Police may not have had the resources to shut down the trade of 1.63 millions of pounds of illegally harvested fish with a market va lue of $6.54 million. The law considers the punishments assigned to the fisheries as just, but it seems the three wholesalers who knowingly purchased the illegal product did not receive the kind of incentive necessary to deter continued illegal activity. One of the accused wholesalers is Profish, Ltd, a well known distributor in the Washington, D.C. area. The company incurred a meager fine of nearly $1 million for their involvement as buyers, sellers, and transporters of illegally harvested striped bass T he company's vice president and lead fish buyer were sentenced to less than two years in prison. As a company with widespread commercial distribution, financial losses for Profish, Ltd. were insignificant. It is the author's speculation that a fine amount ing to less than one sixth of the fish's price on the black market is likely not enough of a loss to deter illegal harvesting. The worst case scenario would be if the vice president encouraged a black market trade and pre arranged some form of compensation for their cohorts prior to their capture and prosecution. Were the employees offered a monetary incentive in exchange for their loyalty to the company, two years in jail might end up being profitable.


) ) ZT ) In contrast a loss of business is a huge incentive for companies to abide by federal and state regulations. Press and media coverage of the company's association with the black market can tarnish the company's image and hinder trust between the company and their stakeholders. Still, it is not uncommon for fis heries to continue using illegal practices regardless of any associated fines. Since these fisheries perceive illegal harvesting to be more profitable than the alternative sustainable option, they simply absorb the costs of their illegal activities as if t hey were nominal business expenses (US Fish and Wildlife 2012). When profits from illegal harvests exceed those obtained through legal catch methods, there is little incentive to adopt sustainable practices. Thus to be an effective deterrent, law enforcement must administer more meaningful punishments for uneth ical fishing behavior (Sadovy, 2006 p. 12). Though the monetary incentive for the wholesaler to support illegal fishing is evident, i t is possible that the wholesaler felt pressured because of high consumer demands for an unavailable product Publicly rel easing the issue is one of the most effective ways to educate consumers to a problem they may not know exists. Broadcasting details of the black market fisheries increases consumer awareness. As news of arrests travels through the media, consumers learn ab out a problem of which they inherently do not approve. What could result is a heightened expectation for authorities to control illegal activity in the Bay. Indeed, publicity obtained from the Interstate Watershed Task Force 's bust led to statewide impleme ntation of stricter commercial fishing regulations, including increased fines and adaptations to the tagging system to increase protection against fraudulent activities ( U .S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009).


) ) ZR ) Without including the public on these issues, s uch rapid mitigation efforts may not have fruited as quickly. ) Associated costs of Verification and Tracing Programs Though verifying a product as sustainable can be expected to have initial fees and ongoing produc tion fees, each tracing program differs in associated costs. Table 2.4 shows how the combination of timeliness of the tracing and certification processes, acceptance by other members of the industry, level of confidentiality, and verification and enforcement opportunities dictate the effectiveness of each program. The three tracing programs discussed in this paper are third party verification, online reporting, and product tagging ) The tracing program with the highest probable enforcement success overall is product tagging, though such high verification and enforcement opportunities are only possible with a large financial backing and time constraints Product tagging requires 6.:0'!A)H)!?%432<',!.*/!#*3'*4#8',!+2&!#*/#8#/%.0!4&.3#*$!,;,4'<,)!I#::2*!'4!.0!AB(B!1$)!CH)


) ) ZU ) each marke ted fish receives a tag, which increases commodity and labor costs. Tagging can b e successful in small operation fisheries such as the Chesapeake Bay's Atlantic Striped Bass fisheries. To monitor stock populations in the Chesapeake Bay, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service created a coast wide striped bass cooperative tagging program. The Maryland Fisheries Resource Office implemented the tagging system in 1985, coinciding with the five year moratorium on striped bass fishing. Every fish in the program was outfitted with an external anchor tag on their belly (Figure 2.6 ) which relay s data on migratory patterns and migrat ion rates to a central database located in the Maryland Fisheries Resource Office (Maryland Fisheries Resource Office, 2009). Once analyzed, this information helps the MFRO determine management strategies that encourage sustainable striped bass fishery practices. The pr ogram's success can be attributed to the tremendous starter stock of over nine million hatchery reared striped bass fingerlings released into the bay since the program's founding (Maryland Fisheries Resource Office, 2000). As of 2009 there were tags on ove r 500,000 of the Chesapeake's bay striped bass population. ) Though the tagging system proves to be an effective method for continued data collection, there is currently no way to collect this information unless fishermen opt to participate in "#$%&'!A)Q)!>*3-2&!4.$!%,'/!2*!,4'/!:.,,)!R8'&;!+#,-!#*!4-'! 4.$$#*$!1&2$&.

) ) Ze ) the program. To report a tagged specimen, the fishermen must remove the tag and call the US Fish and Wildlife Service to record the date, location, and method of capture The instructions are clearly written on every tag, but it cannot be assumed that those who are unf amiliar with the tagging system will recognize the tag as part of an ongoing study. It is possible that the tag could be mistaken for trash and someone who is not privy to the system may unintentionally tamper with the tag limit ing its effectiveness. There is also the chance that the fisherman doesn't want to make a report if he/she cannot perceive the associated benefits, or he/she is indifferent to the efforts. Regardless of possible failures with tag reporting the program has be en effective enough to receive over 85,000 recapture reports ( Maryland Fisheries Resource Office 2009 ). If it can be afforded, the tremendous initial financial investment and ongoing costs of tagging (Table 2.5) could also benefit fisheries with local d istribution, especially when they can rely on custom er loyalty for financial support. However, the time consuming and meticulous tagging process would not be as profitable for higher volume fisheries that would have to hire additional staff to tag and proc ess millions of fish every day Regardless of its probability for success and widespread stakeholder acceptance, its cost prohibitive and tedious design makes tagging systems an unfavorable program for many fisheries.


) ) Zf ) The impacts of third party verification have little effect on the chain of custody and offers high confidentiality, but stakeholders of low volume and high volume fisheries differ drastically in their ability to supp ort such a program because start up and ongoing costs are variable and possibly unpredictable, as is the opportunity for proper enforcement and verification High volume fisheries considered third party verification to be the best tracing system as they p erceived ongoing costs as affordable. Low volume fisheries cannot profit from such a program because initial and ongoing costs such as annual audits were too costly and time consuming. This is especially problematic for small fisheries that wish to receive recognition for fishing sustainably but as a 6.:0'!A)C)!!O2,4,!+2&!4&.3#*$! ,3-'<',)! "&2

) ) ZZ ) circumstance of finances they are unable to benefit from third party certification and ecolabeling. Small fisheries with a budget can opt to participate in an online reporting program where the community is re sponsible for policy enforcement. Maryland's Department of Natural Resource designed an online database for recreational watermen called the "Maryland Angler's Log" (reports made to ). The log provides an interface for local fishermen who wish to "share their catch" by positing their catch and its location. A corresponding application can be downloaded onto a smart phone to facilitate quick and immediate updates (the application can be accessed at Though the results are not included in any data modeling, the online log functions as an innovative way to create a network betw een the local watermen community and provides valid information for both the fishers and the DNR. To obtain records from commercial fisheries, the Atlantic Coastal Cooperative Statistics program designed an online interactive database called the Standard A tlantic Fisheries Information System (SAFIS). Established in 2003, SAFIS provides a medium for fisheries to report landings confidentially and maintain records for future audits and impact assessments (ACCSP). Though verification and law enforcement are l ow and confidentiality and product speed are variable, the program has proven to be an effective gauge for stock assessments and fisheries extraction. Online reporting can be a valuable addition to every supply chain. Being the most cost effective approac h makes it an accessible option for small and low volume fisheries


) ) ZX ) with limited funding or manpower as well as high volume fisheries with high ongoing costs. Start up companies that maintain electronic inventories can integrate their existing data into the new online reporting system so that past and present files can be found at the same location. Combining this program with third party verification and/or product tagging strengthens the effort by increasing enforcement opportunities and more secured confi dentiality. Limitations to Tracing and Enforcement The term "sustainability" has been used throughout the paper as a measure of environmental conservation, but another interpretation of sustainability is equally as valuable in context: business sustainability. Stakeholder confidence in tracing programs and sustainable certification is only achie ved if they perceive these efforts as profitable investments. A similar attitude is visible in fishing communities, where the inherent needs of each fishery determines its harvesting capacity. Small and large scale fisheries can benefit by implementing s ustainable harvesting, but the associated costs between the two drastically differ. An island fisherm a n 's gear limits daily harvest but because the fisher is self employed and the market is near the source, the fisher does not hav e to travel far to obtain goods. His overhead is low, but success depends on a major time investment. Fishing fleets with substantial harvesting capacities experience an opposite trade off because larger haul s have more gear, fuel, and labor expenses Fisheries have a need to meet their own business sustainability models, but it is possible that neither will perceive environmental sustainability as a necessary investment in their business model. The variance to each


) ) Z[ ) fishery's needs makes widespread application of tracing programs d ifficult (Gibbon et al 2010). The diversity of products offered in the market also complicates tracing program implementation. Fisheries harvesting a single high volume fish could benefit by partitioning their product by cut and grade. Differentiating betw een the varying qualities of their products could lead to increased profits and consumer confidence. Other fisheries such as those that produce frozen fish products may not benefit from tracing programs, as they do not have the same incentives as a high vo lume fishery. Increased demands for frozen products do not allow these fisheries to focus heavily on individual product quality but instead necessitates an aim to increase the quantity of fish caught. Their need for product consistency limits the potential to profit from tracing programs. Some fisheries may be discouraged from participating in tracing systems due to the difficult cataloguing procedure. Thompson and associates (2005) recommend a simplified approach for chain traceability systems, arguing that the current method of recording several variables for each product is inefficient and complex An abridged data collection procedure may increase the incentive for fisherie s to participate in traceability programs. This method proved to be effective for, a traceability program designed by the European Commission which uses a three category system for data entry: shall be recorded (required), should be recorded (preferred), and may be recorded (optional) (TraceFish 2006). The optional aspect of the program was so effective that the Commission adopted that element of the tracing program as one of their mandated voluntary traceability requirements (CEN 2002). Min imalizing these procedures so that


) ) Z` ) only data necessary for identification and quality are catalogued could lead to more accurate data entry, especially for low volume fisheries or industrial fisheries.


) ) XS ) OZ>J6R\!F =23#.0!W.&K'4#*$!.*/!P4 ,!P*+0%'*3'!2*!O2 *,%<'&!J'&3'14#2*,!2+!=%,4.#*.:0'! ='.+22/ Introduction Demand for seafood has increased globally over the past four decades, leading to the overexploitation of more than three quarters of the world's fish stocks and rising (FAO 2007). With a 15% increase in over exploited, depleted, or recovering fisheries from 1974 to 2005 (Elsholz, 2009), the need for sustainable alternatives for production is necessary to sustain current harvesting quotas. In order to protect future generatio ns and ensure continued production, newly adapted practices require measures to mitigate, readdress, and advert wild caught seafood methods. With these methods in mind, it is possible for fisheries to achieve a c ontinual supply while increasing economic, s ocial, and nutritional benefits (Pitcher, 2008). Though government agencies like the EPA create regulations for fisheries to follow for legal extraction of marine resources. T hese rules cannot be expected to exclusively protect the ecosystem. Action must be taken by consumers as well as producers to follow the laws to protect and maintain oceanic health. Hockley and associates (2007) suggests the most effective way to develop ecosystem conservation is to emphasize the importance of measuring conservation c osts directly rather than considering proxies like the area conserved (Hockley et al 2007). Conservation efforts by the government will not be effective if consumers are not aware of the impact their seafood purchases have on marine environments. When con sumers have access to educational outreach initiatives that advise them on the issues currently facing marine


) ) XT ) ecosystems, they can differentiate between products and thus begin making sustainable choices. Cooke and associates (2011) suggest that consumer s will not be motivated to use their purchasing power as an act to support environmental conservation unless they are aware of these problems. Awareness is not possible without campaigns that represent a critical first step to conservation even before cons idering a market approach. Consumer acceptance of ecolabels depends on a number of factors, including the credibility of the ecolabel, perceptions of the environmental impacts associated with purchasing a sustainable product compared to a product that is n ot ecolabed, and clarity on the ecolabel's meaning (US EPA, 1998). However, studies on the effectiveness of labeling for sustainably certified products show that the overall impact of ecolabels on the economy depends on consumer acceptance (Johnston et al. 2001). The primary focus of the survey designed for this thesis is to assess consumer seafood preferences what factors influence those choices, and their awareness of ecolabels and seafood related environmental issues. The goal is to examine the weaknesses in current outreach programs and to provide recommendations for increased efforts to educate consumers on unethical fishery practices. Fostering the relationship between supplier and consumer Preventing distrust between consumers and distr ibutors is possible with active communication. Data show that "purely natural science approaches lead to poor outcomes and undermine public trust," (Shepherd, 2008). To prevent the seafood industry from limiting its influence to strictly science based idea s, it is necessary to consider the perspectives of the consumer and stakeholders.


) ) XR ) Fischoff (1995) considers seven steps to developing effective communication by focusing on the consumer through a social science lens rather than purely the natural sciences. The first three steps are to ensure data are accurately reflected before reporting the numbers to the public. Su pporting data with similar findings from the past creates consumer confidence. Showing consumers that in the past they've already accepted similar observations shows them that the information is tested and not misconstrued. Producers must form a relations hip with consumers by opening a channel for active communication. If consumers perceive support as a "good deal" (Fischoff, 19 95) and trust that they are involved in stakeholder's decisions that contribute to policy making, they are more likely to continue purchasing the item regardless of economic or environmental changes that may occur. Appeasing consumers and making them "partners" is the concluding step to developing proper risk communication. If sustainability issues and other risks associated with sea food production are effectively relayed to the public, consumers can learn to trust and support the industry under circumstantial decline of stocks, quality, or demand. Consumers are likely to respond to an environmental risk depending on their perceived involvement or role. Shepherd (2008) describes it as two different forms of communication: a "scientific language" focusing on statistical knowledge fueled by implicit judgment and empirical evidence, and a "public language" that uses reasoning to create a social, intuitive knowledge. Problems arise when trying to develop effective fish related ecolabels due to the arcane nature of the ocean. For consumers to take a vested interest in an ecolabel, they must first appreciate what the sustainable practices ar e trying to achieve before they choose to purchase the product. Understanding is possible if


) ) XU ) information becomes accessible to them. This is not necessarily the case with scientific information, which is often perceived by the consumer as confusing and unr eliable (Kaiser & Edward Jones, 2006). If communication can be effectively established so that suppliers can assure customers that they are trying their best to maintain their role as sustainability advocates in the market, then their ability to make informed decisions will increase and fishery credibility can be reestablished (Figure 3.1) (Shepherd, 2008). Failure to accurately communicate uncertainties about a product's source or production methods can reduce consumer support for the product as well as their confidence in the supplier. Likewise, the resistance consumer's feel towards the science based assessment will decline if they are informed and thus capable of grasping the underlying science to the proble m and not just their own emotions. ) #$%&'!F)() T-20'!"22/,!W.&K'4! ,'.+22/!0.:'0, )!M;!30'.&0;!0.:'0#*$!4-'#&!,'.+22/! :.,'/!2*!4-'!1&2/%34S,!10.3'!2*!W2*4'&';!M.;S,!&'/!0#,4@!32*,%<'&,!.&'!$#8'*! 4-'!3-2#3'!42!<.K'!,%,4.#*.:0;!/'*!/'3#,#2*,@!&.4-'&! 4-.*!2*0;!32*,#/'&#*$! 4-'#&! 1'&,2*.0!#*4'&',4,)!=2%&3'9!"2&:',)!


) ) Xe ) When people interact with nature, they begin to percei ve that the environment holds a recognizable value (Hockley et al. 2007), even for consumers who are not aware of the damages associated with human interference Cons ervation initiatives like marine reserves are a good way to preserve the environment and protect stocks, but fail to have an immediate or lasting impact on the consumer who does not witness the benefits to such policies. More immediate, local and relatabl e conservation efforts by suppliers may be more effective at influencing consumers to consider where, why, and how seafood production works by measuring costs of conservation directly. The producer should not only address questions like how much habitat c an we conserve,' or how many fish can live here,' but instead choose an anthropocentric perspective to address issues like how can we change the consumer so they will no longer depend on an unsustainable product,' which directly a ddresses the consumer's needs. Though it is not possible to change the minds of every person who currently does not adhere to sustainable practices, c ommunicating to consumers the intrinsic value of seafood beyond personal incentives c ould foster greater acceptance of sustainable initiatives. Even after such efforts to effectively communicate environmental issues to consumers, it is possible that there is no change of attitude and support for unsustainable practices will not be deferred. It is unreasonable to believe that all co nsumers will value environmental ethics over their own interests or desires for an overfished or at risk species, not to mention the reduced costs for certain species of fish that may not be the most sustainable option. It is idealistic to assume that cons umers will change their attitudes once they are educated on unsustainable seafood production. Providing


) ) Xf ) consumers with the knowledge to make an ethi cally based purchasing decision affords them an option that was not previously available while harnessing a personal responsibility to shop conscientiously (Figure 3.2 ) Social Marketing: Initiating change by empowering the consumer Consumers choosing to actively engage in pertinent environmental issue have the power to initiate market changes. One example is the "Take a pass on Chilean Sea Bass" campa ign of 1997. When chefs and suppliers marketed the Patagonian toothfish under a new guise (e.g. Chilean Sea Bass) in the late 1980's, it increased demands for the "exotic and desirable fish" (NET 2002). Such a rapid increase in demand caused a drastic dec line in stocks and nearly depleted the entire fish population within 10 years (Iles 2004). By using the campaign's alliteration and clear cut message to imprint a negative "#$%&'! F)A) \'/!h#,4!,.0',!:;!,42&')! e#,%.0!&'1&','*4.4#2*,!2+!#*+2&<.4#2*!0#K'!4-#,!2*'!:;!I&''*1'.3'! .0027,! 32*,%<'&,!42!32<1.&'!4-'#&!#*4'&',4,!#*!,%,4.#*.:#0#4;!7#4-!4-'!'4-#3,!2+!4-'!,42&',!4-';!+&'5%'*4)! P4!.0,2!,-27,!4-.4!3-.*$'!427.&/,!,%,4.#*.:#0#4;!-.,!233%&&'/!.*/!#,!1'&3'#8'/!.,!.!72&4-7-#0'! #*8',4<'*4!:;!4-'!32<1.*;!.,!7'00!.,!24-'&!32*, % <'&,) =2%&3'9 I&''*1'.3'!aAB(Ab)


) ) XZ ) connotation of the fish, the public transformed consumer attitudes. T hough previous ly considered a delicacy, the campaign shed light on the unsustainability of Chilean Sea Bass harvests and the product became less desirable for consumers. The campaign also pressured restaurants into reducing their use of the fish, as demands for the fish decreased with the increasing voice of the public. The reduced pressure on the population allowed the species a grace period for regrowth, but unfortunately its p lace on the red list has not changed ( Monterey Bay Seafood Watch card 2012 ). It is important to remember the value of linking consumption with citizenship, which can only be reinforced by the unified voice s of the people. The group mentality that develops when harnessing citizenship among consumers can appeal to their sense of natio nalism. Isles (2004) presents this theory as "merging citizenship with consumption to allow consumers to take action towards pressing environmental issues (127). Consumers enlisted with a sense of responsibility towards protecting marine resources were m obilized towards change. The newly recognized citizenship, the consumer now possesses the incentive to enable action, exercise communal rights and obligations, and obtain information that had not been previously available. Whereas suppliers previously expl oited the consumer through deceitful product labeling and production, inciting nationalism can empower consumers to express their innate desire to protect what is theirs, i.e. their privileges as citizens, by questioning supplier ethics and demanding fair trade. A supplier that is incent ivized by a refusal to purchase their product is left with little opportunity to gain profit unless they respond in favor of the consumer's demands for increased sustainability.


) ) XX ) Over the past several decades, American cultu re has increasingly shifted towards a focus on the public's role as "consuming citizens", with an emphasis not on prohibiting consumption but focusing on ways in which to consume responsibly (Cohen 2003). In the past the cultural standard empowered the i ndustry as the prima ry voice for consumerism. T oday's en vironmental groups attempt to e voke the consumer's role in protecting the environment. By recognizing the causal relationship between their demands for a product and the unethical ways in which it is produced, the consumer can adapt a preference for products obtained using sound harvesting practices versus those that are known to deplete fish species (Maniates, 2002). It is also important that consumer's enact self imposed restrictions for seafood con sumption, as "[the] increased consumer demand for seafood is depleting fish stocks around the world" (MBA 2003). One way for consumers to practice their ecological citizenship is through sustainable consumption. The term "sustainable consumption" can be defined as a consumer's agenda to make political and environmental decisions about their individual consuming habits (Seyfang, 2005). When consumers conscientiously choose a sustainably harvested species to eat and limit their consumption rather than resi st entirely he or she can leverage their demands to the industry for morally produced seafood products by unifying their voice as a populous. The Natural Resource Defense Council poignantly addresses the importance of consumer consciousness while purchasi ng seafood: "while action both by the US and on a global level is needed to protect ocean fish and their habitats, consumers hold one of the most powerful tools the ability to make informed choices in restaurants and markets" (NRDC, 2003).


) ) X[ ) Indeed, making sustainable purchases is the only way for consumers to make their "vote count" and tangibly impact the market (Seyfang 2005). The Seafood Choice Alliance conducted one survey that indicated A merican consumers favor the idea of ecologically sound seafood but are un willing to pay the price increase associated with sustainable seafood production ( SCA 2003 ). T he Environmental Defense study concluded that although producers, retailers and chefs may benefit financially from offering co nsumers sustainable seafood products the industry did not foresee strong buying power for products favoring sustainability (ED, 2003). In these studies the consumers and suppliers recognize the potential incentives associated with supporting sustainable p roducts, but both fail to recognize the long term profitability of such an investment. The solution is increased communication between the consumers and producers. The mass movement for sustainable seafood driven by the demands and cooperation of both part ies could stimulate enough interest to successfully in itiate change in the industry and the eventually in the government If consumers were aware of the purchasing habits of other consumers, they could better understand the importance of their role as an individual within the collective movement for sustainable fish production. The Monterey Bay Aquariu m's seafood watch cards provide consumers with a convenient way to make the most sustainable choi ces while purchasing seafood or ordering at a restaurant. T he three folds in the card (Figure 3.3 ) transform the list into a wallet sized booklet, with a distribution of over 7 million pocket guides within it's first seven years of production ( Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch press kit, 2006 ). A three color th ree category design categorizes a species by evaluating their catch method or catch location to indicate which species are captured using unsustainable fishing


) ) X` ) practices. The card urges consumers to "support ocean friendly seafood" by purchasing those spec ies not on the avoid' list, or red list. One benefit of the Seafood Watch card is it s potential to stimulate a mass movement towards sust ainable seafood. They are available online or via the Seafood #$%&'!F)F )!W2*4'&';!M.;!=2%4-'.,4!&'$#2*!='.+22/!T.43-!3.&/) 6-2%$-!4-'!3.&/!0#,4,!,'8'&.0! #<12&4.*4!#*/#3.42&,!+2&!,%,4.#*.:0'!,'.+22/@!#4!+.#0,!42!#*+2&

) ) [S ) Watch phone application, making it readily accessible and pertinent to a wide range of consumers in over 7 national regions. Their wide distribution make MBA's wallet card program an acceptable candidate for initiating a mass mov ement for sustainable products. W hile much of the information is pertinent and representative of the environmental implications, they fail to evaluate illegal production methods such as mislabeling, transship ment, misrepo rted weights, and seafood smuggling. Consumers without this knowledge are unable to use their judgment while shopping for seafood because they do not kn ow anything about the processing methods involved or their sustainability (Iles 2004). They also lack i nformation about the product's traceability, production chain, distance traveled or whether or not the fishery complied with set regulations. Though the watch cards do not display these relevant details ( Figure 3.3 ), th ey are an effective way of teaching c onsumers to sup port healthy oceans. Consumers who consistently use the card transmit a message to stores and restaurants about their demand for sustainable seafood. If many people share the s e voice s it becomes profitable for the industry to meet this demand and thus increase support for sustainable practices. One example of a successfully implemented seafood social marketing is the "Give Swordfish a Break" campaign founded in 1998. Nonprofit conservation groups Seaweb and the Natural Resource Defense C ouncil formed the campaign in response to the drastically declining predatory fish stocks, which since the 1950's have dropped by as much as 90 percent worldwide (Myers & Worm, 2003). With over 700 top chefs enlisted in swordfish boycott, the campaign quic kly rose to the forefront of sustainable social marketing As swordfish wholesale prices began to decline due to its dwindling popularity, the fisheries agreed to allow the commission to cut catch quotas (Brownstein,


) ) [T ) Lee & Safina, 2003). The chefs ended th e boycott in 2000, but the message continues to resonate: when working as a collective voice, consumers can successfully affect fishery decisions and initiate market change. Marketing for Chesapeake Bay conservation Maryland's a ttempts to promote marine resource conservation is the "Save the Crabs, Then Eat Em" campaign of 2005, which promoted proper lawn care and limiting lawn fertilization during the spring season. Though the campaign focused on water pollution, the Chesapeake Bay Program related the effects of fertilizer runoff to its detrimental impact on one of the Chesapeake's most beloved and iconic species, the Maryland blue crab. Focusing on one important marine resource (i.e. blue crab) instead of the Bay's overall heal th created a mascot for the campaign, which was used to advertise their message while relating to the local population. The campaign's three television advertisements and five newsprint ads urged consumers to wait to fertilize their lawns until after the spring rains passed, using slogans like "Protect the Crabcake Population" (Figure 3.4 ) to promote thei r message of Bay conservation. Table 3.1 shows r esults from the post intervention survey showed that roughly 40 percent of consumers could recall the ad's purpose and message without being prompted (Landers et al 2006). These results are indicative of the campaign's success in creating consumer awareness towards the unsustainability of fertilizer use in the spring and as much as 72% of those surveyed could recall the campaign's major theme (i.e. brand name, tagline, or the consumer message) without being prompted Consumer intent to fertilize their lawns were significantly altered through exposure to the


) ) [R ) campaign, as 20% exposed to the campaign plan to fert ilize their lawn in spring while 30% do not plan to fertilize at all. It is evident that these consumers gained a deeper perception for environmental concerns when fertilizing than those who were not exposed to the campaign ( 46% of those not exposed plan ne d to fertilize in the spring while 22% had not planned to fertilize at all) (Landers et al 2006). Though results indicated a change of opinion in consumers who had previously intended to fertilize their lawns, there are limitations to the results due to a percentage based analysis. It is difficult for the reader to grasp the scale of the survey as well as the proportion of individuals who agreed or disagreed with the study's goals. Linking consumer behaviors to their environmental concerns Factors driving consumer willingness to budget for sustainably certified seafood products depend on the consumer's ability to perceive the benefits of ethica lly produced products. Laroche and colleagues (2001, Figure 3.5 ) contribute these behaviors to five characteristics affecting all consumers: demographics, knowledge, values, behaviors, and attitudes. It is clear why demographics play such a forma tive role for consumer "#$%&'! F)H )!?*'!2+!+#8'!*'7,1&#*4!./,!%,'/!#*!4-'!i=.8'!4-'!O&.:,@!6-'*! R.4!^R

) ) [U ) purchasing habits, as employment status, income, and level of education determine one's financial limits. Consumers who fai l to understand the concept of e coliteracy because they do not possess prior knowledge on the topic cannot bui ld upon their preexisting values to reflect some form of environmental consciousness. Likewise, their behaviors and attitudes cannot change if they are not educated on the importance of sustainable initiatives or do not experience the benefits of sustainab le production for themselves. Understanding the role of each of these factors is essential when trying to determine how consumers observe their surroundings and perceive environmental indicators when shopping. "#$%&'! F)C )!O2*3'14%.0!+&.<'72&K!2+!.! 32*,3#2%,!32*,%<'&)!P*!'8'&;/.;!0#+'!,#4%.4#2*,@!.!1'&,2*S,! /'<2$&.1-#3,@!K*270'/$'@!.*/!8.0%',!.&'!&'+0'34'/!:;!4-'#&!:'-.8#2&,!.*/!.44#4%/',)!6-'!,.<'!#/'.!#,! 32*,#,4'*4!#*!32*,%<'&!,-211#*$!-.:#4,!.*/!#,!&'+0'34'/!:;!4-'!3-2#3',!4-';!<.K')!=2%&3'9!h.&23 -'!'4!.0! ABB()


) ) [e ) Objectives The purpose of the present study was to evaluate which factors play a key role in consumer behaviors and the effectiveness of sustainable seafood outreach initiatives and their indicators, i.e. ecolabels. There are a number of t hings to consider when correlating consumer perceptions of sustainable seafood with their interests in preserving marine resources. How do consumer behaviors reflect their interest in their environment and what factors contribute to their decision to purch ase sustainable or unsustainable seafood products? Designed to provide insight on consumer values towards seafood products, the survey was created to answer these questions and obtain the following information: How do consumers think about marine resource s and what is their level of concern for environmental issues? How informed are consumers on the problems currently facing seafood production (i.e. overfishing, mislabeling, etc.)? What benefits do consumers expect to receive from sustainable seafood? Wha t action is needed to shift consumer behaviors toward support for sustainable seafood? Are consumers being provided with the proper tools and information necessary to make environmentally conscious decisions when purchasing seafood? How aware are consumers of the local sustainable seafood options? Methods and Design ) S urveys were conducted at two local Farmer's Markets in Baltimore City, Maryland. The Waverly Farmers M arket (Figure 3.6 ) officially known as the 32 nd Street Farmers Market is a privately organ ized market located in a lower income and less urban


) ) [f ) area of city (official website: ) The open air market, stationed in a metered parking lot, is open year round in Baltimore's Waver ly neighborhood hence it's popular name "The Waverly Market" The Baltimore Farmers M arket (Figure 3. 7 ) is a city organized event located downtown in a more affluent and populated region of the city (official website: ) Stationed under the Jones Falls Expressway bridge, the market measures at more than twice the size of the Waverly market but is only open seasonally from spring to fall each year. Surveying took place over the course of two days from 7 a.m. to 12 p.m. Saturday morning (for the Waverly Market) and Sunday morning (for the Bridge Market). A small table was set up at the market entrance of both locations with a poster indicating the purpose of the survey. A random selection of 1 69 pe rsons w as asked to participate in a five minut e survey regarding thei r seafood purchases. Participants were required to be over the age of 18. To reduce bias there was no delineation between individuals and couples, and so multiple surveys may have been submitted for the same household. The survey consisted of 24 questions aimed to address what factors influenced consumer demands f or sustainable seafood and how consumers perceived the current market. Prior to distributing the survey, human subjects research approval for the survey "#$%&'! F)Q!"&',-@!023.0!3&.:,!+2&!,.0'!.4!4-'!T.8'&0;! ".&<'&,!W.&K'4!#*!M.04#<2&'@!WX)!!=2%&3'9! -4419EE7#*$+2&4-'&#,#*$):02$,124)32<


) ) [Z ) was obtained ( IRB number 11 020 ). Subjects were given their own copy of the approval and study description, which they were asked to sign prior to their participation. The farmer's market was selected as the survey's target audience because alternative food shoppers (e.g. those who shop locally at the farmer's market instead of the conventional alternatives) tend to value the environmental, economic, community, and health benefits of purchasing locally and are more predisposed to observe cer tain labels while shopping (Zepeda & Reid, 2004). Although the two market locations vary drastically in their demographic composition, income information was not collected for the purpose of this survey and thus racial and economically based questions were not determined. Instead these issues will be loosely considered based on inferential analyses. Several questions were asked regarding consumer knowledge on the MSC certification of Maryland's official state fish, the Atlantic striped bass. Because it is a reoccurring pattern for studies to be less valid and reliable when consumers are asked to self report data on their purchasing behavior (Hunt et al 1990; Robinson et al. 2002), #$%&'!F)V) 6-'!M.04#<2&'!".&<'&S,!W.&K'4) 6-2%$-!023.4'/!%*/'&!.!:&#/$'@! 4-'!<.&K'4!,%33',,+%00;!1&28#/',!.*!2%4/22&!'L1'&#'*3'!+2&!,-211'&,)! J-242!:;!W.&K!X'**#,)!=2%&3'9! -4419EE777A)3#4;1.1'&)32

) ) [X ) participants were asked to participate in the survey while they shop ped rather than beforehand or afterwards. Results Frequency statistics Data from the two markets did not differ significantly and so were combined to represent a single population (Table 3.1 ) Of those surveyed, only ten participants indicated that they did not eat seafood at all, while 94% of 168 D urvey participants said they consume seafood at least once a month More than half (55%) of those participants reported eat ing seafood at least once a week, with 34% of participants consuming seafood two or more t imes per week. Consumers designated fresh seafood products as their primary form of seafood products, with 57% of 149 participants who responded correctly rank ed fresh products as their "most often" purchase with an additional 11% sharing the category wit h a combination of either frozen or canned products. A surprisingly low number of participants listed canned seafood products as their "most often" purchasing choice (2%), with only 14 participants (9%) indicating that they habitually purchased canned seaf ood products. These statistics are surprising, as canned seafood products are the most accessible and affordable. Considering how such a large proportion of participants most regularly purchase fresh seafood products over other forms, it is appropriate tha t 40% of participants defined quality and taste as the most influential factor while purchasing seafood. A surprisingly low number of participants (25 of 133 correctly answered responses) attributed price and value as the most important factor (18%) consid ering how 60% of those surveyed indicated price as somewhat or very influential when purchasing


) ) [[ ) sustainable seafood products. A majority of participants (80%) indicated a preference for wild caught fish over farmed fish (20% prefer farmed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


) ) [`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


) ) `S ) L?''$@E-%,^$' & KGG&,-&7#$& ?+,W$ & V,&.$?-,,@&/)%=#?.$. & B1 & Q1 & Q1 & 3 & R & 4 & G3A&"0$0"5&A0/@F & !'(2QR0 & Y?%8'$&N7$"?%@.#8/& L,)'=8G&!YNL0 & PG)$&<=$?'&Z'.787)7$ & N$?L#,8=$ & Z&?*& ',7&-?*8G8?%&"87#& ?'I&7#8%@&/?%7I&=$%78-8$% & `',".&*,%$&7#?'&,'$& =$%78-8$% & B1 & & 41 & 51 & 4Q1 & a21 & R & & 2: & B & 255 & 2 & Q5%&73-&"A"5%&/@"/&/@%& I"57$"14&,/50:%4&U"..&S"K"& 53

) ) `T ) that so many consider themselves environmentally conscious, as less than half (47% of 166 participants ) have inquired about the susta inability of their seafood products either at a restaurant or while shopping, and even fewer (41% of 168 participants ) have any familiarity with Mont erey Bay's Seafood Watch cards. Though it does not attest to their active conservation of marine resources, such trends are not entirely indicative of a lack of interest in environmental issues, but simply that they have limited participation in issues of marine conservation. Considering that such a large percentage attribute themselves as environmentally consc ious, it is likely that this select group of consumers were focusing on a different set of environmental initiatives such as recycling or using cloth shopping bags, rather than evaluating the impact of their food choices. While less than one quarter of participants inquire about the sustainability of their seafood while shopping (22%), it is possible that these discrepancies are the result of the limited amount of information transmitted to consumers. A lack of information or knowledge on the topic may also be why 70% of 168 participants have not yet heard of red listed species but an even greater proportion of participants (72% of 168 responses ) own a seafood watch card, which exclusively uses the term "red listed" to desc ribe the species they recommend consumers avoid. That 76% of consumers surveyed had prior knowledge regarding sustainable seafood and 94 participants (58% of 163 responses ) reported that information on sustainability issues in the seafood industry is acces sible to them does not proportionally reflect this attitude. It was not determined why over half of participants believe information is accessible to them yet so few (15%) are familiar with third party certification, the underlying message of the Seafood W atch cards.

PAGE 100

) ) `R ) Roughly 70% of participants answered "yes" when asked if they had heard of ecolabeling prior to this survey. Consumers asked to respond to the increased price associated with ecolabeling of a locally sourced species. When asked whether they wo uld budget for a more expensive but sustainably certified Atlantic striped b ass, a species indigenous to the Chesapeake Bay that is currently undergoing sustainable certification by the Marine Stewardship Council, 68% of participants indicated that they wo uld budget an additional $3 to purchase a sustainable rockfish product over the unsustainable counterpart. It is not surprising that so many participants say they would budget since hypothetical questioning allows consumers to choose their ideal situation rather than their most likely choice. Even so, the fact that 40% of participants report volunteering time and/or money to environmental organizations indicates awareness and an enthusiasm to contribute to ecological initiatives. Nonparametric Statistics St atistical analysis beyond calculating frequencies of events was limited due to the large discrepancy in survey answers, i.e. the frequency of missing data points did not allow for strong statistical analysis. The only significance determined for this study showed a positive correlation between consumer use of Monterey Bay's seafood watch cards and their ability to recognize a sustainable seafood certifying ecolabel on seafood products. Significance was determined using a Mann Whitney non parametric test (k= 2), which compiled a Wilcoxon rank sums score for watch card use paired with one's prior observance of ecolabels while shopping. Statistical analysis determined that when considering a scale from most use of the seafood watch cards to no use, those consume rs who most often used the card were more apt to recognize ecolabels versus those who had

PAGE 101

) ) `U ) not used the cards A Kruskal Wallis test determined a Chi Square of 18.1723 with a probability of <.0001, indicating strong statistical significance for these events This indicates that the Seafood Watch cards prove effective as a tool to raise consumer awareness of ecolabeling and sustainable certification. Discussion The survey created a platform for consumers to reveal their concern for the environment and their i nterests in sustainable seafood. A number of key findings were determined from the data collection: People at fresh markets generally consider themselves environmentally conscious but few consistently use the sustainability tools provided to them. Many of the consumers who purchase sustainable seafood are unaware of the more pertinent and local problems. Though quality and taste ranked as the most influential factor for consumers when making their seafood purchases, price continues to be a significant drivi ng factor for consumers purchasing sustainable seafood. Consumers at fresh markets express broad concerns for the environment but do not possess the knowledge necessary to follow through with their desire to support sustainable seafood. Consumers that are educated about the problems facing marine ecosystems are more active in their support for marine resource conservation. Consumers at fresh markets want more information on sustainable seafood and ecolabeling.

PAGE 102

) ) `e ) Attitudes towards marine environmental issues w ere consistently sympathetic. Such a high reports of seafood consumption could be a product of the survey location's proximity to the Bay. Consumer willingness to budget for the sustainable alternative may also be due to the fish's association with the reg ion. As the Maryland state fish, it is reasonable to infer that Marylanders are willing to support an industry that provides a familiar and locally sourced product Most of the participants who would not support the sustainable product claimed it was not their inability to afford a slightly more expensive alternative, but their distaste for the fish. This is also indicative of people's curiosity and willingness to p ay for a product that is familiar and of higher quality. This could be why the majority of participants reported that their primary concern while shopping for seafood is quality and taste over more predictable factors such as price or value. Though price was not of primary interest for participants, it was determined to be a significant factor that contributed to consumer sustainable seafood purchasing behaviors. Environmental issues ranked as one of the lower concerns when purchasing seafood. This is in alignment with past studies that attribute environmentally based criteria for sustainability as a secondary interest when compared with factors such as price, quality, and taste (Clarke et al. 2000; Wessells et. al. 1999). An overall preference for higher quality sustainable alternative s has been witnessed through at least one other study, which showed an increase in sustainable seafood sales by nearly 25% from one year to the next, with as little as nine percent of overall seafood sales from un sustainable seafood products ( Sustainable Fishery Advocates 2004).

PAGE 103

) ) `f ) A testament to consumer interest in quality over factors like price is that 80% of people claimed they prefer wild caught fish over farmed (20%). Though this could be attributed to consume rs interests in preserving the natural balance of fisheries and their distaste for the methods b y which aquaculture is produced. I t is more likely that they attribute "wild caught fish" as a fresher, higher quality product rather than farmed fish, which a re known to have a number of health issues and experience difficulty in maintenance. The percentage could also be the result of the recent "buzz" surrounding aquaculture production as a new and foreign form of production though a previous study experience d an opposite trend, determining that a greater proportion of participants attributed farmed fish as more sustainable (Perishable Groups 2010) As it becomes more prevalent over the next decade, it is likely that there will be greater acceptance of farmed fish. The fact that such a large percentage of participants had in the past received seafood watch cards could indicate that efforts to inform consumers about the problems with seafood have been made, but perhaps they were not given the proper materials or training to follow through. Additionally, they may have received outre ach materials such as seafood watch guides, but were not given proper training on how to use them and thus, would leave them unable to understand the importance of the decision aside from their understanding that it is important enough of an issue to create seafood watch guides. It is questionable what is cau sing the opposing perspectives, though a past study showed that some consumers continue to purchase unsustainable seafood produc ts even when they reportedly use their watch card pocket guides (Monterey Bay Aquarium, 2004).

PAGE 104

) ) `Z ) Consumer knowledge and awareness of ecolabels was reportedly higher in this study than in others, which report as much as 61% of participants with a lower than a verage knowledge of ecolabels (Elsholz, 2009). This could be the result of surveying at local Farmer's markets rather than at chain food stores, as was the case in the aforementioned study. That nearly all of the participants believed themselves to be envi ronmentally conscious might indicate that the sample size was not large enough to accurately represent the population, as another study showed that nearly half were not knowledgeable (Perishable Groups 2010) It is also just as likely that the way the sur vey question was worded did not accurately transmit the intended question, which was designed to gauge preexisting knowledge on sustainable seafood but did not attemp t to quantify this information. Recommendations Characterizing the market for certified pr oducts and discussing the debate over the existence of market benefits for sustainable seafood certification are both valid topics and should be int egrated as key elements in this study. Disparity in the data occurred in consumer's decisions to purchase one product over another due to personal differences of consumers surveyed in the study, the methods used, and the product's attributes (e.g. value/price, quality/taste, source/location). The study only addresses hypothetical purchasing of product s, versus experiential or behavioral analyses of purchasing decisions. This reflects one's ideal willingness to support sustainable initiatives, rather than the decisions they would make when actually posed with a purchasing decision.

PAGE 105

) ) `X ) Skepticism about the effectiveness of certification programs increases over time, as information regarding certification status is limited and somewhat inaccessible to consumers. P eople will continue to question the effectiveness of these initiatives in making an active impac t on populations of a particula r species or their ecosystems It is wise to continue promoting seafood while certification of the Striped Bass is underway. Certifying a local fish provides consumers with the opportunity to participate in sustainable initia tives and to maintain their support of ethically produced items. Consumers introduced to sustainable certification indicators (e.g. ecolabels) early on are more likely to recognize these tools in the future (Elsholz, 2009) Survey participants indicated th at their primary source of environmental information was media coverage and educational resources (these statistics are not available due to survey limitations). An effective way to inform consumers of sustainable market options in certain neighborhoods is through news coverage or distribution of educational materials though if the consumer cannot perceive a potential benefit to purchasing sustainably produced seafood they will have little incentive to do so. Though it is the consumer's right to make a cho ice, it is their responsibility alone to choose sustainably. With this attitude in mind, it may be possible to extend the availability of marine food resources for our generation's foreseeable future and for those to come.

PAGE 106

) ) `[ ) CONCLUSION In order for sustain able seafood products to be successful, both consumers and producers must be made aware of the most relevant, pertinent, and informative data about the current state of the world's oceans, market access, trade policy and relations, fisheries management tac tics, and sustainable development objectives. Attention should be given to the other trade measures and public policies that are instrumental in the movement towards sustainable methods of fish production and extraction, including the regional fisheries ma nagement organizations (RFMOs) that are instrumental in the development and enforcement of trade related measures. Co operation and harmonization of both consumer and producer ideals on sustainable fisheries is essential for the success of monitor, control, and surveillance (MSC) measures currently applied through the efforts of RFMOs (Lack 2007). Comprehension and relation of sustainably derived management tactics, document certification schemes, interpretation of public response, action, and perce ptibility, monitoring and policing the open sea, international affairs, conflicts on resource allocations between developed and developing nations, and the development of mitigation methods to enhance cooperation of current fisheries are all essential to u nderstanding the marine fishery progress towards conservation (Wessells et al. 2001). Interpreting public response, action, and perceptibility of current initiatives towards sustainability as well as understanding the ways in which consumer based decision s are influenced by available information is essential to the promotion and thus success of existing certified sustainable marine fisheries and aquaculture. This is

PAGE 107

) ) `` ) achievable through ecolabelling, educational outreach programs, reflections on market decis ions and purchasing power of the people, establishing environmental consciousness, concern, and recognition, analyzing stakeholder and consumer inputs, and creation of marine reserves to protect oceanic biodiversity. Government and non government regional, national, and international organizations confer upon trade policies and methodologies by which seafood harvesting can be labeled as sustainable, with exceptional attention allocated to establishing fair governance, consistent data coverage and t ranslation, global marketability and harmonization, and practice of the precautionary principle (Wessells et al. 2001). If consideration and action fail to take precedence over perceived human consumptive needs attained through harmful methods of fish prod uction, the future of our oceans appears grim. Several additional comments should be made on the processes of certification and ecolabeling, which are essential to the establishment, regulation, and promotion of sustainable seafood initiatives. The primary objective of attaining sustainable seafood product certification under the Marine Stewardship Council is to prevent, deter, and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in accordance with the 2001 FAO International Plan of Action as a means to ensure that only legally harvested and reported fish stocks are traded and sold within domestic and international markets (Wessells et al. 2001). This message should be transmitted to consumers, who may recognize the MSC ecolabel as an indicator for s ustainable pr oduction, but are unaware of it s implications or intended message.

PAGE 108

) ) TSS ) There are a number of ways to prevent seafood fraud before the product is sold into the market. Sustainable seafood marketing initiatives aiming to spread awareness and promot e environmentally sound fisheries practices (Figure C.1.) should emphasize to consumers that if they are not certain of a product's origin, it should be avoided Market based initiatives designed to inform customers of sustainable purchasing opportunities as well as those responsible for fraud prevention must be coordinated to increase productivity and consistency. ) "#$%&'! O)( )!`=%,4.#*.:0'!='.+22/9!X2#*$!;2%&!1.&4j!3.<1.#$*!:;!I'& N [#,!O%0#*.&;!]!Z'&:!O'*4'&@! M&22K0;*@![k)!6-#,!,#*$0'!,',,#2*!30.,,!.#<'/!4 2!4'.3-!#4S,!.44'*/.*4,!4-'!#<12&4.*3'!2+!1%&3-.,#*$! ,%,4.#*.:0'!,'.+22/!.*/!.82#/#*$!4-2,'!4-.4!/2!*24!+.00!7#4-#*!4-#,!/',#$*.4#2*)!=2%&3'9! -4419EE3%0#*.&;-'&:3'*4'&)$'& N *#,)32
PAGE 109

) ) TST ) there are issues in defining a product's origin. More frequent inspections and stricter regulations and enforcement can greatly reduce the likelihood for IUU fishing or fraud. ) T ransparency in fish traceability is critical to providing information to consumers (Figure C.2. ) Reliable traceability programs cannot exist if we do not establish an electronic tracking database to report the commodity's location within the supply chain accurately. FDA diligence with updating current information on naming and labeling "#$%&'! O)A) P,4.*:%0!"#,-!M.D ..&)!P,4.*:%0!#,!+.<2%,!+2&!4-'#&!023.0!+#,-! <.&K'4,!,%3-!.,!4-#,!2*'!023.4'/!#*!4-'! M'l#K4.l 1&28#*3') 6-2%$-! 4-','!+#,-!.&'!*24!3'&4#+#'/!,%,4.#*.:0'@!#4!#,!7'00!K*27*!4-.4!4-','!+#,-! .&'!023.00;!,2%&3'/!.*/!+&',-!3.%$-4!:;!4-'!8'*/2&)!J-242!:;!.%4-2&)

PAGE 110

) ) TSR ) seafood should be the standard and should not be left unsettled in the same fashion as their "Seafood List." An immediate way to reduce illegal catch is eliminating paper ca tch documentation schemes, which are easily manipulated to report inaccurate fish counts ( Roheim 2008). For traceability schemes to be implemented, fisheries must perceive an incentive to fish ethically. When illegal fisheries are removed from the market, it provides other fisheries with an incentive to fish ethically. Scientists are able to predict the stock health with greater accuracy when illegal fisheries are not underreporting catch or failing to report it entirely. It can be assumed that stock asses sment figures would show an increased populate were the pressures from illegal fishing eliminated. Fishing regulations and catch restrictions could be set more leniently with the confidence that the assessments were representative of actual stocks. Thus, d iligent enforcement facilitates improved fishing condit ions for law abiding fisheries. The Maryland Striped Bass fisheries sector should consider the benefits of employing small fisheries to harvest their product. Above all else Maryland's seafood industr y would benefit from the lower ecological impact and running costs of production associated with artisanal fisheries. Fish mortality from by catch as well as fuel emissions would be far less than large scale fishe ry operations (Carv alho et al. 2011). The p roduct would be far more sustainable if the MD Striped Bass seafood industry shifted their interests from harvesting fish for export to international buyers and instead co ncentrate efforts on the local market A small scale fishery operation creates thousa nds of employment opportunities and currently such vessels do so by employ over 90% of fishers involved in capture fisheries (FAO 2005 2012). O ne problem is that MSC cannot

PAGE 111

) ) TSU ) certify most small scale fisheries, as they are unable to afford auditing costs and recertification fees (Jacquet et al 2009). The striped bass fishing industry in Maryland might have to consider moving towards small s cale fishing operations when they reach their five year reevaluation marker if certification proves too costly to mai ntain. T he most effective way to manage the striped bass fishery and eliminate illegal fishing activities is to increase patrolling, enforcement, and observation (Figure C.3. ) With 1,231 eligible commercial fishermen participating in the striped bass fish ery, it is imperative that each recognizes their individual responsibility to the ecosystem by selecting approved gear and adhering to regulations (Maryland DNR, 2011). ) "#$%&'! O)F )! =1'3#.0!?1'&.4#2*,!X#8#,#2*,!2+!WX!X[\S,![.4%&.0!\',2%&3'!J20#3') R.3-!%*#4!#,!/',#$*'/!42! 1&28#/'!4-'!<2,4!32<1&'-'*,#8'!,%1'&8#,#2*!.*/!'*+2&3'<'*4!2+!<.#<'!0.7!.*/ +#'0/ &'$%0.4#2*) =2%&3'9! -4419EE777)/*&),4.4')
PAGE 112

) ) TSe ) REFERENCES Ababouch, L (2005). World inventory of fisheries. Trade implications of fish species identification. Issues Fact Sheets. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 27 May 2005. [Cited 29 March 2012]. shery/topic/14807/en ACCSP (2012) SAFIS: Standard Atlantic Fisheries Information System. Last accessed March 28, 2012 at Agnew, D.J., J. Pearce, G. Pramod, T. Peatman, R.Watson, J.R. Beddington and T.J. Pitcher. 2009. Estimating the Worldwide Extent of Illegal Fishing. PLoS ONE 4:e4570. Arrow, K.J., Dasgupta, P., Goulder, L., Daily, G., Ehrlich, P., Heal, G., Levin, S., MŠler,K.G., Schneider, S., Starrett, D and Walke r, B. (2004) "Are We Consuming Too Much?", The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18 (3): 147 172 ASMFC (2003). Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass. Fishery Management Report No. 41 of the Atlantic States Marine F isheries Commission, Atlantic Striped Bass Plan Development Team. U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Award No. NA03NMF4740078. February 2003. Last accessed March 6, 2012. [ASMFC] Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Co mmission (2009). "2009 Stock Assessment Report for Atlantic Striped Bass." Atlantic Striped Bass Technical Committee, Nov. 2009. Web. 03 Apr. 2012. . [ASMF C] Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (2011). Proceedings of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Atlantic Striped Bass Management Board. Atlantic Striped Bass Minutes & Meetings. Crowne Plaza Hotel, Old Town, Alexandria, Virginia. Marc h 23, 2011 Approved August 2011. Accessed 03 April 2012 at: 011SBBoardProceedings.pdf Barclay, K. (2006). Ensuring sustainable tuna fisheries in the Pacific. In Fishing Futures Issue brief no. 1. Crawford School of Economics and Government, 2006. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. Bates, Cynthia H. (2010): Use of Social Marketing Concepts to Evaluate Ocean Sustainability Campaigns, Social Marketing Quarterly, 16:1, 71 96 Brander, K. M. 200x. The role of growth changes in the decline and recovery of North Atlantic cod stocks since 1970. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 6x: 000 000. Berrill, M. (1997). The plundered seas: Can the world's fish be saved? Cancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Greystone Books.

PAGE 113

) ) TSf ) Brownstein, C., Lee, M., & Safina, C. (2003). Harnessing consumer power for ocean conservation. Conservation in Practice 44(4), 39 42. Buck, E.H. 2007. Seafood Marketing: Combating Fraud and Deception. U.S. Library of Congress. Congressi onal Research Service. Accessed Mar 1, 2012: www. Buck, EH (2010). Seafood marketing: Combating Fraud and Deception. U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Accessed October 17, 2011. Buschmann, Cabello, Young, Carvajal, Varela, and Henr’quez (2009). Salmon aquaculture and coastal ecosystem health in Chile: Analysis of regulations, environmental imp acts and bioremediation systems. Ocean & Coastal Management. May 2009, Vol. 52 Issue 5, P ages 243 249. Carvalho, N., Edwards Jones, G., & Isidro, E. (2011). Defining scale in fisheries: Small versus large scale fishing operations in the Azores, Fisheries Research, Volume 109, Issues 2 3, May 2011, Pages 360 369, ISSN 0165 7836, 10.1016/ res.2011.03.006. Accessed February 20, 2012: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2010. Surve illance of forborne disease outbreaks United States, 2007. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 59(31) 973 979. August 13, 2010. [CEN] European Committee for Standardization 2002. Traceability of fishery products specifications of the information to be recorded in captured fish distribution chains. CEN workshop agreement. CEN, Brussels, Belgium. Available from: inal.doc Accessed March 6, 2012. Clarke, A., Harvey, M.L., & Kane, D. (2000). Attitudes and behavior: Are produce consumers influenced by eco labels? Proceedings at the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade (IIFET) Conference. Last accessed April 2 6 2012 at Clay, P. M. and Olson, J. (2011), Defining and Applying Sustainability: Connecting Sociocultural, Economic and Biological Concepts. Anthropology News, 52: 7 10. doi: 10.1111/j.1556 3502.2011.52407.x "Chesapeake Bay Watershed Population," Chesapeake Bay Program, n, acce ssed 17 May 2012 Chesapeake Bay Report Card (2010). Integration & Application Network. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Last accessed 26 April 2012 at cards/chesapeake bay/2010/

PAGE 114

) ) TSZ ) Chesapeake Bay R eport Card (2011). Integration & Application Network. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Last accessed 26 April 2012 at heck/report cards/chesapeake bay/2011/overview/ S. Cooke, K. Murchie, and A. Danylchuk (2011). Sustainable "Seafood" ecolabeling and awareness initiatives in the context of inland fisheries: increasing food security and protecting ecosystems from BioScience Vol 61 No 11 Nov. 2011 Davis, D. & Gartside, D.F. (2001). Challenges for economic policy in sustainable management of marine natural resources. Ecological Economics, 36 (2), 223 236. Elsholz, Alicia Ushijima, "Seafood labeling and consumer behavi or: A FishWise case study, Sonoma County, CA." (2009). Master's Theses. Paper 3976. [EPA] U.S. Enviornmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. "Environmental Labeling: Issues, Polici es, and Practices Worldwide." EPA Pub No. 742 R 98 009, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington DC, December 1998. European Community Council. 2008. European Community Council. September 29. FishWatch (2005). U.S. Seafood Facts. N ational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service. last updated Septembet 12, 2011. Last accessed March 6, 2012. FAO. 2005a. FAO Fisheries Department, Fishery Information, Data and Statistics Unit. Fishstat Plus: Universal software for fishery statistical time series. Aquaculture production: quantities 1950 2003; Aquaculture production: values 1984 2003; Capture production: 1950 2003; Commodities production and trade: 1950 2003; Total production: 1970 2003, Vers. 2.30 (available at FAO. 2005 2012. Fisheries and Aquaculture topics. Small scale and artisanal fisheries. Topics Fact Sheets. Text by Jan Johnson. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department [online]. Rome. Updated 27 May 2005. [Cited 29 March 2012]. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FA O), 2008. The State of the Worlds Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008 (FAO Rome, 2009). Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2010. The State of the Worlds Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010 (FAO Rome, 2011). FDA (2009). "2010 FDA Seafood L ist". Last updated 05/15/2009. Accessed on 03/20/2012 at

PAGE 115

) ) TSX ) Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk communication and pereption u nplgged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 1.5, 137 145 [FSA] Food Standards Agency. 2002. Traceability in the food chain: a preliminary study. FSA, Food Chain Strategy Div. London, England. Available from: /pdfs/traceabilityinthefoodchain.pdf. Accessed on 2012 March 30. Gibbon et al. (2010). From Sea to Table: Reccomendations for Tracing Seafood. Compiled for Monterey Bay Aquarium's Sustainable Seafood Initiative. Bren School of Environmental Science and Man agement. University of California, Santa Barbara. Last accessed March 31, 2012: seafood /documents/ seafood _final_report.pdf Greenpeace (2012). Carting Away the Oceans VI. Published May 2, 2012 for Greenpeace. Last accessed 15 May 2012 at Golan E, Krissoff B, Kuchler F, Nelson K, Price G, Calvin L. 2003. Traceability in the US food supply: dead end or superhighway? Choices 2003(2nd Quarter):17 20. Government Accountab ility Office (GAO). 2009. SEAFOOD FRAUD FDA Program Changes and Better Collaboration among Key Federal Agencies Could Improve Detection and Prevention. Accessed Feb 25, 2012: items/d09258.pdf Grafton, R. Q. (2006) Too few fish and too many boats. In Fishing Futures Issue brief no. 1. Crawford School of Economics and Government, 2006. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) (2006). Mercury and Fish Consumption Fact Sheet. October 2006. Contributions made by HCWH Europe. Accessed March 30, 2012 at www.env Hockley, Edward Jones, and Healy (2007). Maximiz ing the efficiency of conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Volume 22, Issue 6, June 2007, Pages 286 287 School of the Environment and Natural Resources, University of Wales, Bangor, LL57, 2UW, UK. Available online 1 March 2007. Hutchings, J., Rangeley, R., 2011. Correlates of recovery for Canadian Atlantic cod. Can. J. Zool 89, 386 400. Jacquet, J. and D. Pauly (2008). Trade secrets: Renaming and mislabeling of seafood. Marine Policy 32: 309 318 The Sea Around Us Project, The Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia, 2202 Main Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Johnston, R., Wessells, C., Donath, H., and Frank Asche (2001). Measuring Consumer Preferences for Ecolabeled Seafood: An International Comparison. Journal of Agricultura l and Resource Economics Vol. 26, No. 1 (July 2001), pp. 20 39

PAGE 116

) ) TS[ ) Kaiser, M., and G. Edward Jones, 2006. The Role of Ecolabeling in Fisheries Management and Conservation. Conservation Biology. Vol. 20, No. 2 (2006) 392 98 Kompas, T. (2006). Getting things right: structural adjustment in Australia's Commonwealth fisheries. In Fishing Futures Issue brief no. 1. Crawford School of Economics and Government, 2006. Web. 5 Apr. 2012. Landers, J., Mitchell, P., Smith, B., Lehman, T., & Conner, C. (2006). Save t he crabs, then eat em'': A culinary approach to saving the Chesapeake bay. Social Marketing Quarterly, 12(1), 15 28 Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., and Barbaro Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly prod ucts. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 6 2001. pp 503 520. MCS University Press, 0736 3761 Maryland DNR (2011). Striped Bass Open House. July 2011. Accessed March 30, 2012 at Lister, T., A. Lister, E. Alexander, W. McWilliams, G. Moisen, and R. Czaplewski. 2009. Estimating fi ne scale land use change dynamics using an expedient photointerpretation based method. In: McWilliams, W., G. Moisen, and R. Czaplewski, comps. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) symposium 2008; October 21 23; Park City, UT. Proc. RMRS P 56CD. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Fore st Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 10 p. Mann, C. C. 2005. 1491: New revelations of the Americas before Columbus. Alfred A. Knopf, Publisher, New York, New York. Maryland Department of Natural Resources (2012). Tag Return Program website. Last accessed March 28, 2012 at Maryland F isheries Resources Office (MFRO) 2009. Striped Bass Cooperative Tagging Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Last updated July 28,2009. Last accessed March 30,2012 at Maryland Fisheries Resource Office (2000). Cooperative Tagging Program. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Cooperators include State Agencies and Universities in NC, VA, MD, DC DE, PA, NJ, MA, RI, and CT. Released July 2000. Maryland Department of Natural Resources (2012). Maryland Angler's Log. Last accessed March 30, 2012 at http://www.dnr.stat Maryland Saltwater Sportfishermen's Association (MSSA) 2011. Advancing a Striped Bass Conservation Management Strategy for the 21 st Century. January 2011. Last accessed March 30, 2012.

PAGE 117

) ) TS` ) Mason, Fred. (2002). Th e Newfoundland Cod Stock Collapse: A Review and Analysis of Social Factors. Electronic Green Journal 1(17). Retrieved from: Moe T. 1998. Perspectives on traceability in food manufacture. Trends Food Sci Technol 9(1 998):211 4. Monterey Bay Aquarium. (2004). Seafood Watch evaluation: Summary report, June 30, 2004. Monterey, CA: Primary author Alicia U. Elsholz. Monterey Bay Aquarum (2006). "Seafood Watch press kit." Last accessed 26 April 2012 at seafood watch Presskit.pdf Miller, D.D. and S. Mariani. 2010. Smoke, Mirrors, and Mislabeled Cod: Poor Transparency in the European Seafood Industry. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8:517 521. Myers, R.A. and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423:280 283. National Conference on Weights and Measurement. 2010. National Investigation Exposes Fraud in Fr ozen Seafood Labeling [Press Release]. Accessed March 6, 2012: g ation.pdf National Conference on Weights and Measurement. 2010. National Investigation Exposes Fraud in Frozen Seafood Labeling [Press Release]. Accessed Feb 25, 2011: ation.pdf Neori, A., Chopin, T., Troell, M., Buschmann, A. H., Kraemer, G. P., Halling, C., Shpigel, M. & Yarish, C., 2004. Integrated aquaculture: rationale, evolution and state of the art emphasizing seaweed biofiltration in modern mariculture. Aquaculture 231 361 391. NOAA A. (2010). NOAA :: SIP EU Export. January 4. Last accessed 26 April 2012 at NOAA B. (2010). NOAA :: National Marine Fisheries Service :: Seafood Inspection Program Home. January 4. Last accessed 26 April 2012 at NOAA (2012). The Chesapeake Bay Program. Chesapeake Bay Office. Last accessed March 2012 at http://www.chesa Oceana (2011). Bait and Switch: How Seafood Fraud Hurts Our Oceans, Our Wallets and Our Health. Last accessed 3/24/2012 at www. food

PAGE 118

) ) TTS ) Oceana (2012). Fishy Business: Do you know what you are really eating? Oceana. Last updated March 1, 2012. Accessed March 4, 2012. Perishable Groups (2010). Survey purchase behaviors and preferences: consumer survey results. Last accessed 27 April 2012 at AsiaSurveyPPT .pdf Peter A. Shelton (2009). Eco certification of sustainably managed fisheries Redundancy or synergy?, Fisheries Research, Volume 100, Issue 3, November 2009, Pages 185 190, ISSN 0165 7836, 10.1016/j.fishres.2009.08.004. ( Pike, I.H. 2005. Eco efficiency in aquaculture: global catch of wild fish used in aquaculture. Int Aquafeed 8(1): 38 40. Pipitone C., Badalamenti F., D'Anna G., Patti B. (2000) Fish biomass increase after a four year trawl ban in the Gulf of Castellammare (NW Sicily, Mediterranean Sea) ( 2000) Fisheries Research 48 (1), pp. 23 30. Pitcher, Tony (2008). The sea ahead: challenges to marine biology from seafood sustainability. Hydrobiologia, Vol. 606, Number 1, 161 185. DOI: 10.1007/s10750 008 9337 9 Raurk, Eric A. (2010) Immigration, Popula tion Growth, and the Chesapeake Bay. Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), December 2010. 36 pp. Roheim, C.A. 2008. Seafood Supply Chain Management: Methods to Prevent Illegally Caught Product Entry into the Marketplace. IUCN World Conservatio n Union US for the project PROFISH Law Enforcement, Corruption and Fisheries Work. Accessed Feb 28, 2012: cmsdata.iucn. org/downloads/supply_chain_management_roheim.pdf. Sadovy, Y. ( Ed). (2006). Development of fisheries management tools for trade in humph ead wrasse, Cheilinus undulatus in compliance with Article IV of CITES. IUCN Groupers & Wrasses Specialist Group. Final Report April, 2006, 103 pp. Schnorf, Tauraii, and Cundy (2002). Ciguatera fish poisoning: a double blind randomized trial of mannitol therapy. Neorology. 2002 Mar, 26: 58(6):873 80. Sharma, N., Lane, D., & …zveri, O. (2010). Atlantic Cod Stock: current status and strategic fisheries management. University of Ottawa. July 2010. 28 pp. Last accessed 26 April 2012 at 10 10_Sharma_Lane_Ozveri.pdf?sequence=1 Shelton, P.A., Sinclair, A.F., 2008. It's time to sharpen our definition of sustainable fisheries management. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 65, 2305 2314.

PAGE 119

) ) TTT ) Shepherd, (2008). Involving the public and stakeholders in the evaluation of food risks. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 19 (2008) 234 239. Smith et al. (2010). Sustainability and Global Seafood. Science 12 February 2010: 784 786. Smith, T., and R. Olsenius. 2007. Beyond Jamestown. Smithsonian 38: 48 60. Spink J, Helferich OK, Griggs JE. (2010). Combating the impact of product counte rfeiting. Distribution Business Manage ment J ournal. Vol. 10(1):6. Spink, J. and D. Moyer (2011). Defining the public health threat of food fraud. Journal of Food and Science. Vol. 76(9) R157 R163. Sustainable Fishery Advocates. (2004). Sustainable Fishery Advocates: 2004 annual report. Santa Cruz, CA Primary Author Alicia Ushijima Elsholz Tacon, A. G. J., Hasan, M. R., & Subasinghe, R. P. (2006). Use of fishery resources as feed inputs to aquaculture development: Trends and policy implications. Rome, Ita ly: FAO Fisheries Circular No. 1018, FAO Fisheries Department; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Thompson, M., Sylvia, G. and Morrissey, M. T. (2005), Seafood Traceability in the United States: Current Trends, System Design, and Pote ntial Applications. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 4: 1 7. doi: 10.1111/j.1541 4337.2005.tb00067.x TraceFish (2006). TraceFish: Traceability of Fish Products. The European Commission Community Research, Quality of Life and Managemetn of Living Resources. Last updated October 26, 2006. Accessed March 6, 2012. [UMCES] Institute of Marine and Environmental Technology (2011). Scientists find key to vegetarian diet for fish raised in aquaculture ." Last accessed 27 April 2012 at find key vegetarian diet fish raised aqua culture Website. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2012). "Office of Law Enforcement | Northeast Region." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home 23 Jan. 2012. Web. 03 Apr. 2012. . U.S. Fish and Wildlif e Service (2009). "Law Enforcement in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Home 5 May 2009. Web. 03 Apr. 2012. oring/Law%20Enforcement.html Wessells, C, Johnston, R., & Donath, H. (1999). Assessing consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: The influence of species, certifier, and household attributes. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 81, 1084 1089.

PAGE 120

) ) TTR ) Zepeda, L. and C. Leviten Reid (2004). Consumers' views on Local Food. Journal of Food Distribution Research Vol. 35 No. 3 2004. Pp. 1 6

PAGE 121

) ) TTU ) A PPENDIX I Sustainable Seafood Guides Whether the motives are consumer based or focus on chef's interests, ultimately all sustainable seafood guides have one common goal: preserving marine species and ecosystems. Sustainable seafood guides that inform consumers on which seafood is the best choice for sustainability should be made accessible to buyers. Suppliers who should have several guides on hand to distribute to browsing customers, should promote the use of guides in their store to emphasize their consciousness on issues of sustainability. This will foster trust between the consumer and supplier, forming a relationship from which both parties will benefit. The Blue Ocean Institute offers a web application for both consumers and chefs. Those consumers with a smart phone can download their "FishPhone" program, which translates text message sustainability inqui ries into current fish stats to help consumers make conscientious seafood purchases. Their "Green Chef, Blue Oceans" Program offers curriculums for chefs and culinary students looking for an ecologically friendly alternative to kitchen classics (accessed f rom their website: Monterey Bay Aquarium has a highly accessible Seafood Watch program using pocket guides, online applications and websites to help consumers and chefs locate sustainable choices via GPS technology and susta inable recipes. The guides are divided by region and updated biannually to educate consumers on the current status of seafood products, including a sushi guide. The Seafood Watch program also offers a number of resources for consumers to take action and in form suppliers of their interests in

PAGE 122

) ) TTe ) sustainable seafood alternatives. All guides can be printed from their website or ordered by demand through Monterey Bay Aquarium (accessed from Monterey Bay's Seafood Watch Program website: ). Though Monterey Bay attempts to make their watch cards accessible to anyone interested, there is always the chance that consumers will choose not to use it even if they carry it with them. Todays' marketplace with it's plethora of options allows consumers to simply buy whatever interests them and is within their price range without any perceivable repercussions. It is also na•ve to assume that all consumer s have access to computers, or that they would actively seek out such a resource or be cognizant of its existence. Even the author has cards for several different regions at home but consistently forgets to use them while shopping or at a restaurant. The o nly way to guarantee sustainability in this instance is to search for a product's ecolabel, or to choose not to make an uninformed seafood purchase.

PAGE 123

) ) TTf ) A PPENDIX II New College of Florida Informed Consent For persons 18 years of age or older who take part in a research study ________________________________________________________________________ The following information is being presented to help you decide whether or not you want to take part in research study. Please read this carefully. If you do not understand anything, ask the person in charge of the study. Title of research study: Consumer Behavior in Sustainable Seafood Market Based Decisions for Maryland Striped Bass Fisheries Person in charge of study: Courtney Smith The purpose of this research study is to identify the processes by which sustainable certification is obtained by fisheries, specifically the Maryland Striped Bass Fisheries. Surveys will reveal the factors influencing consumer decisions when purchasing seafood, especially in regards to the sustainability of seafood purchases. Data gathered will be analyzed qualitatively to determine the decision making criteria for seafood purchases and the impact of promoting marketing tools for initiatives like ecolabel ing and marine sustai nability certification. Interviews will be conducted with select officials involved in the Maryland Striped Bass Fisheries certification process. Description You are invited to participate in a research study for my senior thesis at New College of Florid a. The study includes a survey that asks several questions to obtain background information such as the number of individuals in your household, while other questions are about your shopping habits and what influences your decision to buy a product while s hopping for seafood, while the rest of the questions ask you about. Your survey will be compared with others to determine what influences your ideas about seafood sourced from sustainable sources. You will be asked to fill out a survey about your seafood p urchases. Your participation will take approximately 5 minutes. Survey participants will NOT be interviewed. Benefits of Being a Part of this Research Study By participating in this study, you are contributing to our existing knowledge on sustainable cer tification. You are also assisting current understanding on what factors influence consumer decisions in seafood purchases; this information can provide incentive for the seafood industry to improve traceability of seafood products and promote the adoption of sustainable practices with certification schemes. With this knowledge, it might be possible to increase the availability and variety of sustainable seafood options stocked in store with the potential for decreased costs.

PAGE 124

) ) TTZ ) Risks of Being a Part of this Research Study There are no risks to participating in this study. No sensitive information will be collected for surveyors. Interviewees will not be asked questions that disclose personal thought, ideas, or opinions. Payment for Participation You will not be paid for this study. Seafood cards will be distributed for survey participation. Confidentiality of Your Records Your privacy is important. However, the results of this study may be published. Your individual privacy will be maintained in all publ ished and written data resulting from the study. Only authorized research personnel, employees of the Department of Health and Human Services and the NCF Institutional Review Board may inspect the data from this research project. The data obtained from you will be combined with data from others in the publication. The published results will not include your name or any other information that would personally identify you in any way. Volunteering to Be Part of this Research Study If you have read this form and have decided to participate in this project, please understand your participation is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw your consent or discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise enti tled. You have the right to refuse to answer particular questions. Questions and Contacts If you have any questions about this research study, contact Courtney Smith at Alternate Contact: If you cannot reach the person in charge of this study, please contact Sandra Gilchrist at (941) 487 4377 or If you have questions about your rights as a person who is taking part in a research study, you may contact the Human Protections Administrator of New College of Florida at (941) 487 4649 or by email at Consent to Take Part in This Research Study By signing this form I agree that: I have fully read or have had read and explained to me this informed consent form describing this research project. I have had the opportunity to question one of the persons in charge of this research and have received satisfactory answers.

PAGE 125

) ) TTX ) I understand that I am being asked to participate in research. I understand the risks and be nefits, and I freely give my consent to participate in the research project outlined in this form, under the conditions indicated in it. I have been given a copy of this informed consent form, which is mine to keep. _________________________ ___ ______________________ _______________ Signature of Participant Printed Name of Participant Date Principal Investigator Statement I have carefully explained to the subject the nature of the above research study. I hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the subject signing this consent form understands the nature, demands, risks, and benefits involved in participating in this study. _____ ____________________ __ _______________________ _____ __________ Signature of Pr incipal Investigator Printed Name of Investigator Date In Case of Illness or Injury If you get sick or injured while participating in this study, call Courtney Smith at (321) 287 0895. If you have an emergency, go to the closest emergency room or clinic for treatment.

PAGE 126

) ) TT[ ) APPENDIX III Sustainable Seafood Survey The following is an exact copy of the survey that was distributed at the 32 nd Street Farmers Market and the Baltimore Farmers Market. Numbering is incorrect but was adjusted for data analysis to improve results. Consumer Behavior in Sustainable Seafood Market Based Decisions Sustainable Seafood Survey "Sustainable seafood refer s to fish and shellfish that are caught or farmed in a way that protects the health of our oceans for future generations to come." SeaChoice 2011 & TO !?c/ ) GO 1GI? ) ;O *?)=D ) >B? ) B=LB?D>)I?C?I)AF)?@:JG>=AE)QA:)BGC?) JA?@g ) GO "H=? ) LO 3E@?HLHG@:G>? ) BO (HG@:G>? ) FO AD>) LHG@:G>? ) TO ) RO 7BA)@A?D)>B?)Q)AF) >B?)LHAJ?HQ)DBAMM=EL)FAH)QA:H)BA:D?BAI@g )

PAGE 127

) ) TT` ) GO 1? ) ;O 1Q)MGH>E?H ) JO 1?)GE@)E?H)@A)>B?)DBAMM=EL)>AL?>B?HO ) @O 1Q)MGH?E>DiL:GH@=GE ) ?O +>B?H) ./,%('%&'0%1+234 ) jjjjjjjj jjjjjjjjjjjjj ) ) UO #D>=?)BAK ) AF>?E)QA: iQA:H) FG<=IQ) ?G>)D?GFAA@ O ) GO U ) AH)===B ) ?O &)G<)GII?HL=J)>A)D?GFAA@ ) ) FO & ) @AEb>)?G>)D?GFAA@ ) ) eO &D ) =EFAH=AE)H?LGH@=EL)D:D>G=EG;=I=>Q)=DD:?D)=E)>B?)D?GFAA@)=E@:D>HQ)H?G@=IQ) GJJ?DD=;I?)>A)QA:g ) GO 9?D ) ;O 'A) ) ) fO 7B?H?)@A)QA:)H?J?=C?)QA:H)=EFAH=AE)G;A:>)D:D>G=EG;I?)D?GFA A@ g) ) GO 5AJGI)=E=>=G>=C?D ) ;O -?I?C=D?@)E?KD ) JO #@:JG>=AEGI) A:>H?GJB) ?H=GID ) @O & E>?HE?> ) FO)))) &)BG@)EA>)B?GH@)AF)D:D>G=EG;I?)D?GFAA@);?FAH?)>B=D)D:HC?Q ) ? O)) ) + >B?H )) W 0,%('%&'0%1+234& ) jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj ) ) ZO 7B?E)BGC?)QA:)=EN:=H?@)G;A:>)>B?)D:D>G=EG;=I=>Q)AF)QA:H)D?GFAA@)M:HJBGD?Dg) 56%17&(,,&*6(*&(00,3) 7B=I?)DBAMM=EL ) 7B=I?)G>)G)H?D>G:HGE> ) &) @A)EA>)M:HJBGD?)D?GFAA@O ) &) BGC?)E?C?H)=EN:=H?@)G;A:>)>B?)D:D>G=EG;=I=>Q)AF) QM=JGIIQ)M:HJBGD?)D?GFAA@ g ) 56%17 & (,,&*6(*&(00,3 O) ) 5AJGI) LHAJ?HQ)D>AH? ) W?c/) AH=?E>GI) Y ) ) ) ,?D>G:HGE> ) ) 6BG=E)LHAJ?HQ)D>AH?)W?c/) (=GE>P ) !GF?KGQ Y ) ) ) *GH ) ) )))) .?GI>B)FAA@)D>AH?)W?c/)7BAI?)*AA@DP) -HG@?H)kA?D Y ) ) +FF) >B?);AG> ) )))) 4:IV)7GH?BA:D?)W?c/) !GJB)Q)!?GFAA@),?>G=I?H) W?c/)D?GFAA@)Y ) ) &)@A)EA>)?G>) D?GFAA@ ) ) ) [O .AK)<:JB)@A?D)MH=J?)=EFI:?EJ?)QA:H)D:D>G=EG;I?)D?GFAA@)M:HJBGD?Dg ) GO 'A>)G>)GIIl)&)@A)EA>)JAED=@?H)MH=J?)KB?E)M:HJBGD=EL)D:D>G=EG;I?)D?GFAA@O ) ;O 8?HQ)I=>>I?l)&):D:GIIQ);:Q)D:D>G=EG;I?)D?GFAA@)H?LGH@I?DD)AF)MH=J? )

PAGE 128

) ) TRS ) JO !Al)&)KA:I@) I=V?)>A);:Q)D:D>G=EG;I?)D?GFAA@);:>)G<)=EFI:?EJ?@);Q) MH=J?O ) @O 8?HQ)<:JBl)&)@A)EA>)M:HJBGD?)D:D>G=EG;I?)D?GFAA@)@:?)>A)MH=J?O ) ?O &)@A)EA>)GJ>=C?IQ)D??V)A:>)D:D>G=EG;I?)AM>=AED)KB?E)M:HJBGD=EL)D?GFAA@O ) FO &)@A)EA>)M:HJBGD?)D?GFAA@O ) ) TO ,GEV ) >B?) FGJ>AHD)>BG>)=EFI:?EJ?) QA:H)D?GFAA@)M:HJBGD =EL)@?J=D=AED ) FHA<)T m f l ) T) =E@=JG>?D))= EFI:?E>=GI O ) &F)QA:)@A)EA>)M:HJBGD?)D?GFAA@P)MI?GD?)JB?JV)>B?)\&) @A)EA>)M:HJBGD?)D?GFAA@]);AcO ) ) "H=J?i)8GI:? ) ) n:GI=>Q i-GD>? ) ) $MM?GHGEJ? ) ) 6G>JB) 5AJG>=AEi!A:HJ? ) ) ) .?GI>B)4?E?F=>D ) ) & &)@A)EA>)M:HJBGD?)D?GFAA@O) ) W /,%('%&'0%1+23 & 8 )9&(,,%#:+%'; & <%:%*(#+($; & =&>"$?*&,+7%&'%(2"">;&%*1-4 & & @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ))) & ) RO 7B?E)M:HJBGD=EL)D?GFAA@P)KB=JB)@A)QA:)M:HJBGD?))AF>?Eg ) Most Often Sometimes Rarely Never Fresh Frozen filets/shrimp Frozen nonfilets (ex:breaded, sticks, bites) Canned ) ) ) ) & UO 7B=JB) >QM?)AF)F=DB)@A)QA:)M:HJBGD?))AF>?Eg)&F)\A>B?H]P)MI?GD?)DM?J=FQO ) GO !GIH=M?@)4GDDY ) JO -:EG ) @O 6GEE?@)-:EG ) ?O 6A@ ) FO !BH=B?H) .0,%('%&'0%1+234&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ &

PAGE 129

) ) TRT ) & eO &F)MH=J?)GE@)N:GI=>Q)K?H?)EA>)G)FGJ>AHP)KB=JB)KA:I@)QA:) HG>B?H)M:HJBGD?g ) GO *GH)F=DB ) ) fO .AK ) ?EC=HAEGIIQ ) JAEDJ=A:D ) @A)QA:)JAED=@?H)QA:HD?IFg ) /,%('% & '%,%1*&"$%& 2#"A&*6%&,+'*&B%,"C) GO) ))) 8?HQ)?EC=HAEGIIQ)JAEDJ=A:D ) ;O !A)?EC=HAEGIIQ)JAEDJ=A:D ) JO 'A>)?EC=HAEGIIQ)JAEDJ=A:D ) ) TO $H?)QA : ) >B?)GIIQ)JAE DJ =A:D ) AHLGE=aG>=A EWDY g ) GO 9?Dl ) &)CAI:E>??Hi@AEG>?)>=A)GE)AHLGE=aG>=AEP);:>)EA>)? ) GHQ ) D:MMAH>)>A)GE)AHLGE=aG>=AE);:>)@A)EA>) @AEG>?) >=??Hi@AEG>?)>=A)GE)AHLGE=aG>=AEO ) @O 'A P)&)G<)EA>)=ECAIC?@)K=>B)?EC=HAEGIIQ)JAEDJ=A:D)AHLGE=aG> =AEWDY ) ) RO 7B=I?)DBAMM=ELP)BGC?)QA:)?C?H)EA>=J?@)G)D:D>G=EG;I?)D?GFAA@)J?H>=FQ=EL)IG;?I)AE) G)D?GFAA@)MHA@:J>g ) GO 9?D ) ;O 'A ) ) UO $H?)QA:)GKGH?)>BG>)>B?)1GHQIGE@)!>H=M?@)4GDD)WGIDA)VEAKE)GD),AJVF=DBY)F=DB?HQ) =D)J:HH?E>IQ):E@?HLA=EL)D:D>G=EG;I?)J?H>=F=JG>=AEg ) GO 9?D))))W /,%('%&'0%1+23&'"D#1%&"2&+$2"#A(*+"$&"$&,+$%&0#"<+>%>-&8)(A0,%9&EF;& $%C'0(0%#;&+$*%#$%*;&2#+%$>4&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ) ;O 'A ) ) eO &F)QA:)BG@)>B?)AM>=AE)>A)M:HJBGD?)D:D>G=EG;IQ)J?H>=F=?@)1GHQIGE@)!>H=M?@)4GDD) WGVG),AJVF=DBY)=E)QA:H)LHAJ?HQ)D>AH?);:>)=>)JAD>)oU) BGE)>B?)EAE)J?H>=F=?@) MHA@:J>P)KA:I@)QA:);:@L?>)QA:H)LHAJ?HQ)A)M:HJBGD?)>B?)J?H>=F=?@) AM>=AEg ) GO 9?D ) ;O 'A ) ) fO .GC?)QA:)B?GH@)AF)G)DM?J=?D);?=EL)pH?@ ^ I=D>?@p)MH=AH)>A)>B=D)=E>?HC=?Kg ) GO 9?D)W /,%('%&'0%1+23&'"D#1%&"2&+$2"#A(*+"$4&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ) ;O 'A ) ) ZO .AK) @=@)QA: ) F=HD> ) F=E@)A:> ) G; A:> ) ?JA ^ IG;?I=EL ) FAH)D?GFAA@)MHA@:J>D g ) GO #@:JG>=AEGI) A:>H?GJB)MHALHG=J?@ ) IG;?I)KB=I?)DBAMM=EL ) @O (HAJ?HQ)D>AH?) G@C?H>=D?D ) @O 7AH@)AF)B )

PAGE 130

) ) TRR ) ?O +>B?H)W 0,%('%&'0%1+234&@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ) FO &) BG@)EA> ) B?GH@)AF ) D?GFAA@ ) ?JA ^ IG;?I =EL ) MH=AH)>A)>B=D)D:HC?Q ) ) XO .AK) GJN:G=E>?@) GH?)QA:)K=>B) D?GFAA@)KG>JB)JGH@D g) ) GO &) BGC?)AE?)GE@) GIKGQD) :D?)=>O ) ;O &)BGC?)AE?)GE@):D?)=>)AF>?E O ) ;O &)BGC?)AE?)GE@)BGC?):D?@)=>);?FAH? O ) JO &)BGC?)AE?) ;:>) BGC?) EA>) :D?@)=>);?FAH? O ) @O &)BGC? ) D??E)>B?<);?FAH?);:>)BGC?) ) EA>) :D?@)AE?);?FAH? O ) ?O &)BG @ ) EA>) D??E)>B?)D?GFAA@)KG>JB) JGH@D)MH=AH)>A)>B=D ) D:HC?QO ) ) [O 7B=JB)AF)>B?)FAIIAK=EL)>B=H@ ^ MGH>Q ) D:D>G=EG;=I=>Q ) J?H>=F=?HD)GH?)QA:)FG<=I=GH) K=>Bg)6BAAD?)GII)>BG>)GMMIQO ) GO 1GH=E?)!>?KGH@DB=M)6A:EJ=I)W1!6Y ) ;O 4I:?)+J?GED)&ED>=>:>? ) JO !?G6BA=J? ) @O &)G<)EA>)FG<=I=GH)K=>B)GEQ)>B=H@ ^ MGH>Q)J?H>=F=?H ) ?O +>B?H)W 0,%('%&'0%1+234 & jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj ) ) ) 6-.*K!;2%!+2&!4.K#*$!4-'!4#<'!42!1.&4#3#1.4'!#*!4-#,!,%&8';m!k2%&!#*1%4!#,! $&'.40;!.11&'3#.4'/ )