Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Sustainable Seafood Project - Phase II: As Assessment of the Sustainability of Snapper Purchasing at.. Magera, Anna 2006

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
FINAL snapper report 1CEE14.pdf [ 509.06kB ]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
FINAL snapper exec s1D08EF.pdf [ 14.36kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0108072.json
JSON-LD: 1.0108072+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0108072.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0108072+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0108072+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0108072+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0108072 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0108072.txt
Citation
1.0108072.ris

Full Text

       The University of British Columbia Sustainable Seafood Project – Phase II:    An Assessment of the Sustainability of   Snapper and Rockfish  Purchasing at UBC               Anna Magera UBC Seafood Project Co-ordinator  December 2006  Supervisor: Dr. Amanda Vincent Fisheries Centre, UBC        2    Table of Contents                      Page  Abstract          3  Introduction           4  “Snapper” Purchasing at UBC       4  Snapper and Rockfish Definitions Snapper         5 Rockfish         5  Snapper and Rockfish Labelling       6  Assumptions and Caveats        8  Ecological Issues Associated with Snapper and Rockfish    8  Snapper 1.) Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure      9 2.) Stock Status (population abundance) (Canada and US)   9 3.) Nature of Bycatch       10 4.) Habitat Effects of Fishing Methods     11 5.) Management Effectiveness      11  Rockfish 1.) Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure     12 2.) Stock Status (population abundance) (Canada and US)  13 3.) Nature of Bycatch       14 4.) Habitat Effects of Fishing Methods     15 5.) Management Effectiveness      16  Comment on MBA Recommendation: USA West Coast Black   17 Rockfish and Alaskan Jig-caught Rockfish  Purchasing Recommendation for UBC     18  Acknowledgements        19  Refrences         20  3 Appendix – CFIA and FDA Snapper and Rockfish Names Chart  27   Rockfish and Snapper Purchasing Recommendations for UBC   Abstract  The aim of this report is to examine the labelling and ecological sustainability issues pertaining to snapper and rockfish and provide purchasing recommendations for the University of British Columbia food service providers. Snapper is the common name for a broad grouping of tropical and sub-tropical fish species.  On the west coast of North America, however, the term “snapper” may also be used as a market name for rockfish. The UBC project partner group expressed concern over the lack of sourcing information and the interchangeability of market names for snapper and rockfish products. After reviewing labelling regulations, I conclude that Canadian and American seafood labelling regulations and enforcement – which vary by country – do not adequately facilitate the correct identification of snapper and rockfish products.  Despite Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition (USFDA) regulations, snapper and rockfish products are often marketed without prescribed market and common names. Inaccuracy in labelling can cause food inspectors and consumers to confuse unsustainable seafood products with more sustainable choices. Currently, too much overlap exists in labelling for assurance in product species and catch method.   In light of the current information on snapper and rockfish labelling in Canada and the USA, the ecological impacts of snapper and rockfish harvesting, and the minimal information on UBC’s sourcing of snapper and rockfish products, I advise that UBC does not purchase (1) snapper and/or (2) rockfish products. Ecological concerns associated with snapper and rockfish were examined according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program criteria for determining seafood sustainability, with the use of additional sources. (1) Snappers are not recommended seafood choices. They are long-lived and quite susceptible to fishing pressure. Most world stocks are overfished, declining or data deficient. In many source countries, snappers may also be fished with destructive fishing methods and their fisheries may be poorly managed. (2) Rockfish are also not an advisable seafood choice. Rockfish life history characteristics make them heavily susceptible to fishing pressure. Pacific rockfish stock data are limited, and most stocks with data are declining or overfished. The main catch method, bottom trawling, has high bycatch rates and considerable impact on the ocean environment. Consumers should avoid rockfish unless they know the exact species and gear. Even then, rockfishes’ tendency to aggregate with other rockfish and groundfish species still presents the problem of bycatch. The negative environmental impacts of bottom-trawling, high bycatch rates, and lack of species identification and separation at both the fishery/supplier levels and regulatory levels create extreme difficulty for anyone attempting to choose sustainable rockfish selections. I recommend that the UBC food service providers use  4Best Choice alternatives to rockfish. The food service providers may wish to revisit this snapper and rockfish purchasing recommendation in the future if snapper and rockfish population levels increase, bycatch decreases, and fishing methods become less destructive.   Introduction  The aim of this report is to examine the labelling and ecological sustainability issues pertaining to snapper and rockfish and to generate purchasing recommendations for these fish for the University of British Columbia food service providers. Phase I of the UBC Sustainable Seafood Project evaluated AMS Food and Beverage and UBC Food Services’ seafood purchasing practices (Magera, 2006). As a result of this initial investigation, the UBC project partner group expressed concern over the lack of sourcing information and the interchangeability of market names for snapper and rockfish products (Magera, 2006).  We here set out to resolve this issue.  Generalized labelling or mislabelling of products is a conservation issue if it affects species of conservation concern. The seafood industry has a recognised problem with accuracy in labelling and providing information on seafood sourcing (Thompson et al., 2005).  Attempts to achieve clear and accurate seafood labelling can be derailed by different regional labelling requirements (Thompson et al., 2005) and by the use of common or market names that serve as blanket terms for vast arrays of species (CFIA, 2002; USFDA, 2002). Inaccuracy in labelling can cause food inspectors and consumers to confuse unsustainable seafood products with more sustainable choices.   This report uses the best available information to recommend changes in UBC food service providers’ snapper and rockfish purchasing practices.  Snapper is the common name for a broad grouping of tropical and sub-tropical fish species (Stevens, 2004).  On the west coast of North America, however, the term “snapper” may also be used as a market name for rockfish (Seafood Business, 2000; CFIA, 2002; USFDA, 2002; Roberts and Stevens, 2006). A number of snapper and rockfish species are listed as items to be avoided on the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program (http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp).  Lack of clear labelling creates difficulties in distinguishing among Avoid, Intermediate, and Best Choice snapper and rockfish products.   “Snapper”1 Purchasing at UBC  Currently, three out of the four food service providers at UBC purchase “snapper” products.  • UBC Food Services (UBCFS) purchased 465 kg of “snapper” from 2003-2005. In 2005, UBC Food Services purchased 350kg of “snapper,” making it one of the top 15 purchased seafood products by volume (Magera, 2006). No sourcing information, such as                                                  1 In this report, “snapper” (in quotation marks) refers to fish commonly marketed under the term “snapper,” and may include both true snapper and rockfish. Snapper (without quotation marks) refers only to true snapper.   5species name, source region or method of catch, was available for UBCFS “snapper” products during the Phase I investigation.  • St. John’s College and Green College – which were not part of the Phase I investigation – report purchasing “snapper” occasionally for their residence dining (C. Tay, pers. comm.; S. Geraghty, pers. comm.), but volumes are uncertain. • AMS Food and Beverage does not purchase snapper.  The primary seafood supplier and lone snapper supplier for UBC Food Services, Albion, was able to provide some information on its snapper products. Albion lists one rockfish and 35 snapper products on its website (http://www.albion.bc.ca/) but the species, origin, and catch method of these products is not clear. Sales representatives from Albion indicated that most of the snapper products sold by their company are likely a mix of rockfish species from British Columbia (L. Donnelly, pers. comm.; S. Ginter, pers. comm.). Multiple catch methods are used to catch these rockfish such that the catch method cannot currently be guaranteed upon purchase (S. Ginter, pers. comm.). Albion does, however, explicitly list two species of rockfish – yelloweye and canary – as being caught with longlines or drag trawls off the West Coast of North America (Albion, undated). Some snappers from Hawaii and New Zealand may also be purchased by Albion (S. Ginter, pers. comm.). Albion was not able to provide specific product information for the snapper products purchased by UBC Food Services.    Snapper and Rockfish - Definitions   Snapper (chiefly Lutjanids)  The common term, “snapper” refers to broad composite group of over 250 predatory fish species (Seafood Business, 2000) in Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, but most can be grouped into the tropical and sub-tropical Lutjanidae family (Anderson, 1987; Hoese and Moore, 1998). Snappers are very desirable food fish (Anderson, 1987; Hoese and Moore, 1998). They are commonly marketed in North America as either fresh or frozen whole fish or fillets (Seafood Business, 1999 in Stevens, 2004).  Some of the most commonly fished commercial species include red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), vermillion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorobens), yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus), gray snapper (L. griseus), mutton snapper (L. analis), and lane snapper (L. synagris) from the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (Stevens, 2004).  Other popular species includes Hawaiian gray snapper (Aprion virescens), pink snapper (Pristipomoides filamentosus), ruby snapper (Etelis coruscans), and red snapper (E. carbunculus) (Haight, 2003a-d). From South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, Caribbean red snapper (L. purpureus) is often used as a substitute for red snapper (Stevens, 2004).  Malabar snapper (L. malabaricus) is common from Asia (Seafood Business, 2000).   New Zealand snapper (Pagrus auratus) is a major snapper export for New Zealand (New Zealand Seafood Industry Council, undated), but it is not listed by the CFIA or USFDA as a recognized snapper import species (CFIA, 2002; USFDA, 2002).    6  Rockfish (chiefly Sebastes and Sebastolobus spp.)   Rockfish are defined as members of the genus Sebastes (Love et al., 2002), but the members of the genus Sebastolobus (a.k.a. thornyheads) are generally included in the definition as well (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Approximately 102 species of rockfish exist worldwide, with the overwhelming majority concentrated in the North Pacific and Gulf of California (Love et al., 2002).2 Rockfish are often sold whole, although less desirable species or lower quality fish are sold as fillets (Love et al., 2002).  The rockfish species that fetch the highest prices are typically brightly coloured, and include yelloweye (S. ruberrimus), China (S. nebulosus), and vermillion rockfish (S. miniatus) (Love et al., 2002)).    Snapper and Rockfish Labelling  After reviewing labelling regulations, I conclude that Canadian and American seafood labelling regulations and enforcement – which vary by country – do not adequately facilitate the correct identification of snapper and rockfish products.  Seafood labelling in Canada is regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) with the Food and Drugs Act / Food and Drug Regulations (FDA/FDR), Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and Regulations (CPLA/CPLR), Fish Inspection Act (FIA), and the Fish Inspection Regulations (FIR) (CFIA, 2003). In the USA, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition (USFDA) determines seafood labelling in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (USFDA, 2002).   Both the CFIA and USFDA have published their own lists of acceptable common and market names for promoting uniformity in seafood marketing, respectively called the Fish List and the Seafood List (USFDA, 2002; CFIA, 2003). A summary of different CFIA and USFDA snapper and rockfish listings is depicted in Table 1. In addition, the USFDA Seafood List includes a list of vernacular names that it discourages to prevent misbranding of seafood (USFDA, 2002). Although these lists contain recommendations for labelling, confusion still persists in the records for snappers and rockfish (Seafood Business, 2000; CFIA, 2002; USFDA, 2002).                                                           2 Four species are also found in the North Atlantic, two are found in the South Pacific, and two are found in the South Atlantic (Love et al., 2002).    7    Table 1. Snapper and rockfish common and market names designated for use in Canada by the CFIA and in the USA by the USFDA (CFIA, 2002; USFDA, 2002).  Appendix A contains a more complete list of snapper and rockfish names compiled from the CFIA and USFDA lists.  Country Common/Market Name of Seafood Number of Species Includes Representatives from the Following Genus(es)  Canada Snapper 7 Sebastes, Lutjanus  Red Snapper 2 Sebastes, Lutjanus  Pacific Snapper 12 Sebastes, Sebastolobus, Lutjanus  Pacific Red Snapper 2 Sebastes  Rockfish 16 Sebastes, Sebastolobus     USA Snapper 42 Apsilus, Etelis, Lutjanus, Macolor, Ocyurus, Pristipomoides, Rhomboplites, Symphorichthys  Red Snapper 1 Lutjanus  Pacific Snapper 1 Lutjanus  Rockfish 63 Helicolenus, Scorpaena, Sebastes  Thornyhead 2 Sebastolobus   Enforcement of correct species labelling is not priority at either the CFIA or the USFDA. Nonetheless, the CFIA periodically assesses compliance at Canadian seafood processors and in seafood entering Canada (M. Andruczyk, pers. comm.). The CFIA may conduct species identification tests and charge any processors or suppliers who are found to violate labelling guidelines (M. Andruczyk, pers. comm.). Imported seafood that fails to conform to recognised labelling may be placed on an import alert list (M. Andruczyk, pers. comm.). Each subsequent shipment of the product is inspected until four consecutive shipments pass inspection (M. Andruczyk, pers. comm.).  Similarly, the USFDA’s current focus lies not in correct product species labelling but in seafood safety. When the USFDA receives reports of that a species has been mislabelled, it advises the importer/processor/seller/etc. of the USFDA labelling policy (S. Randolph, pers. comm.). If the mislabelling problem reoccurs, the USFDA sends the company a warning letter and may have products detained (S. Randolph, pers. comm.).   Theoretically, knowledge of the source can help identify mislabelled or unlabelled species. Country of origin regulations are in place in Canada and the USA. For Canada, country of origin must be clearly labelled on all imported seafood goods, although products from within Canada need not be labelled (CFIA, 2003).  For the USA, country of origin legislation is also mandatory under amendments to the U.S. Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Thompson et. al, 2005). In addition, the Bioterrorism and Response Act of 2002 requires all foreign and domestic food facilities supplying food to the USA to register with the United States government (Thompson et. al, 2005).  Suppliers and recipients of all food products must also be recorded (Thompson et. al, 2005).   8 Despite the CFIA and USFDA regulations, snapper and rockfish products are often marketed without prescribed market and common names (Seafood Business, 2000).  Red snapper labelling is especially problematic. Supply cannot always meet demand for Lutjanus campechanus (Seafood Business, 2000), the only species the USFDA recognises as red snapper.  Perhaps partly as a consequence, Caribbean red snapper (L. purpureus), Hawaiian red snapper (ehu, or Etelis carbunculus) (USFDA, 2002) and a variety of rockfish are commonly labelled as red snapper or Pacific red snapper (CFIA, 2002; USFDA, 2002). The CFIA makes matters more complicated by also allowing yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) to be officially labelled as red snapper (CFIA, 2002).    Assumptions and Caveats  Both true snappers and rockfishes are discussed in this report. I assume that because of Vancouver’s proximity to prime Pacific rockfish fisheries, the “snapper” products in question are likely rockfish. Trade statistics and Albion’s sales representatives support this notion. Fisheries and Ocean Canada does not show any imports of snapper products into Canada during the 1989-2006 period for which trade statistics were available (DFO, 2006). United States National Marine Fisheries Service trade statistics do not show any snapper exports (NMFS, 2005a). Export information for Hawaiian snappers is not available (Haight, 2003). Rockfish, however, is fished in Canada and ocean perch, Pacific perch, and other rockfish species are imported into Canada (DFO, 2006). Two different Albion sales representatives also indicated that multiple British Columbia rockfish species are the most likely source for Albion’s “snapper” products (L. Donnelly, pers. comm.; S. Ginter, pers. comm.). Although Albion reported supplying yelloweye and canary rockfish to UBC (Albion, unpublished), other rockfish species are also sold to the university (S. Ginter, pers. comm.). Albion also occasionally purchases snapper products, mainly from Hawaii and New Zealand (S. Ginter, pers. comm.). The evidence indicates that Albion’s “snapper” products are most likely rockfish species, but snapper purchases cannot be fully discounted at this point in time. Thus, the report will focus more heavily on providing information on rockfish than snapper.   Ecological Concerns Associated with Snapper and Rockfish   The sustainability of snapper and rockfish exploitation has been evaluated by various sustainable seafood evaluation systems, including Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program (MBA). The following list of ecological concerns associated with snapper and rockfish is formatted according to MBA’s criteria for determining seafood sustainability, with the use of additional sources.   Both snapper and rockfish are generally wild-caught. The few nascent attempts at farming snapper, in Asia and New Zealand, have experienced limited success (Marte,  92003; New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries). Similarly, rockfish aquaculture is hindered by these fishes’ slow growth and viviparity (Love et al., 2002).  Snapper (chiefly Lutjanids)   1.) Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure  Snappers have a number of life history characteristics that make them moderately vulnerable to fishing pressure (Stevens, 2004).  Although they are generally fast growing, with age at maturity typically between 1-5 years, snappers are relatively long-lived (Haight, 2003a-d; Fischer et al., 2004; Stevens, 2004).  Snapper life expectancies generally range 10-30 years (Haight, 2003; Fischer et al., 2004; Stevens, 2004).  However, one of the most commercially desirable species, red snapper, may live to up to 55 years (Baker and Wilson, 2001 in Stevens, 2004). Snappers also have a low natural mortality rate (Ralston, 1987).  As in many other fish species, snapper fecundity increases exponentially with size, and larger individuals contribute relatively more to population growth (Grimes, 1987).  Snappers are reasonably easy to catch because they aggregate to spawn, often at predictable times or places (Grimes, 1987; Heyman et. al, 2005; Jackson et al., 2006), and are relatively sedentary with fidelity to certain sites (Grimes, 1987; Workman et al., 2002; Szedlmayer and Schroepfer, 2005).   2.) Stock Status (population abundance) (Canada and US) Around the world, many snapper stocks are suspected of being overfished, declining, or data deficient (Stevens, 2004) and there is a general lack of information on specific stock status. Since information is not available on the sourcing of Canadian snapper imports, I discuss the stock status of the most probable sources, according to USA data and information from Albion.  Snapper is sourced domestically in the USA from the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Hawaii (NOAAb).   • Red snapper is the most commonly caught snapper in the continental USA, comprising almost 50% of the total commercial catch by volume (Stevens, 2004). The red snapper stock in the Gulf of Mexico has been overfished to critically low levels (Dhazn et al., 2001; Fischer et al., 2004).  • A 2003 assessment by the NOAA indicated that vermillion snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic had experienced overfishing such that populations were critically low (NOAA, 2003).   • A formal stock assessment in 2002 indicated that yellowtail snapper stocks were considered to be quite healthy; they were neither overfished nor undergoing overfishing (Muller et al., 2003 in Stevens, 2004).  • Lane, grey and mutton snappers stocks are considered data deficient (NMFS, 2003 in Stevens, 2004). • Hawaiian snapper stocks, which are managed under the Hawaiian multispecies bottomfish complex, are experiencing overfishing pressure, especially in the main Hawaiian Islands where populations are critically low (WPFMC, 2006a-c).   In general import statistics with adequate sourcing information and stock status reports are both lacking for snapper imported into the USA. Between 2000-2006, the USA  10imported snappers primarily from Brazil, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Indonesia (NOAAa). Import statistics list snappers only as “Lutjanid species,” “fresh or frozen” (NOAAa), so the exact species imported into the USA could not be determined. Data are scarce, but available information suggests that Latin American and Caribbean fish stocks are moderately to fully exploited with little room for further exploitation above current fishing levels (FAO, 1996).  Information on Asian snapper is difficult to obtain on a species by species basis. However, Asian coastal marine fisheries, including Lutjanid fisheries in countries such as the Philippines and Thailand, are generally degraded and overfished (Silvestre et al., 2003). New Zealand assessed five of its snapper stocks between the years of 2000 and 2005 (NZMFb).  Only one stock of the five was near or above the target biomass set by the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries (NZMFb). The four other snapper stocks are (a) possibly near or above the target level, (b) below the target level, or (c) their status is unknown (NZMFb).   3.) Nature of Bycatch The very little information we have suggests that snapper fisheries probably obtain moderate levels of bycatch (Stevens, 2004). Destructive fishing methods of catching snapper in developing nations may result in mortalities of non-target species (Bryant et al., 1998). Bycatch of seabirds in the longline snapper fisheries, for example in New Zealand, is a concern (RFBPSNZ, 2005).  However, quantitative measurements of bycatch in snapper fisheries around the world are difficult to ascertain. Better monitoring of snapper fisheries is needed to assess bycatch and discard rates (Blue Oceans Institute, 2004).   Common species obtained as bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Atlantic include black sea bass, snappers, groupers, porgies, amberjacks, sharks and skates (Harrington et al., 2005; Poffenberger, 2004 in Stevens, 2004). In a 2004 study of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic snapper and grouper fishery, several thousand pounds of bycatch were discarded each year with variable mortality rates (Poffenberger, 2004 in Stevens, 2004).   Hawaiian snapper fisheries are relatively selective, and most bycatch species are either kept as marketable catch or discarded alive (NMFS, 2004).  Common bycatch species include sharks, jacks and trevallies (NMFS, 2004). However, air embolism induced mortality is common in deep-water snappers, such as the Hawaiian snappers, often preventing live release of bycatch (WPFMC, 2006a).  The need to avoid putting pressure on endangered species such as sea turtles, albatross and monk seals is recognized as a potential challenge in the Hawaiian bottomfish fishery, but no significant bycatch of these endangered species has been recorded thus far (NMFS, 2004).    Snappers are also caught as bycatch, most notably in shrimp trawl fisheries (Alverson, 1998 in BOI, 2004). Incidental catch has been documented as a major concern for juvenile red snapper (Hendrickson, 1993; Dhazn et al. 2001).  An estimated 25-30 million juvenile red snapper are caught in shrimp trawls in the Gulf of Mexico annually (Oritz et al., 2000 in Diamond, 2004).  To decrease this tally, bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) have been legislated in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fisheries (Diamond,  112004). Although BRDs are effective for reducing bycatch in some species, the effect on reducing snapper bycatch is variable (Diamond, 2004).  More selective fishing gear and better bycatch monitoring are still needed in many regions (Harrington et al., 2005).   4.) Habitat Effects of Fishing Methods  Snapper is caught commercially with bottom longlines, trolls, handlines, other hook-and-line gear, and traps (Grimes, 1987; Porch and Cass-Callay, 2001; WPFMC, 2006b), and the habitat effects vary with the types of fishing gear used. The ecosystem effects of removing snapper are not known but most snapper fisheries employ hook-and-line gear, which has minimal impacts on bottom habitats (Barnette, 2001; WPFMC, 2005a-c).  Some gear used to catch snappers – it varies by region - might, however, damage the hard, irregular bottom habitats that snappers favour (Bryant et al., 1998; Barnette, 2001).  Even gear with relatively low impact - for example, weights and lines or traps – can harm sensitive coral structures and promote algal overgrowth (Barnette, 2001). The Hawaiian bottomfish fishery employs mainly handlines with depth sensors and electronic fish finding equipment and it is relatively selective (WPFMC, 2006b). New Zealand snapper is caught mainly using bottom longlines or trawls (New Zealand Seafood Industry Council). Bottom trawling is especially disruptive to benthic habitats (Auster and Langton, 1998). Destructive fishing methods, such as blast fishing and cyanide fishing, may also be used in tropical regions and can damage sensitive reefs (Bryant et al., 1998).  5.) Management Effectiveness  Snapper stock management effectiveness varies considerably by region and species. In the USA, snappers are managed in three main fishery categories: commercial targeted, recreational, and commercial bycatch of shrimp fisheries (SAFMC, 2003; Muller, 2003).  • The Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council and the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council conduct red snapper assessments in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic every one to two years (SEDAR, 2004). Full stock recovery is projected for 2032 (SEDAR, 2004). Red snapper are managed with a minimum size limit, bag or trip limits, seasonal closures and quotas (SEDAR, 2004). However, fishery regulations have created a “derby-style fishery” that leads to periods of excess red snapper market supply and subsequently depressed prices (Baker et al., 1998). Wasteful disposal of red snapper may also occur when quotas are exceeded (Baker et al., 1998).  Management councils are currently trying to devise better methods of managing the red snapper fishery, including closer monitoring of snapper bycatch in the shrimp fishery and switching to individual transferable quotas (ITQs) (Baker et al., 1998; SEDAR, 2004). • Vermillion snapper is managed with a size limit (SAFMC, 2003; SEDAR 2005). The South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council is formulating a stock rebuilding plan for the South Atlantic and stock monitoring is improving (SAFMC, 2003).  Various states in the Gulf of Mexico also monitor vermillion snapper, but in many states catch monitoring is voluntary (SEDAR, 2005).  Monitoring of vermillion snapper bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery must also be improved to help better manage the stocks (SEDAR, 2005).  • Yellowtail snapper is regulated in the South Atlantic through a limited entry fishery and a size limit, with no set quota since the stock appears to be healthy (Muller et al., 2003) Yellowtail snapper records are incomplete for much of the Caribbean fishery, but efforts  12are being made in the USA Caribbean (i.e. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico) to improve monitoring, data collection and modelling of yellowtail stocks (SEDAR, 2005).   • Hawaiian bottomfish and groundfish management plans have been in place since 1986, and provided for the creation of refuges and the prohibition of destructive fishing techniques such as poisons or explosives (WPFMC, 2006b).  Nonetheless, management measures have not prevented further stock declines (WPFMC, 2006b).  • The United States manages ten other snapper species; their stock assessments have not yet been conducted (Stevens, 2004).  New Zealand has also taken measures to manage its snapper stocks with limited success. New Zealand snapper is managed by through quantitative assessments and individual transferable quotas (ITQs) (Annala, 1995; Dewees, 1998; NZMFa). Four of its five stocks have been assessed and the total allowable catch (TAC) of two of the stocks has been reduced – one in 1997 and one in 2005 (NZMFb). Although the ITQ system has helped to create a more stable fishery (Annala, 1995; Dewees, 1998), most New Zealand snapper stocks are still low or their status is uncertain (NZMFb).   Latin American and Caribbean fisheries agencies have limited management and enforcement capabilities due to the lack of funding (FAO, 1996).   Rockfish (Sebastes, Sebastolobus)  1.) Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure  Rockfishes’ life history characteristics make them vulnerable to fishing pressure (Parker et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002).  They are relatively slow growing, reaching maturity at 5-7 years of age (Parker et al., 2000).  Some rockfish only mature at 20 years of age (Parker et al., 2000).  They are also long-lived; nearshore species may live 30-50 years, while Northern, deepwater species may live to be over 100 years old (Cailliet et al., 2001).  For example, yelloweye rockfish typically do not mature until 20 years of age and can live to 117 years (DFO, 2000). The oldest recorded rockfish was a 205-year-old rougheye rockfish captured in Alaska (Love et al, 2002).  Unlike most bony fish, rockfish also exhibit viviparity, or internal carrying, nourishment and protection of young (Love et al., 2002). Thornyheads are an exception. They lay egg masses (Pearcy, 1962 in Parker et al., 2000). In addition, fecundity increases with size and age in some rockfish species (Love et al., 2002). Mating occurs only once a year, and brood recruitment success is highly dependent on the right combination of ocean climate variables (e.g. temperature, upwellings, currents) (Love et al., 2002). For example, bocaccio only experience substantial juvenile survival about every 20 years (Love et al., 2002). Changes in ocean climate in the 1970s may have decreased recruitment in some West Coast species (Parker et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002).   Behavioural factors may also contribute to rockfish vulnerability to fishing pressure. Some rockfish species are obligatory residents in specific habitats (Love et al., 2002). Fidelity to these sites may produce small, localized rockfish stocks (Love et al., 2002; Williams and Ralston, 2002). Most rockfish species, with the exception of thornyheads,  13also aggregate in multi-species complexes, so separating target from nontarget species is virtually impossible (Parker et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002). Live release of bycatch is also an issue for rockfish. Because rockfish have a closed air bladder that does not allow air escape during capture, like deep-water snappers, most rockfish suffer air embolism as they are brought to the surface from depth (Parker et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002).  Mortality of incidentally caught rockfish is virtually 100% (Parker et al., 2000, Love et al., 2002).    2.) Stock Status (population abundance) (Canada and US)  Many British Columbia and West Coast USA rockfish stocks are at historical lows, but Alaskan stocks are faring better (Parker et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002). Overfishing, habitat loss (mainly due to trawling-induced bottom habitat destruction), and ocean climate conditions causing low juvenile survival have contributed to population declines (Parker et al., 2000; Miller and Sydeman, 2004).   Currently, the status of most rockfish stocks is unknown (Parker et al., 2000; Roberts and Stevens, 2006). The species that have been assessed are generally commercially and recreationally important species, or species of conservation concern (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).  In Canada, most of the stock assessments that do exist for rockfish were last reviewed in 1999 or 2000 (PSARC).  In the USA, only one fourth of the more than sixty rockfish species managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) currently have stock assessments (PFMC, 2006).   In both Canada and the USA, rockfish are managed as part of a mixed species groundfish fishery that catches cod, sablefish, halibut, sole, and other groundfish (DFO, 2006; PFMC, 2004).  The fishery also catches multiple species of aggregating rockfish  (PFMC, 2004; DFO, 2006). Unfortunately, this type of multispecies fishery often catches species which are data deficient or overfished (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). For example, in B.C., Pacific Ocean Perch is only of moderate conservation concern, but it co-occurs with species  of high conservation concern such as yellowmouth and darkblotched rockfish (COSEWIC; Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Thus, the assemblage status is of high concern (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).   Since rockfish species often aggregate together, assemblages, as opposed to individual species, are commonly evaluated for status (Parker et al., 2000). Rockfish can be quite easily grouped by management zones, as well as by depth and latitudinal categories, typically designated as “slope,” “shelf” and “nearshore” or “inshore” assemblages (Williams and Ralston, 2002). See Table II for a summary of rockfish stock status.    14 Table 2. Rockfish stock conservation concern status (from Roberts and Stevens, 2006) Stock Conservation Concern USA West Coast thornyheads Low (stock healthy) All Alaska stocks  B.C. nearshore “outside” (outside Strait of Georgia, Juan de Fuca Strait, Johnstone Strait) Moderate (stock moderate) USA West Coast nearshore, except Puget Sound  All B.C. and USA West Coast continental shelf and slope, excluding thornyheads  Puget Sound  High (stock poor) B.C. nearshore “inside”   B.C. thornyhead    Albion typically obtains mixed-species British Columbia rockfish catches and sells them as such (S. Ginter, pers. comm.), and the status of these stocks is moderate-poor (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Most British Columbia rockfish stocks, except for the nearshore “outside” stock, are of high conservation concern (Table 2). Several species found off the coast of British Columbia, including silvergrey rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, and shortspine thornyhead, may be in danger of extirpation from Canada and are a high conservation concern for Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (COSEWIC, 2006). Bocaccio is already listed as threatened by COSEWIC (SARA, 2006).   Neither yelloweye nor canary rockfish, the two rockfish species that Albion explicitly lists in purchasing documents (and may sell to UBC Food Services) (Albion, unpublished), is healthy in Canada or the USA.  •  In Canada, yelloweye rockfish is managed as part of the data deficient inshore rockfish complex (DFO, 2000). It considered fully utilized in most of B.C., and over-utilized in the Straight of Georgia (DFO, 2000). In the USA, yelloweye rockfish is a shelf species that is overfished (PFMC, 2004). This species is very susceptible to recreational and fixed fishing gears, and is also caught in the commercial halibut fishery (PFMC, 2004). •  Canadian canary rockfish stocks are likely close to maximum exploitation but their exact stock status is unknown (DFO, 1999).  This species – which is often confused with yelloweye rockfish (DFO, 1999) – is overfished in the USA (PFMC, 2004). Surveys have also indicated ongoing canary rockfish population declines; in a USA survey adjacent to Canada’s primary canary rockfish fishing ground, up to 95% decline was recorded (Wallace, 2005). In addition, studies have also found a disproportionately low number of older canary rockfish females in the catches, which is concerning because older females are more fecund and contribute relatively more to population growth (PFMC, 2004).   3.) Nature of Bycatch   Rockfish comprise a considerable proportion of the bycatch in groundfish fisheries (Parker et al., 2000; DFO, 2006). Pacific groundfish fisheries in Canada and the USA have high bycatch and discard rates compared to other fisheries because of their multispecies approach, their limited ability to target certain species, and the almost 100%  15mortality rate of rockfish from air embolisms when brought up from depth (Parker et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002). In addition, current management regulations prohibit vessels targeting rockfish from surpassing their allowable catch of rockfish (Ralston, pers. comm. in Roberts and Stevens, 2006). As a result, dead and dying rockfish are discarded and wasted (Ralston, pers. comm. in Roberts and Stevens, 2006).   The amount of discarded rockfish and other bycatch varies considerably in the USA and Canadian groundfish fisheries, depending on the type of gear used. Bottom trawling, which accounts for the majority of groundfish catch, has discard rates that fall between 12-33% in the USA and Canada (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). All overfished rockfish species are found in the discards (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Discards of all species, including rockfish, in the bottom long-line groundfish fishery is approximately 30%, with the added concern of seabird bycatch (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). In contrast, the midwater trawl and hook-and-line fisheries have low bycatch discard levels (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).  Observer programs have been established to document bycatch in groundfish fisheries, presumably for management decision-making. In the USA, the West Coast Groundfish Observer program aims for at least 20% observer coverage on most boats (WCGOP, 2005). Large Alaskan fisheries vessels are required to carry observers at all times (NPFMC, 2003). A comprehensive observer programs are in place for Canada’s groundfish fisheries, and there is 100% observer coverage at-sea and on docks to tabulate catch and discard numbers for management and stock assessments (DFO, 2006).   The two species that Albion Seafoods is known to trade – yelloweye and canary rockfish – are often caught as bycatch in Canadian and USA fisheries.  As well, the fisheries targeting these two species themselves land threatened species as bycatch. In Canada, most incidentally caught yelloweye and canary rockfish are retained (Wallace, 2005; DFO, 2006). When canary rockfish are directly targeted, approximately one pound of bycatch is discarded for every five pounds of canary rockfish that is caught (Wallace, 2005).  Canary rockfish tows often catch Bocaccio, a threatened species under COSEWIC, and may thus be contributing to poor bocaccio stock recovery (Wallace, 2005). In contrast, the USA trawl fishery typically discards yelloweye rockfish bycatch (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). The USA trawl and longline fisheries also discard most canary rockfish bycatch (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Flatfish trawlers contribute a disproportionately high part of the canary rockfish catch (relative to other gears).  Other groundfish fisheries must also be managed to minimize canary rockfish bycatch (PFMC, 2004).   4.) Habitat Effects of Fishing Methods Rockfish are captured with a variety of different gear types, and each has different effects on habitats. Most Pacific rockfish are caught using bottom-trawls (76% in BC, 66% in West Coast USA, and 94% in Alaska) (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). For example, approximately 95% of Canadian canary rockfish are caught with bottom trawls, and the trawling is extensive (Wallace, 2005). Albion sales representatives reported that most rockfish purchased by Albion is caught using bottom trawling or dragging (S. Ginter, pers. comm.). Bottom trawling involves dragging nets, often with attached weights or  16other gear, along the ocean bottom (NMFS, 2005b). It damages abiotic and biotic bottom structures, such as rocky outcroppings, corals, sponges, and algae (e.g. kelp) that are prime habitat for adult rockfish and other species (Freese et al. 1996; Auster and Langton, 1999; Love et al., 2002; Wallace, 2005). Such damage had been associated with reduced species diversity and abundance (Kaiser and Spencer, 1996 in Auster and Langton, 1999).  Mid-water trawls are designed to fish in the water column, but they have been shown to make bottom contact (NMFS, 2005b) and likely still do have habitat effects. Likewise, fixed gear like bottom longlines come in contact with the ocean bottom (Auster and Langton, 1999). Hook-and-line fisheries have no or minimal bottom contact and are a low concern, but weights, lines, and hooks may still damage bottom structures (NMFS, 2005b). Ecosystem effects of the removal of large numbers of rockfish, such as contributions to stellar sea lion decline, are thought to be minimal (Sinclair and Zeppelin, 2002 in Roberts and Stevens, 2006).   5.) Management Effectiveness The USA and Canada have taken measures to manage and recover rockfish stocks, but shortcomings, such as the lack of stock assessments for most rockfish species, hinder effective management. In B.C., the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) manages rockfish stocks. Full observer coverage of the fishery and the implementation of an individual vessel quota system in 1997 appear to have decreased the bycatch discard rate in the fisheries (DFO, 2005). Rockfish Conservation Areas and the Species at Risk Act also are employed in rockfish conservation (DFO, 2006). However, no assessments - except for bocaccio - have been conducted since 1999/2000 despite declines noted over previous stock assessments (DFO). A number of rockfish species are managed actively with quotas in the trawl and hook-and-line fisheries, and as with bycatch limits in other groundfish target fisheries (e.g. halibut) (DFO, 2006). These rockfish species include Pacific Ocean Perch, redstripe, rougheye, shortraker, shortspine thornyhead, longspine thornyhead, silvergray, yellowmouth, yellowtail, widow, and a complex of quillback, copper, China, and tiger rockfish (DFO, 2006). The rest of the rockfish species caught in B.C. are managed as incidental catch (DFO, 2006). Canada has no stock rebuilding plans for these species (DFO, 2006).   The USA’s rockfish management and rebuilding plans are better defined than those in Canada. In the USA, both state and federal governments manage rockfish stocks with the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC, 2004). To deal with slope and shelf rockfish stock declines after decades of overfishing on the USA West Coast, the Council implemented quotas, trip limits, gear restrictions, depth restrictions, and large restricted fishing zones to help populations recover (PFMC, 2004). A logbook program and the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program are starting to help enforce catch limits, but better bycatch monitoring is still needed (PFMC, 2004). The USA has rebuilding plans with specific timelines for seven of its rockfish species (PFMC, 2004; PFMC, 2006).  Management measures combined with better ocean recruitment conditions have contributed to some recovery in rockfish populations, but the recovery trajectory for most rockfish stocks is projected to take up to three decades (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). A lack of assessments for over two-thirds of rockfish species is a major impediment to effective management (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Nearshore rockfish management,  17conducted mainly at the state level, is considered to have been more effective; no nearshore populations are listed as depleted (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).   The Alaskan fishery has taken a similar approach to the rest of the USA and B.C. in rockfish management, but seemingly with more success. Alaska uses TACs, essential fish habitat protection areas, logbook and observer programs, and frequent TAC re-assessments to manage rockfish stocks (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Alaskan stocks are generally believed to be stronger than elsewhere in the USA or in B.C. (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).  Most commercially valuable species are below the overfishing threshold (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Because stocks are managed collectively over broad areas, however, concern exists over whether data aggregation may mask the localized depletion of certain species or populations (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).   Some initiatives have been taken to manage yelloweye and canary rockfish, the two species that Albion seafoods is known to carry. In Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages the two species with a total allowable catch, trip limits, and individual vessel quotas in the hook and line and trawl fisheries (DFO, 2006). The USA has defined recovery plans for these two species; the target date for yelloweye stocks rebuilding is 2058, and for canary rockfish it is 2074 (PFMC, 2004). A Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area has also been established off the Washington Coast (PFMC, 2004).   Comment on Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program Recommendations: USA West Coast Black Rockfish and Alaskan Jig-Caught Rockfish   The Monterey Bay Aquarium includes two types of rockfish in its West Coast Seafood Pacific Rockfish Report Best Choices list: black rockfish and Alaska jig-caught rockfish.  These two purchasing recommendations may not be ideal for campus food service providers at UBC, despite the low volume of rockfish purchased compared to other types of seafood, for three main reasons.   (1) The status of rockfish in Canada, the main source for Albion’s rockfish purchases (S. Ginter, pers. comm.) is questionable. We do not know the stock status of black rockfish in Canada but available reports indicate it is likely fully utilized or overutilized (DFO, 2000; DFO, 2006). In contrast, the USA West Coast population (the basis for the MBA recommendation) is divided into two stocks and neither is overfished nor experiencing overfishing (Wallace et al., 1999 in Roberts and Stevens, 2006; Ralston and Dick, 2003), although the Northern stock projected to decrease over the long-term (Wallace et al., 1999 in Roberts and Stevens, 2006). It might be challenging for UBC to obtain a reliable source of USA West Coast black rockfish, which is mainly caught in the recreational fishery (Raltson and Dick, 2003). (2) It is very difficult to target black rockfish while avoiding incidental catch of other, possibly threatened species of rockfish. Even though black rockfish are usually caught with hook-and-line gear in the commercial fishery (DFO, 2000; Raltson and Dick, 2003; Roberts and Stevens, 2006), it may be difficult to land them without significant bycatch of other threatened or unassessed species.  They aggregate with other rockfish species,  18including widow, (Love et al., 2002), blue (Mason, 1998), dusky, and yellowtail rockfish (Johnson et al., 2003). Widow rockfish are considered overfished by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC, 2004).  Blue rockfish have experienced declines in abundance, length and weight (Mason, 1998).  (3) Sourcing Alaska jig-caught rockfish may be a problem (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).  The Alaska jig fisheries are preferable to more common trawl or longline fisheries for rockfish because of their comparatively minimal effects on bottom habitat (NMFS, 2005b). Jig fishing also has low bycatch discard rates (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Sourcing may, however, be a difficulty given that that hook-and-line fisheries comprise only 4% of Alaska’s fisheries that catch rockfish, with the sub-category of jig fisheries comprising an even smaller percentage (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Groundfish are not fished commercially using jigs on the USA West Coast (NOAA, 2007). B.C. does not have a directed jig fishery for rockfish, so jig-caught rockfish are only obtained in B.C. as bycatch in lingcod and dogfish target fisheries (DFO, 2006).    UBC Purchasing Recommendation   In light of the current information on snapper and rockfish labelling in Canada and the USA, the ecological impacts of snapper and rockfish harvesting, and the minimal information on UBC’s sourcing of snapper and rockfish products, I advise that UBC does not purchase snapper and rockfish products. Currently, too much overlap exists in labelling for assurance in species and catch method of snapper and rockfish products. Moreover, rockfish natural behaviour and catch methods make sustainable sourcing of these fish very difficult.   Snappers are not recommended seafood choices. They are long-lived and quite susceptible to fishing pressure. Internationally, many stocks are overfished, declining or data deficient. In many source countries, too, snappers may be fished with destructive fishing methods and their fisheries may be poorly managed. Information on snapper sources that supply Canada is limited, but the status of some of the most popular snapper species indicates that these species should be Avoided.  Rockfish are not an advisable seafood choice for a number of reasons. Rockfish life history characteristics make them heavily susceptible to fishing pressure. Stock data on Pacific rockfish are limited, and most of those for which we do have data are declining or overfished. The main catch method, bottom-trawling, has high bycatch rates and considerable impact on the ocean environment. As stated by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, “trawl-caught rockfish account for over 80% of US West Coast landings and over 90% of B.C. and Alaskan landings,” and consumers should avoid rockfish unless they know the exact species and gear (Roberts and Stevens, 2006, p. 93). Even then, rockfishes’ tendency to aggregate with other rockfish and groundfish species still presents a problem with bycatch. The negative environmental impacts of bottom-trawling, high bycatch rates, and lack of species identification and separation at both the fishery/supplier levels and regulatory levels create extreme difficulty for anyone attempting to find rockfish that were sustainably caught.   19 Yelloweye and canary rockfishes are especially poor seafood choices. They are overfished in the USA and data deficient (but likely overutilized or maximally utilized) in Canada. They also have long stock recovery time projections. Moreover, yelloweye rockfish is a late-maturing long-lived species. Canary rockfish bottom trawls are extensive and associated with the catch of threatened bocaccio stocks. Purchasing yelloweye and canary rockfishes, especially from trawl-fisheries, is not recommended.   Alternative fish products should be used until snapper and rockfish fisheries become more environmentally sound. The Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program (http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp) lists some snapper and rockfish products as Intermediate Choices; in striving to promote a responsible campus seafood purchasing system, however, I advise that the UBC food service providers strive to only use Best Choice items. This recommendation may be revisited in the future. If bottom trawling for these species was significantly reduced or eliminated, stock status data improved, and stocks were rebuilt, they could become a more favourable seafood option. Until that time, however, more ecologically sustainable fish alternatives could be used. As a substitute for snapper and rockfish products, the Monterey Bay Aquarium endorses the following Best Choices: Alaska wild salmon, catfish (USA farmed), Pacific halibut, sablefish (BC and Alaska), striped bass (farmed), Alaska pollock, USA farmed rainbow trout, tilapia (farmed), and white sea bass. Continuing relationships and discussions with seafood suppliers such as Albion is also important in sourcing more sustainable seafood products, encouraging accurate product labelling, and supporting changes that promote ecological sustainability in fisheries.    Acknowledgements  This purchasing evaluation would not have been possible without the generous support from the Fisher Scientific Fund. A warm thanks to all of the UBC Sustainable Seafood Project Partners at the UBC Fisheries Centre, Project Seahorse, UBC Sustainability Office, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, UBC Food Services, AMS Food Services, Green College, and St. John’s College. Dr. Amanda Vincent, Director of Project Seahorse, was immensely patient and helpful in editing this document. Thank you as well to Albion for its generous cooperation and support to this project, as industry is an important part of creating sustainable seafood purchasing practices. Lee Donnelly and Sue Ginter at Albion were especially generous in donating their time to answer my questions. Sian Morgan and Scott Wallace of Sustainable Seafood Canada, and Mike McDermid of the Vancouver Aquarium OceanWise Program also aided me by providing the project with rockfish information.                                                     20                                                                                                                                   References   Albion Fisheries Limited. Accessed November 1, 2006 from http://www.albion.bc.ca/  Albion Fisheries Limited. Ocean Watch Product Sheet (unpublished product information).  Anderson, W.D. Jr. 1987. Systematics of the Fishes of the Family Lutjanidae (Perciformes: Percoidei), the Snappers. In: Polovina, J.J. and Ralston, S., eds. Tropical Snappers and Groupers. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. p. 1-31.  Andruczyk, M. 2006. Personal communication. August 24, 2006.   Annala, J.H. 1995. New Zealand’s ITQ system: have the first eight years been a success of a failure? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 6(1): 43-62.   Auster, P.J. and Langton, R.W. 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22:150-187.   Baker, M.S.J, Cox, F.G. and Emerson, P.M. 1998. Managing the Gulf of Mexico Commercial Red Snapper Fishery. Presented to the Committee to Review Individual Fishing Quotas Ocean Studies Board, National Research Council (NRC): 28pp. New Orleans, LA. Accessed November 1, 2006 from http://www.edf.org/documents/550_REdSnapper.PDF  Barnette, M. 2001. A review of the fishing gear utilized within the Southeast Region and their potential impacts on essential fish habitat. NMFS-SEFSC-449. NOAA Technical Memorandum: 62pp.  Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/pdf/efh/literature/Barnette_gear.pdf  BOI (Blue Ocean Institute). 2004. Snappers. Accessed July 26, 2006 from http://www.blueocean.org/Seafood/species/30.html  Bryant, D., Burke, L., McManus, J., and Spalding, M. (and contributing authors). 1998.  Reefs at Risk - A Map-Based Indicator of Threats to the World’ s Coral Reefs. World Resources Institute (WRI), International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management  (ICLARM), World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://pdf.wri.org/reefs.pdf   Cailliet, G., Andrews, A.H., Burton, E.J., Watters, D.L., Kline, D.E., and Ferry-Graham. 2001. Age determination and validation studies of marine fishes: do deep-dwellers live longer? Experimental Gerontology 36: 739-764.   CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency). 2002. List of Canadian Acceptable Common Names for Fish and Seafood. Accessed July 26, 2006 from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/fispoi/fishlist/canadahomee.shtml   21CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency). 2003. 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising. Accessed July 27, 2006 from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/toce.shtml   COSEWIC (Committee of the Status of Endangered Animals in Canada). 2006. The COSEWIC Candidate List. Accessed August 18, 2006 from http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct3/sct3_1_e.cfm#4  Dewees, C.M. 1998. Effects of Individual Quota Systems on New Zealand and British Columbia Fisheries. Ecological Applications, 8(1): S133-S138.   DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). Undated. Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee (PSARC) - Stock Status Reports and Science Advisory Reports: Groundfish. Accessed August 26, 2006 from http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/psarc/SSRs/groundfish_ssrs_e.htm DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1999. Canary Rockfish.  DFO Science Stock Status Report A6-08 (1999).   DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2000. Inshore Rockfish.  DFO Science Stock Status Report A6-15 (2000).   DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2006. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2006. Accessed July 24, 2006 from  http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/MPLANS/plans06/Groundfish06-07/Fnl%2006_07%20Groundfish%20IFMP.pdf  DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) Statistical Services. 2006. Trade – World Imports.  Accessed July 24, 2006 from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/Statistics/trade/world_trade/import_data/index_e.htm  Dhazn, G., Griffin, W.L., and Ozuna, T. Jr. 2001. A bioeconomic assessment of Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Management Policies. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130: 117-129.   Diamond, S.L. 2004. Bycatch quotas in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery: can they work? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 14: 207–237.   Donnelly, L. 2006. Personal communication. August 10, 2006.   FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization). 1996. Fisheries and Aquaculture in Latin America and the Caribbean: Situation and Outlook in 1996. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 921 FIPP/C921. Accessed August 21, 2006 from http://fao.org/fi/publ/circular/c921/c921-1.asp  Fischer, A.J., Baker M.S. Jr., and Wilson, C.A. 2004. Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) demographic structure in the northern Gulf of Mexico based on spatial patterns in growth rates and morphometrics. Fishery Bulletin, 102 (4): 593–603.  Freese, L., Auster, P.J., Heifetz, J., and Wing, B.L. 1996. Effect of trawling on seafloor habitat and associated invertebrate taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 182: 119-126.    22Geraghty, S. 2006. Personal Communication. August 2, 2006.   Ginter, S. 2006. Personal communication. November 1, 2006.   Grimes, C.B. 1987. Reproductive Biology of the Lutjanidae: A Review. In: Polovina, J.J. and Ralston, S., eds. Tropical Snappers and Groupers. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. p. 239-294.  Haight, W.R. 2003. Snappers of Hawaii: Ruby snapper (onaga) Seafood Watch Report. Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium. Accessed August 3, 2006 from http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_HIOnagaReport.pdf  Haight, W.R. 2003. Snappers of Hawaii: Gray Snapper (uku) Seafood Watch Report. Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium. Accessed August 3, 2006 from http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_HIGraySnapperReport.pdf  Haight, W.R. 2003. Snappers of Hawaii: Pink Snapper (opakapaka) Seafood Watch Report. Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium. Accessed August 3, 2006 from http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_HIPakaReport.pdf  Haight, W.R. 2003. Snappers of Hawaii: Red snapper (ehu) Seafood Watch Report. Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium. Accessed August 3, 2006 from http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_HIEhuReport.pdf  Harrington, J.M., Myers, R.A., Rosenberg, A.A. 2005. Wasted fisheries resources: discarded by-catch in the USA. Fish and Fisheries 6: 350-361.   Hendrickson, H.M. and Griffin, W.L. 1993. An Analysis of Management Policies for Reducing Shrimp By-Catch in the Gulf of Mexico. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13: 686–697.       Heyman, W.D., Kjerfve, B., Graham, R.T., Rhodes, K.L., and Garbut, L. 2005. Spawning aggregations of Lutjanus cyanopterus (Cuvier) on the Belize Barrier Reef over a 6-year period. Journal of Fish Biology 67 (1): 83-101.                          Hoese, H.D. and Moore, R.H. 1998. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M University Press.   Jackson, M.W., Nieland, D.L., and Cowan, J.H. 2006. Diel spawning periodicity of red snapper Lutjanus campechanus in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Fish Biology 68(3): 695-706.   Johnson, S.W., Murphy, M.L, and Csepp, D.J. 2003. Distribution, habitat, and behavior of rockfishes,  Sebastes spp., in nearshore waters of southeastern Alaska: observations from a remotely operated vehicle. Environmental Biology of Fishes 66: 259-270.   Magera, A. 2006. Sustainable Seafood Purchasing at the University of British Columbia – What’s the catch?  Accessed July 29, 2006 from http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/seeds.html   23Marte, C.L. 2003. Larviculture of marine species in Southeast Asia: current research and industry prospects. Aquaculture 227, 1-4: 293-304.    Mason, J.E. 1998. Declining rockfish lengths in Monterey Bay, California, Recreational Fishery, 1959-94.  Marine Fisheries Review, 60: 15-28.  Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/mfr6033.pdf   Millers, A.K. and Sydeman, W.J. 2004.  Rockfish response to low-frequency ocean climate change as revealed by the diet of a marine bird over multiple time scales. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 281: 207-216.   Muller, R.G., Murphy, M.D., de Silva, J., and Barbieri, L.R. 2003. SEDAR - A stock assessment of yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus, in the  Southeast United States. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR3_SAR1_Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT  New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd.  Snapper. Accessed November 30, 2006 from http://www.seafood.co.nz/business/fishaqua/species/snapper.asp  NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Pacific Islands Region Bycatch Reduction                Implementation Plan FY04-FY05. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/PIRfinal_bycatchplanII.pdf  NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Current Fisheries Statistics No. 2005-2 Imports and Exports of Fishery Products Annual Summary 2005. Accessed August 18, 2006 from http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/trade/documents/TRADE2005.pdf  NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Final Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Environmental Impact Statement. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/NEPA-Documents/EFH-Final-EIS.cfm  NOAA Office of Science and Technology. U.S. Foreign Trade. Accessed August 16, 2006 from http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/trade/index.html  NOAA Office of Science and Technology. Annual Commercial Landings Statistics. Accessed October 31, 2006 from  http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html  NOAA. 2003. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Vermillion Snapper; Notification of an Overfished Fishery. Federal Register 68 (214): 62542-43. Accessed October 31, 2006 from http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/register/2003/Nov/05/62542A.pdf  NOAA. 2007. Pacific Coast Groundfish Limited Entry Permits. Accessed January 4, 2007 from http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Permits/Limited-Entry-Permits.cfm  North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2003. Current Issues – Observer Program. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/observer/observer.htm   24NZMF (New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries). Characteristics of the Fishing Sectors – Fishing Industry and Aquaculture. 2006. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Publications/Ministerial+Briefings/Annex+1+-+Fisheries+Management+in+New+Zealand/Characteristics+of+the+fishing+sectors.htm  NZMF (New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries). Stock Status – Snapper. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/SOF/StockStatus.htm?DataDomain=Species&DataClass=SNA  NZMF (New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries). 2006. Fisheries Management in New Zealand. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Publications/Ministerial+Briefings/Annex+1+-+Fisheries+Management+in+New+Zealand/Fisheries+management+in+New+Zealand.htm?WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished  Parker, S.J., Berkeley, S.A., Golden, J.T., Gunderson, D.R., Heifetz, J., Hixon, M.A., Larson, R., Leaman, B.M., Love, M.S., Musick, J.A., O'Connell, V.M., Ralston, S., Weeks, H.J., Yoklavich, M.M. 2000. Management of Pacific Rockfish. Fisheries, 25(3): 22-30.  PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2004. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Accessed July 24, 2006 from http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/gffmp/fmpthru17.pdf  PFMC (Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 2006.  Fishery Management – Groundfish Assessments. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/gfstocks.html  Porch, C.E. and Cass-Callay, S.L. 2001. Status Of The Vermillion Snapper Fishery  In The Gulf of Mexico: Assessment 5.0. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S9RD13_GOMVS2001.pdf?id=DOCUMENT  PSARC (Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee). Stock Status Reports and Science Advisory Reports – Groundfish.  Accessed November 1, 2006 from http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/psarc/SSRs/groundfish_ssrs_e.htm  Ralston, S. 1987. Mortality Rates of Snappers and Groupers. In: Polovina, J.J. and Ralston, S., eds. Tropical Snappers and Groupers. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. p. 375-404.  Ralston, S. and Dick, E.J. 2003 (National Marine Fisheries Service Report). The Status of Black Rockfish (Sebastes melanops) off Oregon and Northern California in 2003. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://santacruz.nmfs.noaa.gov/files/pubs/00655.pdf  Randolph, S. 2006. Personal communication. August 18, 2006.   RFBPSNZ (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand). 2005. Best Fish Guide – Snapper. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/bestfishguide/species/snapper.asp     25Roberts, S. and Stevens, M.M. 2006. Rockfishes of the genera Sebastes and Sebastolobus – West Coast Region Seafood Watch Report. Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium. http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_PacificRockfishReport.pdf  SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2003. SEDAR - Complete Assessment and Review Report of South Atlantic Vermillion Snapper. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR2_SAR2_VScomplete2.pdf?id=DOCUMENT  SARA (Species at Rick Act) Public Registry. 2006. Species Assessment – Bocaccio. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=740  Seafood Business. October 2000. October 2000 Buyer’s Guide, Red Snapper – Supply is no problem with this fish family, as long as you don’t insist on the real McCoy. Accessed July 28, 2006 from http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/archives/searchframe.asp?qu= october%202000&FreeText=off&scope=00oct  SEDAR (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review). 2004. SEDAR- Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S7DW_FINALREPORT.pdf?id=DOCUMENT  SEDAR (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review). 2005. SEDAR- Stock Assessment Report 3Gulf of Mexico Vermilion Snapper. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S9SAR3%20VS%20full%202.pdf?id=DOCUMENT  SEDAR (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review). 2005. SEDAR- Stock Assessment Report 1 Caribbean Yellowtail Snapper. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S8SAR1_CaribYTSfinal.pdf?id=DOCUMENT  Silvestre, G.T., L.R. Garces, I. Stobutzki, M. Ahmed, R.A.V. Santos, C.Z. Luna and W. Zhou.  2003. South and South-East Asian coastal fisheries: Their status and directions for improved management: conference synopsis and recommendations, p. 1 - 40. In G. Silvestre, L. Garces, I. Stobutzki, M. Ahmed, R.A. Valmonte-Santos, C. Luna, L. Lachica-Aliño, P. Munro, V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 67, 1 120 p. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.worldfishcenter.org/trawl/publications/assessment/PROCEEDINGS.ASP  Stevens, M.M. 2004. Commercially Important Gulf of Mexico/South Atlantic Snappers Seafood Watch Report. Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium. Accessed July 28, 2006 from http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_GulfofMexicoSnapperReport.pdf  Szedlmayer, S.T., and Schroepfer, R.L. 2005. Long-term residence of red snapper on artificial reefs in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134 (2): 315-325.  Tay, C. 2006. Personal communication. July 20, 2006.    26Thompson, M., Sylvia, G., and Morrissy, M.T. 2005. Seafood Traceability in the United States: Current Trends, System Design and Potential Applications. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 1, 1-7.   USFDA (U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition). 2002. Seafood List. Accessed July 26, 2006 from http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/seaintro.html   Wallace, S. 2005. Canary Rockfish – Pacific Canada SeaChoice Seafood Assessment. Accessed September 27, 2006 from http://www.seachoice.org/files/assessment/report/1/Red_CanaryRockfish_SeaChoice.pdf  WCGOP (West Coast Groundfish Observer Program). 2005. Northwest Fisheries Science Center West Coast Groundfish Observer Program Limited-Entry Trawl Report. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observer/datareport/trawl/datareportsep2005.cfm  Williams, E.H. and Ralston, S. 2002. Distribution and co-occurrence of rockfishes (family: Sebastidae) over trawlable shelf and slope habitats of California and southern Oregon. Fisheries Bulletin 100: 836–855.   Workman, I., Shah, A., Foster, D., and Hataway, B. 2002. Habitat preferences and site fidelity of juvenile red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus). ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: S43-S50 Suppl.   WPFMC (Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 2006. Amendment to the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the Hawaii Archipelago.  Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.wpcouncil.org/bottomfish/Documents/DraftAmendmentto91SSCand131CM.pdf   WPFMC (Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 2006. Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region – 2005 Annual Report. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.wpcouncil.org/Bottomfish/Documents/AnnualReports/2005/2005%20Bottomfish%20Annual%20Report/pdf   WPFMC (Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 2006. Information and Management Alternatives Regarding Overfishing in the Hawaii Bottomfish Fishery. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.wpcouncil.org/bottomfish/Documents/MaterialforPubliMeetings-2006-Jan4FinalDraft.pdf  27APPENDIX  Table III. a. CFIA Rockfish and Snapper Names (CFIA, 2002) Common/Market  Latin Name Other Market/Common Names  Name   (not already indicated on list) Snapper Sebastes ruberrimus Yelloweye rockfish   Lutjanus campechanus Red snapper   Lutjanus johnii John's snapper   Lutjanus sanguineus Blood snapper   Lutjanus sebae Emperor red snapper, Emperor snapper   Lutjanus synagris Lane snapper 7 Lutjanus vivanus Silk snapper       Pacific Snapper Sebastes borealis Shortraker rockfish   Sebastes brevispinis Silvergray rockfish   Sebastes caurinus Copper rockfish   Sebastes crameri Darkblotched rockfish   Sebastes entomelas Widow rockfish   Sebastes flavidus Yellowtail rockfish   Sebastes maliger Quillback rockfish   Sebastes paucispinis Bocaccio rockfish   Sebastes pinniger Canary rockfish   Sebastolobus alascanus Shortspined thornyhead rockfish, Idiotfish   Sebatolobus altivelis Longspine thornyhead rockfish, Idiotfish 12 Lutjanus sanguineus Blood snapper       Pacific Red Snapper Sebastes reedi Yellowmouth rockfish 2 Sebastes ruberrimus Yelloweye rockfish       Red Snapper Sebastes ruberrimus Yelloweye rockfish 2 Lutjanus campechanus Red snapper                 28Common/Market  Latin Name Other Market/Common Names  Name   Rockfish Sebastes alutus Pacific Ocean perch   Sebastes borealis Shortraker rockfish   Sebastes brevispinis Silvergray rockfish   Sebastes caurinus Copper rockfish   Sebastes crameri Darkblotched rockfish   Sebastes entomelas Widow rockfish   Sebastes flavidus Yellowtail rockfish   Sebastes maliger Quillback rockfish   Sebastes paucispinis Bocaccio rockfish   Sebastes pinniger Canary rockfish   Sebastes proriger Redstripe rockfish   Sebastes reedi Yellowmouth rockfish   Sebastes rosaceus Rosy rockfish   Sebastes ruberrimus Yelloweye rockfish   Sebastolobus alascanus Shortspined thornyhead rockfish, Idiotfish 16 Sebastolobus altivelis Longspine thornyhead rockfish, Idiotfish       Rosefish Sebastes alutus Pacific Ocean perch   Sebastes borealis Shortraker rockfish   Sebastes fasciatus Acadian redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish   Sebastes marinus Golden redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish   Sebastes mentella Beaked redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish   Sebastes reedi Yellowmouth rockfish   Sebastes rosaceus Rosy rockfish   Sebastes ruberrimus Yelloweye rockfish   Sebastolobus alascanus Shortspined thornyhead rockfish, Idiotfish 10 Sebastolobus altivelis Longspine thornyhead rockfish, Idiotfish                 29Common/Market  Latin Name Other Market/Common Names  Name   Redfish Sebastes alutus Pacific Ocean perch   Sebastes fasciatus Acadian redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish   Sebastes marinus Golden redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish 4 Sebastes mentella Beaked redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish  Ocean Perch Sebastes alutus Pacific Ocean perch   Sebastes capensis Atlantic Ocean perch, Cape Ocean perch, South African Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish   Sebastes fasciatus Acadian redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish   Sebastes marinus Golden redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish 5 Sebastes mentella Beaked redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish                      30 Table III. b.  USFDA Rockfish and Snapper Names (USFDA, 2002)     Market Name Common Name Scientific Name Vernacular Names Snapper Black snapper Apsilus dentatus Arnillo   Ruby snapper Etelis carbunculus  Queen snapper, Ehu, Onaga, Ula'ula Kuae, Palu   Yellowstripe snapper Etelis coruscans Ruby snapper   Queen snapper Etelis oculatus Bleareyed snapper, Night snapper, Cachucho   Mutton snapper Lutjanus analis  Muttonfish, Pargo, Pargo Criollo   Mullet snapper Lutjanus aratus     Amarillo snapper Lutjanus argentiventris     Twinspot snapper Lutjanus bohar Twospot snapper, Whitespot snapper, Mu, Tagafi, Twospot red snapper   Blackfin snapper Lutjanus buccanella  Boucanello, Red snapper   Red Snapper Lutjanus campechanus Caribbean red snapper, Mexican red snapper   Colorado snapper Lutjanus colorado Huachinango, Red snapper, Pargo Colorado   Cubera snapper Lutjanus cyanopterus Cuban snapper, cubera   Blacktail snapper Lutjanus fulvus Flame colored snapper   Humpback Snapper  Lutjanus gibbus  Paddletail, Hunched snapper, Boggel-snapper, Humpback red snapper, Mala'I, Red Snapper   Gray snapper Lutjanus griseus Mangrove snapper, Lawyer, Cabellerote, Pargo Prieto   Spotted Rose snapper Lutjanus guttatus Mutton Snapper, Flamenco, Pargo Chibato   Golden snapper Lutjanus inermis      Dog snapper Lutjanus jocu    John's snapper Lutjanus johnii Blackspot snapper, Plainscaled snapper, Thailand snapper, Spotted Scale Seapearch   Rufous snapper Lutjanus jordani Huachinango, Red snapper, Jordan's snapper   Bluestriped snapper Lutjanus kasmira Bluebanded snapper, Ta'ape, Savani, Funai, Yellow and blue seaperch   Gold-striped snapper Lutjanus lineolatus     Mahogany snapper Lutjanus mahogoni Ojanco   Malabar snapper Lutjanus malabaricus Scarlet seaperch, Red bream, Malabar Red snapper, Malabar Blood snapper   Onespot snapper Lutjanus monostigma  Kakaka, Red snapper, Blackspot Mayamaya    31Market Name Common Name Scientific Name Vernacular Names  Snapper (continued) Pacific snapper Lutjanus peru Pacific red snapper   Caribbean red snapper Lutjanus purpureus Southern red snapper   Five-lined snapper Lutjanus quinquelineatus Blue-banded seaperch   Blubberlip snapper Lutjanus rivulatus Speckled snapper   Blood snapper Lutjanus sanguineus Scarlet snapper, Bloodred snapper, Saddletailed seaperch, Red bream, Red jaw, Humphead snapper, Hamrah   Emperor snapper Lutjanus sebae Red emperor   Lane snapper Lutjanus synagris Spot snapper, Redtail snapper, Silk snapper   Silk snapper Lutjanus vivanus  West Indian snapper, Day snapper, Longfin snapper   Midnight snapper Macolor macularis     Black and white snapper Macolor niger     Yellowtail snapper Ocyurys chrysurus     Wenchman Pristipomoides aquilonaris     Crimson snapper Pristipomoides filamentosus     Cardinal snapper Pristipomoides macrophthalmus     Vermillion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens Beeliner, Clubhead snapper, Night snapper 42 Sailfin snapper Symphorichthys spilurus Blue and gold striped snapper     Rockfish Rougheye rockfish Sebastes aleutianus     Kelp rockfish Sebastes atrovirens     Brown rockfish Sebastes auriculatus     Aurora rockfish Sebastes aurora     Redbanded rockfish Sebastes babcocki     Shortraker rockfish Sebastes borealis     Silvergray rockfish Sebastes brevispinis     Red rockfish Sebastes cardinalis  Red rockcod   Gopher rockfish Sebastes carnatus     Copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus     Greenspotted rockfish Sebastes chlorostictus     Black and yellow rockfish Sebastes chrysomelas     Dusky rockfish Sebastes ciliatus     Starry rockfish Sebastes constellatus Spotted rockfish   Darkblotched rockfish Sebastes crameri Blackmouth rockfish  32Market Name Common Name Scientific Name Vernacular Names  Rockfish (continued) Calico rockfish Sebastes dalli      Splitnose rockfish, Lobejawed rockfish Sebastes diploproa    Greenstripe rockfish Sebastes elongatus    Puget Sound rockfish Sebastes emphaeus    Swordspine rockfish Sebastes ensifer     Widow rockfish Sebastes entomelas Pacific Red snapper   Pink rockfish Sebastes eos     Yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flavidus Pacific Red snapper   Bronzespotted rockfish Sebastes gilli     Chilipepper  Sebastes goodei Pacific Red snapper   Rosethorn rockfish Sebastes helvomaculatus Swordspine, Flyfish   Squarespot rockfish Sebastes hopskinsi     Shortbelly rockfish Sebastes jordani Pacific Red snapper   Freckled rockfish Sebastes lentiginosus     Cowcod Sebastes levis Pacific Red snapper   Mexican rockfish Sebastes macdonaldi Coral red rockfish   Quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger Yellowback rockcod, Brown rockcod, Orangespot rockcod   Black rockfish Sebastes melanops Pacific Red snapper   Semaphore rockfish Sebastes melanosema     Blackgill rockfish Sebastes melanostomus     Vermillion rockfish Sebastes miniatus Pacific Red snapper   Blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus Black rockfish, Rockcod, Priestfish   China rockfish Sebastes nebulosus Yellowspotted rockcod   Tiger rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus Blackbanned rockcod   Speckled rockfish Sebastes ovalis Pacific Red snapper   Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Pacific Red snapper   Chameleon rockfish Sebastes phillipsi     Canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger Pacific Red snapper   Northern rockfish Sebastes polyspinis Multispined bass   Redstripe rockfish Sebastes proriger     Grass rockfish Sebastes rastrelliger     Yellowmouth rockfish Sebastes reedi    33Market Name Common Name Scientific Name Vernacular Names  Rockfish (continued) Rosy rockfish Sebastes rosaceus Corsair   Greenblotched rockfish Sebastes rosenblatti    Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Pacific Red Snapper, Rasphead rockfish   Flag rockfish Sebastes rubrivinctus Spanish flag  Dwarf-red rockfish Sebastes rufianius     Bank rockfish Sebastes rufus Pacific Red snapper   Stripetail rockfish Sebastes saxicola Olivebacked rockfish   Halfbanded rockfish Sebastes semicinctus     Olive rockfish Sebastes serranoides Pacific Red snapper    Treefish Sebastes serriceps     Picknose rockfish Sebastes simulator     Honeycomb Rockfish Sebastes umbrosus     Pygmy Rockfish Sebastes wilsoni Wilson's rockfish   Sharpshin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus Bigeyed rockfish   Rockfish Helicolenus papillosus Scarpee, Jock Stewart, Seaperch 63 Red rockfish Scorpaena cardinalis Red Rock cod         Ocean Perch Golden redfish Sebastes norvegicus Redfish, Rosefish, Snapper                            The University of British Columbia Sustainable Seafood Project – Phase II:    An Assessment of the Sustainability of   Snapper and Rockfish  Purchasing at UBC               Anna Magera UBC Seafood Project Co-ordinator  December 2006  Supervisor: Dr. Amanda Vincent Fisheries Centre, UBC        2    Table of Contents                      Page  Abstract          3  Introduction           4  “Snapper” Purchasing at UBC       4  Snapper and Rockfish Definitions Snapper         5 Rockfish         5  Snapper and Rockfish Labelling       6  Assumptions and Caveats        8  Ecological Issues Associated with Snapper and Rockfish    8  Snapper 1.) Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure      9 2.) Stock Status (population abundance) (Canada and US)   9 3.) Nature of Bycatch       10 4.) Habitat Effects of Fishing Methods     11 5.) Management Effectiveness      11  Rockfish 1.) Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure     12 2.) Stock Status (population abundance) (Canada and US)  13 3.) Nature of Bycatch       14 4.) Habitat Effects of Fishing Methods     15 5.) Management Effectiveness      16  Comment on MBA Recommendation: USA West Coast Black   17 Rockfish and Alaskan Jig-caught Rockfish  Purchasing Recommendation for UBC     18  Acknowledgements        19  Refrences         20  3 Appendix – CFIA and FDA Snapper and Rockfish Names Chart  27   Rockfish and Snapper Purchasing Recommendations for UBC   Abstract  The aim of this report is to examine the labelling and ecological sustainability issues pertaining to snapper and rockfish and provide purchasing recommendations for the University of British Columbia food service providers. Snapper is the common name for a broad grouping of tropical and sub-tropical fish species.  On the west coast of North America, however, the term “snapper” may also be used as a market name for rockfish. The UBC project partner group expressed concern over the lack of sourcing information and the interchangeability of market names for snapper and rockfish products. After reviewing labelling regulations, I conclude that Canadian and American seafood labelling regulations and enforcement – which vary by country – do not adequately facilitate the correct identification of snapper and rockfish products.  Despite Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition (USFDA) regulations, snapper and rockfish products are often marketed without prescribed market and common names. Inaccuracy in labelling can cause food inspectors and consumers to confuse unsustainable seafood products with more sustainable choices. Currently, too much overlap exists in labelling for assurance in product species and catch method.   In light of the current information on snapper and rockfish labelling in Canada and the USA, the ecological impacts of snapper and rockfish harvesting, and the minimal information on UBC’s sourcing of snapper and rockfish products, I advise that UBC does not purchase (1) snapper and/or (2) rockfish products. Ecological concerns associated with snapper and rockfish were examined according to the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program criteria for determining seafood sustainability, with the use of additional sources. (1) Snappers are not recommended seafood choices. They are long-lived and quite susceptible to fishing pressure. Most world stocks are overfished, declining or data deficient. In many source countries, snappers may also be fished with destructive fishing methods and their fisheries may be poorly managed. (2) Rockfish are also not an advisable seafood choice. Rockfish life history characteristics make them heavily susceptible to fishing pressure. Pacific rockfish stock data are limited, and most stocks with data are declining or overfished. The main catch method, bottom trawling, has high bycatch rates and considerable impact on the ocean environment. Consumers should avoid rockfish unless they know the exact species and gear. Even then, rockfishes’ tendency to aggregate with other rockfish and groundfish species still presents the problem of bycatch. The negative environmental impacts of bottom-trawling, high bycatch rates, and lack of species identification and separation at both the fishery/supplier levels and regulatory levels create extreme difficulty for anyone attempting to choose sustainable rockfish selections. I recommend that the UBC food service providers use  4Best Choice alternatives to rockfish. The food service providers may wish to revisit this snapper and rockfish purchasing recommendation in the future if snapper and rockfish population levels increase, bycatch decreases, and fishing methods become less destructive.   Introduction  The aim of this report is to examine the labelling and ecological sustainability issues pertaining to snapper and rockfish and to generate purchasing recommendations for these fish for the University of British Columbia food service providers. Phase I of the UBC Sustainable Seafood Project evaluated AMS Food and Beverage and UBC Food Services’ seafood purchasing practices (Magera, 2006). As a result of this initial investigation, the UBC project partner group expressed concern over the lack of sourcing information and the interchangeability of market names for snapper and rockfish products (Magera, 2006).  We here set out to resolve this issue.  Generalized labelling or mislabelling of products is a conservation issue if it affects species of conservation concern. The seafood industry has a recognised problem with accuracy in labelling and providing information on seafood sourcing (Thompson et al., 2005).  Attempts to achieve clear and accurate seafood labelling can be derailed by different regional labelling requirements (Thompson et al., 2005) and by the use of common or market names that serve as blanket terms for vast arrays of species (CFIA, 2002; USFDA, 2002). Inaccuracy in labelling can cause food inspectors and consumers to confuse unsustainable seafood products with more sustainable choices.   This report uses the best available information to recommend changes in UBC food service providers’ snapper and rockfish purchasing practices.  Snapper is the common name for a broad grouping of tropical and sub-tropical fish species (Stevens, 2004).  On the west coast of North America, however, the term “snapper” may also be used as a market name for rockfish (Seafood Business, 2000; CFIA, 2002; USFDA, 2002; Roberts and Stevens, 2006). A number of snapper and rockfish species are listed as items to be avoided on the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program (http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp).  Lack of clear labelling creates difficulties in distinguishing among Avoid, Intermediate, and Best Choice snapper and rockfish products.   “Snapper”1 Purchasing at UBC  Currently, three out of the four food service providers at UBC purchase “snapper” products.  • UBC Food Services (UBCFS) purchased 465 kg of “snapper” from 2003-2005. In 2005, UBC Food Services purchased 350kg of “snapper,” making it one of the top 15 purchased seafood products by volume (Magera, 2006). No sourcing information, such as                                                  1 In this report, “snapper” (in quotation marks) refers to fish commonly marketed under the term “snapper,” and may include both true snapper and rockfish. Snapper (without quotation marks) refers only to true snapper.   5species name, source region or method of catch, was available for UBCFS “snapper” products during the Phase I investigation.  • St. John’s College and Green College – which were not part of the Phase I investigation – report purchasing “snapper” occasionally for their residence dining (C. Tay, pers. comm.; S. Geraghty, pers. comm.), but volumes are uncertain. • AMS Food and Beverage does not purchase snapper.  The primary seafood supplier and lone snapper supplier for UBC Food Services, Albion, was able to provide some information on its snapper products. Albion lists one rockfish and 35 snapper products on its website (http://www.albion.bc.ca/) but the species, origin, and catch method of these products is not clear. Sales representatives from Albion indicated that most of the snapper products sold by their company are likely a mix of rockfish species from British Columbia (L. Donnelly, pers. comm.; S. Ginter, pers. comm.). Multiple catch methods are used to catch these rockfish such that the catch method cannot currently be guaranteed upon purchase (S. Ginter, pers. comm.). Albion does, however, explicitly list two species of rockfish – yelloweye and canary – as being caught with longlines or drag trawls off the West Coast of North America (Albion, undated). Some snappers from Hawaii and New Zealand may also be purchased by Albion (S. Ginter, pers. comm.). Albion was not able to provide specific product information for the snapper products purchased by UBC Food Services.    Snapper and Rockfish - Definitions   Snapper (chiefly Lutjanids)  The common term, “snapper” refers to broad composite group of over 250 predatory fish species (Seafood Business, 2000) in Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, but most can be grouped into the tropical and sub-tropical Lutjanidae family (Anderson, 1987; Hoese and Moore, 1998). Snappers are very desirable food fish (Anderson, 1987; Hoese and Moore, 1998). They are commonly marketed in North America as either fresh or frozen whole fish or fillets (Seafood Business, 1999 in Stevens, 2004).  Some of the most commonly fished commercial species include red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), vermillion snapper (Rhomboplites aurorobens), yellowtail snapper (Ocyurus chrysurus), gray snapper (L. griseus), mutton snapper (L. analis), and lane snapper (L. synagris) from the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic (Stevens, 2004).  Other popular species includes Hawaiian gray snapper (Aprion virescens), pink snapper (Pristipomoides filamentosus), ruby snapper (Etelis coruscans), and red snapper (E. carbunculus) (Haight, 2003a-d). From South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, Caribbean red snapper (L. purpureus) is often used as a substitute for red snapper (Stevens, 2004).  Malabar snapper (L. malabaricus) is common from Asia (Seafood Business, 2000).   New Zealand snapper (Pagrus auratus) is a major snapper export for New Zealand (New Zealand Seafood Industry Council, undated), but it is not listed by the CFIA or USFDA as a recognized snapper import species (CFIA, 2002; USFDA, 2002).    6  Rockfish (chiefly Sebastes and Sebastolobus spp.)   Rockfish are defined as members of the genus Sebastes (Love et al., 2002), but the members of the genus Sebastolobus (a.k.a. thornyheads) are generally included in the definition as well (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Approximately 102 species of rockfish exist worldwide, with the overwhelming majority concentrated in the North Pacific and Gulf of California (Love et al., 2002).2 Rockfish are often sold whole, although less desirable species or lower quality fish are sold as fillets (Love et al., 2002).  The rockfish species that fetch the highest prices are typically brightly coloured, and include yelloweye (S. ruberrimus), China (S. nebulosus), and vermillion rockfish (S. miniatus) (Love et al., 2002)).    Snapper and Rockfish Labelling  After reviewing labelling regulations, I conclude that Canadian and American seafood labelling regulations and enforcement – which vary by country – do not adequately facilitate the correct identification of snapper and rockfish products.  Seafood labelling in Canada is regulated by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) with the Food and Drugs Act / Food and Drug Regulations (FDA/FDR), Consumer Packaging and Labelling Act and Regulations (CPLA/CPLR), Fish Inspection Act (FIA), and the Fish Inspection Regulations (FIR) (CFIA, 2003). In the USA, the U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition (USFDA) determines seafood labelling in conjunction with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (USFDA, 2002).   Both the CFIA and USFDA have published their own lists of acceptable common and market names for promoting uniformity in seafood marketing, respectively called the Fish List and the Seafood List (USFDA, 2002; CFIA, 2003). A summary of different CFIA and USFDA snapper and rockfish listings is depicted in Table 1. In addition, the USFDA Seafood List includes a list of vernacular names that it discourages to prevent misbranding of seafood (USFDA, 2002). Although these lists contain recommendations for labelling, confusion still persists in the records for snappers and rockfish (Seafood Business, 2000; CFIA, 2002; USFDA, 2002).                                                           2 Four species are also found in the North Atlantic, two are found in the South Pacific, and two are found in the South Atlantic (Love et al., 2002).    7    Table 1. Snapper and rockfish common and market names designated for use in Canada by the CFIA and in the USA by the USFDA (CFIA, 2002; USFDA, 2002).  Appendix A contains a more complete list of snapper and rockfish names compiled from the CFIA and USFDA lists.  Country Common/Market Name of Seafood Number of Species Includes Representatives from the Following Genus(es)  Canada Snapper 7 Sebastes, Lutjanus  Red Snapper 2 Sebastes, Lutjanus  Pacific Snapper 12 Sebastes, Sebastolobus, Lutjanus  Pacific Red Snapper 2 Sebastes  Rockfish 16 Sebastes, Sebastolobus     USA Snapper 42 Apsilus, Etelis, Lutjanus, Macolor, Ocyurus, Pristipomoides, Rhomboplites, Symphorichthys  Red Snapper 1 Lutjanus  Pacific Snapper 1 Lutjanus  Rockfish 63 Helicolenus, Scorpaena, Sebastes  Thornyhead 2 Sebastolobus   Enforcement of correct species labelling is not priority at either the CFIA or the USFDA. Nonetheless, the CFIA periodically assesses compliance at Canadian seafood processors and in seafood entering Canada (M. Andruczyk, pers. comm.). The CFIA may conduct species identification tests and charge any processors or suppliers who are found to violate labelling guidelines (M. Andruczyk, pers. comm.). Imported seafood that fails to conform to recognised labelling may be placed on an import alert list (M. Andruczyk, pers. comm.). Each subsequent shipment of the product is inspected until four consecutive shipments pass inspection (M. Andruczyk, pers. comm.).  Similarly, the USFDA’s current focus lies not in correct product species labelling but in seafood safety. When the USFDA receives reports of that a species has been mislabelled, it advises the importer/processor/seller/etc. of the USFDA labelling policy (S. Randolph, pers. comm.). If the mislabelling problem reoccurs, the USFDA sends the company a warning letter and may have products detained (S. Randolph, pers. comm.).   Theoretically, knowledge of the source can help identify mislabelled or unlabelled species. Country of origin regulations are in place in Canada and the USA. For Canada, country of origin must be clearly labelled on all imported seafood goods, although products from within Canada need not be labelled (CFIA, 2003).  For the USA, country of origin legislation is also mandatory under amendments to the U.S. Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Thompson et. al, 2005). In addition, the Bioterrorism and Response Act of 2002 requires all foreign and domestic food facilities supplying food to the USA to register with the United States government (Thompson et. al, 2005).  Suppliers and recipients of all food products must also be recorded (Thompson et. al, 2005).   8 Despite the CFIA and USFDA regulations, snapper and rockfish products are often marketed without prescribed market and common names (Seafood Business, 2000).  Red snapper labelling is especially problematic. Supply cannot always meet demand for Lutjanus campechanus (Seafood Business, 2000), the only species the USFDA recognises as red snapper.  Perhaps partly as a consequence, Caribbean red snapper (L. purpureus), Hawaiian red snapper (ehu, or Etelis carbunculus) (USFDA, 2002) and a variety of rockfish are commonly labelled as red snapper or Pacific red snapper (CFIA, 2002; USFDA, 2002). The CFIA makes matters more complicated by also allowing yelloweye rockfish (Sebastes ruberrimus) to be officially labelled as red snapper (CFIA, 2002).    Assumptions and Caveats  Both true snappers and rockfishes are discussed in this report. I assume that because of Vancouver’s proximity to prime Pacific rockfish fisheries, the “snapper” products in question are likely rockfish. Trade statistics and Albion’s sales representatives support this notion. Fisheries and Ocean Canada does not show any imports of snapper products into Canada during the 1989-2006 period for which trade statistics were available (DFO, 2006). United States National Marine Fisheries Service trade statistics do not show any snapper exports (NMFS, 2005a). Export information for Hawaiian snappers is not available (Haight, 2003). Rockfish, however, is fished in Canada and ocean perch, Pacific perch, and other rockfish species are imported into Canada (DFO, 2006). Two different Albion sales representatives also indicated that multiple British Columbia rockfish species are the most likely source for Albion’s “snapper” products (L. Donnelly, pers. comm.; S. Ginter, pers. comm.). Although Albion reported supplying yelloweye and canary rockfish to UBC (Albion, unpublished), other rockfish species are also sold to the university (S. Ginter, pers. comm.). Albion also occasionally purchases snapper products, mainly from Hawaii and New Zealand (S. Ginter, pers. comm.). The evidence indicates that Albion’s “snapper” products are most likely rockfish species, but snapper purchases cannot be fully discounted at this point in time. Thus, the report will focus more heavily on providing information on rockfish than snapper.   Ecological Concerns Associated with Snapper and Rockfish   The sustainability of snapper and rockfish exploitation has been evaluated by various sustainable seafood evaluation systems, including Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program (MBA). The following list of ecological concerns associated with snapper and rockfish is formatted according to MBA’s criteria for determining seafood sustainability, with the use of additional sources.   Both snapper and rockfish are generally wild-caught. The few nascent attempts at farming snapper, in Asia and New Zealand, have experienced limited success (Marte,  92003; New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries). Similarly, rockfish aquaculture is hindered by these fishes’ slow growth and viviparity (Love et al., 2002).  Snapper (chiefly Lutjanids)   1.) Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure  Snappers have a number of life history characteristics that make them moderately vulnerable to fishing pressure (Stevens, 2004).  Although they are generally fast growing, with age at maturity typically between 1-5 years, snappers are relatively long-lived (Haight, 2003a-d; Fischer et al., 2004; Stevens, 2004).  Snapper life expectancies generally range 10-30 years (Haight, 2003; Fischer et al., 2004; Stevens, 2004).  However, one of the most commercially desirable species, red snapper, may live to up to 55 years (Baker and Wilson, 2001 in Stevens, 2004). Snappers also have a low natural mortality rate (Ralston, 1987).  As in many other fish species, snapper fecundity increases exponentially with size, and larger individuals contribute relatively more to population growth (Grimes, 1987).  Snappers are reasonably easy to catch because they aggregate to spawn, often at predictable times or places (Grimes, 1987; Heyman et. al, 2005; Jackson et al., 2006), and are relatively sedentary with fidelity to certain sites (Grimes, 1987; Workman et al., 2002; Szedlmayer and Schroepfer, 2005).   2.) Stock Status (population abundance) (Canada and US) Around the world, many snapper stocks are suspected of being overfished, declining, or data deficient (Stevens, 2004) and there is a general lack of information on specific stock status. Since information is not available on the sourcing of Canadian snapper imports, I discuss the stock status of the most probable sources, according to USA data and information from Albion.  Snapper is sourced domestically in the USA from the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Hawaii (NOAAb).   • Red snapper is the most commonly caught snapper in the continental USA, comprising almost 50% of the total commercial catch by volume (Stevens, 2004). The red snapper stock in the Gulf of Mexico has been overfished to critically low levels (Dhazn et al., 2001; Fischer et al., 2004).  • A 2003 assessment by the NOAA indicated that vermillion snapper in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic had experienced overfishing such that populations were critically low (NOAA, 2003).   • A formal stock assessment in 2002 indicated that yellowtail snapper stocks were considered to be quite healthy; they were neither overfished nor undergoing overfishing (Muller et al., 2003 in Stevens, 2004).  • Lane, grey and mutton snappers stocks are considered data deficient (NMFS, 2003 in Stevens, 2004). • Hawaiian snapper stocks, which are managed under the Hawaiian multispecies bottomfish complex, are experiencing overfishing pressure, especially in the main Hawaiian Islands where populations are critically low (WPFMC, 2006a-c).   In general import statistics with adequate sourcing information and stock status reports are both lacking for snapper imported into the USA. Between 2000-2006, the USA  10imported snappers primarily from Brazil, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama and Indonesia (NOAAa). Import statistics list snappers only as “Lutjanid species,” “fresh or frozen” (NOAAa), so the exact species imported into the USA could not be determined. Data are scarce, but available information suggests that Latin American and Caribbean fish stocks are moderately to fully exploited with little room for further exploitation above current fishing levels (FAO, 1996).  Information on Asian snapper is difficult to obtain on a species by species basis. However, Asian coastal marine fisheries, including Lutjanid fisheries in countries such as the Philippines and Thailand, are generally degraded and overfished (Silvestre et al., 2003). New Zealand assessed five of its snapper stocks between the years of 2000 and 2005 (NZMFb).  Only one stock of the five was near or above the target biomass set by the New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries (NZMFb). The four other snapper stocks are (a) possibly near or above the target level, (b) below the target level, or (c) their status is unknown (NZMFb).   3.) Nature of Bycatch The very little information we have suggests that snapper fisheries probably obtain moderate levels of bycatch (Stevens, 2004). Destructive fishing methods of catching snapper in developing nations may result in mortalities of non-target species (Bryant et al., 1998). Bycatch of seabirds in the longline snapper fisheries, for example in New Zealand, is a concern (RFBPSNZ, 2005).  However, quantitative measurements of bycatch in snapper fisheries around the world are difficult to ascertain. Better monitoring of snapper fisheries is needed to assess bycatch and discard rates (Blue Oceans Institute, 2004).   Common species obtained as bycatch in the Gulf of Mexico and Southeast Atlantic include black sea bass, snappers, groupers, porgies, amberjacks, sharks and skates (Harrington et al., 2005; Poffenberger, 2004 in Stevens, 2004). In a 2004 study of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic snapper and grouper fishery, several thousand pounds of bycatch were discarded each year with variable mortality rates (Poffenberger, 2004 in Stevens, 2004).   Hawaiian snapper fisheries are relatively selective, and most bycatch species are either kept as marketable catch or discarded alive (NMFS, 2004).  Common bycatch species include sharks, jacks and trevallies (NMFS, 2004). However, air embolism induced mortality is common in deep-water snappers, such as the Hawaiian snappers, often preventing live release of bycatch (WPFMC, 2006a).  The need to avoid putting pressure on endangered species such as sea turtles, albatross and monk seals is recognized as a potential challenge in the Hawaiian bottomfish fishery, but no significant bycatch of these endangered species has been recorded thus far (NMFS, 2004).    Snappers are also caught as bycatch, most notably in shrimp trawl fisheries (Alverson, 1998 in BOI, 2004). Incidental catch has been documented as a major concern for juvenile red snapper (Hendrickson, 1993; Dhazn et al. 2001).  An estimated 25-30 million juvenile red snapper are caught in shrimp trawls in the Gulf of Mexico annually (Oritz et al., 2000 in Diamond, 2004).  To decrease this tally, bycatch reduction devices (BRDs) have been legislated in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fisheries (Diamond,  112004). Although BRDs are effective for reducing bycatch in some species, the effect on reducing snapper bycatch is variable (Diamond, 2004).  More selective fishing gear and better bycatch monitoring are still needed in many regions (Harrington et al., 2005).   4.) Habitat Effects of Fishing Methods  Snapper is caught commercially with bottom longlines, trolls, handlines, other hook-and-line gear, and traps (Grimes, 1987; Porch and Cass-Callay, 2001; WPFMC, 2006b), and the habitat effects vary with the types of fishing gear used. The ecosystem effects of removing snapper are not known but most snapper fisheries employ hook-and-line gear, which has minimal impacts on bottom habitats (Barnette, 2001; WPFMC, 2005a-c).  Some gear used to catch snappers – it varies by region - might, however, damage the hard, irregular bottom habitats that snappers favour (Bryant et al., 1998; Barnette, 2001).  Even gear with relatively low impact - for example, weights and lines or traps – can harm sensitive coral structures and promote algal overgrowth (Barnette, 2001). The Hawaiian bottomfish fishery employs mainly handlines with depth sensors and electronic fish finding equipment and it is relatively selective (WPFMC, 2006b). New Zealand snapper is caught mainly using bottom longlines or trawls (New Zealand Seafood Industry Council). Bottom trawling is especially disruptive to benthic habitats (Auster and Langton, 1998). Destructive fishing methods, such as blast fishing and cyanide fishing, may also be used in tropical regions and can damage sensitive reefs (Bryant et al., 1998).  5.) Management Effectiveness  Snapper stock management effectiveness varies considerably by region and species. In the USA, snappers are managed in three main fishery categories: commercial targeted, recreational, and commercial bycatch of shrimp fisheries (SAFMC, 2003; Muller, 2003).  • The Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management Council and the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council conduct red snapper assessments in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic every one to two years (SEDAR, 2004). Full stock recovery is projected for 2032 (SEDAR, 2004). Red snapper are managed with a minimum size limit, bag or trip limits, seasonal closures and quotas (SEDAR, 2004). However, fishery regulations have created a “derby-style fishery” that leads to periods of excess red snapper market supply and subsequently depressed prices (Baker et al., 1998). Wasteful disposal of red snapper may also occur when quotas are exceeded (Baker et al., 1998).  Management councils are currently trying to devise better methods of managing the red snapper fishery, including closer monitoring of snapper bycatch in the shrimp fishery and switching to individual transferable quotas (ITQs) (Baker et al., 1998; SEDAR, 2004). • Vermillion snapper is managed with a size limit (SAFMC, 2003; SEDAR 2005). The South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council is formulating a stock rebuilding plan for the South Atlantic and stock monitoring is improving (SAFMC, 2003).  Various states in the Gulf of Mexico also monitor vermillion snapper, but in many states catch monitoring is voluntary (SEDAR, 2005).  Monitoring of vermillion snapper bycatch in the shrimp trawl fishery must also be improved to help better manage the stocks (SEDAR, 2005).  • Yellowtail snapper is regulated in the South Atlantic through a limited entry fishery and a size limit, with no set quota since the stock appears to be healthy (Muller et al., 2003) Yellowtail snapper records are incomplete for much of the Caribbean fishery, but efforts  12are being made in the USA Caribbean (i.e. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico) to improve monitoring, data collection and modelling of yellowtail stocks (SEDAR, 2005).   • Hawaiian bottomfish and groundfish management plans have been in place since 1986, and provided for the creation of refuges and the prohibition of destructive fishing techniques such as poisons or explosives (WPFMC, 2006b).  Nonetheless, management measures have not prevented further stock declines (WPFMC, 2006b).  • The United States manages ten other snapper species; their stock assessments have not yet been conducted (Stevens, 2004).  New Zealand has also taken measures to manage its snapper stocks with limited success. New Zealand snapper is managed by through quantitative assessments and individual transferable quotas (ITQs) (Annala, 1995; Dewees, 1998; NZMFa). Four of its five stocks have been assessed and the total allowable catch (TAC) of two of the stocks has been reduced – one in 1997 and one in 2005 (NZMFb). Although the ITQ system has helped to create a more stable fishery (Annala, 1995; Dewees, 1998), most New Zealand snapper stocks are still low or their status is uncertain (NZMFb).   Latin American and Caribbean fisheries agencies have limited management and enforcement capabilities due to the lack of funding (FAO, 1996).   Rockfish (Sebastes, Sebastolobus)  1.) Inherent Vulnerability to Fishing Pressure  Rockfishes’ life history characteristics make them vulnerable to fishing pressure (Parker et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002).  They are relatively slow growing, reaching maturity at 5-7 years of age (Parker et al., 2000).  Some rockfish only mature at 20 years of age (Parker et al., 2000).  They are also long-lived; nearshore species may live 30-50 years, while Northern, deepwater species may live to be over 100 years old (Cailliet et al., 2001).  For example, yelloweye rockfish typically do not mature until 20 years of age and can live to 117 years (DFO, 2000). The oldest recorded rockfish was a 205-year-old rougheye rockfish captured in Alaska (Love et al, 2002).  Unlike most bony fish, rockfish also exhibit viviparity, or internal carrying, nourishment and protection of young (Love et al., 2002). Thornyheads are an exception. They lay egg masses (Pearcy, 1962 in Parker et al., 2000). In addition, fecundity increases with size and age in some rockfish species (Love et al., 2002). Mating occurs only once a year, and brood recruitment success is highly dependent on the right combination of ocean climate variables (e.g. temperature, upwellings, currents) (Love et al., 2002). For example, bocaccio only experience substantial juvenile survival about every 20 years (Love et al., 2002). Changes in ocean climate in the 1970s may have decreased recruitment in some West Coast species (Parker et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002).   Behavioural factors may also contribute to rockfish vulnerability to fishing pressure. Some rockfish species are obligatory residents in specific habitats (Love et al., 2002). Fidelity to these sites may produce small, localized rockfish stocks (Love et al., 2002; Williams and Ralston, 2002). Most rockfish species, with the exception of thornyheads,  13also aggregate in multi-species complexes, so separating target from nontarget species is virtually impossible (Parker et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002). Live release of bycatch is also an issue for rockfish. Because rockfish have a closed air bladder that does not allow air escape during capture, like deep-water snappers, most rockfish suffer air embolism as they are brought to the surface from depth (Parker et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002).  Mortality of incidentally caught rockfish is virtually 100% (Parker et al., 2000, Love et al., 2002).    2.) Stock Status (population abundance) (Canada and US)  Many British Columbia and West Coast USA rockfish stocks are at historical lows, but Alaskan stocks are faring better (Parker et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002). Overfishing, habitat loss (mainly due to trawling-induced bottom habitat destruction), and ocean climate conditions causing low juvenile survival have contributed to population declines (Parker et al., 2000; Miller and Sydeman, 2004).   Currently, the status of most rockfish stocks is unknown (Parker et al., 2000; Roberts and Stevens, 2006). The species that have been assessed are generally commercially and recreationally important species, or species of conservation concern (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).  In Canada, most of the stock assessments that do exist for rockfish were last reviewed in 1999 or 2000 (PSARC).  In the USA, only one fourth of the more than sixty rockfish species managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC) currently have stock assessments (PFMC, 2006).   In both Canada and the USA, rockfish are managed as part of a mixed species groundfish fishery that catches cod, sablefish, halibut, sole, and other groundfish (DFO, 2006; PFMC, 2004).  The fishery also catches multiple species of aggregating rockfish  (PFMC, 2004; DFO, 2006). Unfortunately, this type of multispecies fishery often catches species which are data deficient or overfished (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). For example, in B.C., Pacific Ocean Perch is only of moderate conservation concern, but it co-occurs with species  of high conservation concern such as yellowmouth and darkblotched rockfish (COSEWIC; Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Thus, the assemblage status is of high concern (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).   Since rockfish species often aggregate together, assemblages, as opposed to individual species, are commonly evaluated for status (Parker et al., 2000). Rockfish can be quite easily grouped by management zones, as well as by depth and latitudinal categories, typically designated as “slope,” “shelf” and “nearshore” or “inshore” assemblages (Williams and Ralston, 2002). See Table II for a summary of rockfish stock status.    14 Table 2. Rockfish stock conservation concern status (from Roberts and Stevens, 2006) Stock Conservation Concern USA West Coast thornyheads Low (stock healthy) All Alaska stocks  B.C. nearshore “outside” (outside Strait of Georgia, Juan de Fuca Strait, Johnstone Strait) Moderate (stock moderate) USA West Coast nearshore, except Puget Sound  All B.C. and USA West Coast continental shelf and slope, excluding thornyheads  Puget Sound  High (stock poor) B.C. nearshore “inside”   B.C. thornyhead    Albion typically obtains mixed-species British Columbia rockfish catches and sells them as such (S. Ginter, pers. comm.), and the status of these stocks is moderate-poor (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Most British Columbia rockfish stocks, except for the nearshore “outside” stock, are of high conservation concern (Table 2). Several species found off the coast of British Columbia, including silvergrey rockfish, yellowtail rockfish, and shortspine thornyhead, may be in danger of extirpation from Canada and are a high conservation concern for Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (COSEWIC, 2006). Bocaccio is already listed as threatened by COSEWIC (SARA, 2006).   Neither yelloweye nor canary rockfish, the two rockfish species that Albion explicitly lists in purchasing documents (and may sell to UBC Food Services) (Albion, unpublished), is healthy in Canada or the USA.  •  In Canada, yelloweye rockfish is managed as part of the data deficient inshore rockfish complex (DFO, 2000). It considered fully utilized in most of B.C., and over-utilized in the Straight of Georgia (DFO, 2000). In the USA, yelloweye rockfish is a shelf species that is overfished (PFMC, 2004). This species is very susceptible to recreational and fixed fishing gears, and is also caught in the commercial halibut fishery (PFMC, 2004). •  Canadian canary rockfish stocks are likely close to maximum exploitation but their exact stock status is unknown (DFO, 1999).  This species – which is often confused with yelloweye rockfish (DFO, 1999) – is overfished in the USA (PFMC, 2004). Surveys have also indicated ongoing canary rockfish population declines; in a USA survey adjacent to Canada’s primary canary rockfish fishing ground, up to 95% decline was recorded (Wallace, 2005). In addition, studies have also found a disproportionately low number of older canary rockfish females in the catches, which is concerning because older females are more fecund and contribute relatively more to population growth (PFMC, 2004).   3.) Nature of Bycatch   Rockfish comprise a considerable proportion of the bycatch in groundfish fisheries (Parker et al., 2000; DFO, 2006). Pacific groundfish fisheries in Canada and the USA have high bycatch and discard rates compared to other fisheries because of their multispecies approach, their limited ability to target certain species, and the almost 100%  15mortality rate of rockfish from air embolisms when brought up from depth (Parker et al., 2000; Love et al., 2002). In addition, current management regulations prohibit vessels targeting rockfish from surpassing their allowable catch of rockfish (Ralston, pers. comm. in Roberts and Stevens, 2006). As a result, dead and dying rockfish are discarded and wasted (Ralston, pers. comm. in Roberts and Stevens, 2006).   The amount of discarded rockfish and other bycatch varies considerably in the USA and Canadian groundfish fisheries, depending on the type of gear used. Bottom trawling, which accounts for the majority of groundfish catch, has discard rates that fall between 12-33% in the USA and Canada (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). All overfished rockfish species are found in the discards (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Discards of all species, including rockfish, in the bottom long-line groundfish fishery is approximately 30%, with the added concern of seabird bycatch (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). In contrast, the midwater trawl and hook-and-line fisheries have low bycatch discard levels (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).  Observer programs have been established to document bycatch in groundfish fisheries, presumably for management decision-making. In the USA, the West Coast Groundfish Observer program aims for at least 20% observer coverage on most boats (WCGOP, 2005). Large Alaskan fisheries vessels are required to carry observers at all times (NPFMC, 2003). A comprehensive observer programs are in place for Canada’s groundfish fisheries, and there is 100% observer coverage at-sea and on docks to tabulate catch and discard numbers for management and stock assessments (DFO, 2006).   The two species that Albion Seafoods is known to trade – yelloweye and canary rockfish – are often caught as bycatch in Canadian and USA fisheries.  As well, the fisheries targeting these two species themselves land threatened species as bycatch. In Canada, most incidentally caught yelloweye and canary rockfish are retained (Wallace, 2005; DFO, 2006). When canary rockfish are directly targeted, approximately one pound of bycatch is discarded for every five pounds of canary rockfish that is caught (Wallace, 2005).  Canary rockfish tows often catch Bocaccio, a threatened species under COSEWIC, and may thus be contributing to poor bocaccio stock recovery (Wallace, 2005). In contrast, the USA trawl fishery typically discards yelloweye rockfish bycatch (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). The USA trawl and longline fisheries also discard most canary rockfish bycatch (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Flatfish trawlers contribute a disproportionately high part of the canary rockfish catch (relative to other gears).  Other groundfish fisheries must also be managed to minimize canary rockfish bycatch (PFMC, 2004).   4.) Habitat Effects of Fishing Methods Rockfish are captured with a variety of different gear types, and each has different effects on habitats. Most Pacific rockfish are caught using bottom-trawls (76% in BC, 66% in West Coast USA, and 94% in Alaska) (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). For example, approximately 95% of Canadian canary rockfish are caught with bottom trawls, and the trawling is extensive (Wallace, 2005). Albion sales representatives reported that most rockfish purchased by Albion is caught using bottom trawling or dragging (S. Ginter, pers. comm.). Bottom trawling involves dragging nets, often with attached weights or  16other gear, along the ocean bottom (NMFS, 2005b). It damages abiotic and biotic bottom structures, such as rocky outcroppings, corals, sponges, and algae (e.g. kelp) that are prime habitat for adult rockfish and other species (Freese et al. 1996; Auster and Langton, 1999; Love et al., 2002; Wallace, 2005). Such damage had been associated with reduced species diversity and abundance (Kaiser and Spencer, 1996 in Auster and Langton, 1999).  Mid-water trawls are designed to fish in the water column, but they have been shown to make bottom contact (NMFS, 2005b) and likely still do have habitat effects. Likewise, fixed gear like bottom longlines come in contact with the ocean bottom (Auster and Langton, 1999). Hook-and-line fisheries have no or minimal bottom contact and are a low concern, but weights, lines, and hooks may still damage bottom structures (NMFS, 2005b). Ecosystem effects of the removal of large numbers of rockfish, such as contributions to stellar sea lion decline, are thought to be minimal (Sinclair and Zeppelin, 2002 in Roberts and Stevens, 2006).   5.) Management Effectiveness The USA and Canada have taken measures to manage and recover rockfish stocks, but shortcomings, such as the lack of stock assessments for most rockfish species, hinder effective management. In B.C., the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) manages rockfish stocks. Full observer coverage of the fishery and the implementation of an individual vessel quota system in 1997 appear to have decreased the bycatch discard rate in the fisheries (DFO, 2005). Rockfish Conservation Areas and the Species at Risk Act also are employed in rockfish conservation (DFO, 2006). However, no assessments - except for bocaccio - have been conducted since 1999/2000 despite declines noted over previous stock assessments (DFO). A number of rockfish species are managed actively with quotas in the trawl and hook-and-line fisheries, and as with bycatch limits in other groundfish target fisheries (e.g. halibut) (DFO, 2006). These rockfish species include Pacific Ocean Perch, redstripe, rougheye, shortraker, shortspine thornyhead, longspine thornyhead, silvergray, yellowmouth, yellowtail, widow, and a complex of quillback, copper, China, and tiger rockfish (DFO, 2006). The rest of the rockfish species caught in B.C. are managed as incidental catch (DFO, 2006). Canada has no stock rebuilding plans for these species (DFO, 2006).   The USA’s rockfish management and rebuilding plans are better defined than those in Canada. In the USA, both state and federal governments manage rockfish stocks with the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC, 2004). To deal with slope and shelf rockfish stock declines after decades of overfishing on the USA West Coast, the Council implemented quotas, trip limits, gear restrictions, depth restrictions, and large restricted fishing zones to help populations recover (PFMC, 2004). A logbook program and the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program are starting to help enforce catch limits, but better bycatch monitoring is still needed (PFMC, 2004). The USA has rebuilding plans with specific timelines for seven of its rockfish species (PFMC, 2004; PFMC, 2006).  Management measures combined with better ocean recruitment conditions have contributed to some recovery in rockfish populations, but the recovery trajectory for most rockfish stocks is projected to take up to three decades (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). A lack of assessments for over two-thirds of rockfish species is a major impediment to effective management (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Nearshore rockfish management,  17conducted mainly at the state level, is considered to have been more effective; no nearshore populations are listed as depleted (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).   The Alaskan fishery has taken a similar approach to the rest of the USA and B.C. in rockfish management, but seemingly with more success. Alaska uses TACs, essential fish habitat protection areas, logbook and observer programs, and frequent TAC re-assessments to manage rockfish stocks (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Alaskan stocks are generally believed to be stronger than elsewhere in the USA or in B.C. (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).  Most commercially valuable species are below the overfishing threshold (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Because stocks are managed collectively over broad areas, however, concern exists over whether data aggregation may mask the localized depletion of certain species or populations (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).   Some initiatives have been taken to manage yelloweye and canary rockfish, the two species that Albion seafoods is known to carry. In Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans manages the two species with a total allowable catch, trip limits, and individual vessel quotas in the hook and line and trawl fisheries (DFO, 2006). The USA has defined recovery plans for these two species; the target date for yelloweye stocks rebuilding is 2058, and for canary rockfish it is 2074 (PFMC, 2004). A Yelloweye Rockfish Conservation Area has also been established off the Washington Coast (PFMC, 2004).   Comment on Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Program Recommendations: USA West Coast Black Rockfish and Alaskan Jig-Caught Rockfish   The Monterey Bay Aquarium includes two types of rockfish in its West Coast Seafood Pacific Rockfish Report Best Choices list: black rockfish and Alaska jig-caught rockfish.  These two purchasing recommendations may not be ideal for campus food service providers at UBC, despite the low volume of rockfish purchased compared to other types of seafood, for three main reasons.   (1) The status of rockfish in Canada, the main source for Albion’s rockfish purchases (S. Ginter, pers. comm.) is questionable. We do not know the stock status of black rockfish in Canada but available reports indicate it is likely fully utilized or overutilized (DFO, 2000; DFO, 2006). In contrast, the USA West Coast population (the basis for the MBA recommendation) is divided into two stocks and neither is overfished nor experiencing overfishing (Wallace et al., 1999 in Roberts and Stevens, 2006; Ralston and Dick, 2003), although the Northern stock projected to decrease over the long-term (Wallace et al., 1999 in Roberts and Stevens, 2006). It might be challenging for UBC to obtain a reliable source of USA West Coast black rockfish, which is mainly caught in the recreational fishery (Raltson and Dick, 2003). (2) It is very difficult to target black rockfish while avoiding incidental catch of other, possibly threatened species of rockfish. Even though black rockfish are usually caught with hook-and-line gear in the commercial fishery (DFO, 2000; Raltson and Dick, 2003; Roberts and Stevens, 2006), it may be difficult to land them without significant bycatch of other threatened or unassessed species.  They aggregate with other rockfish species,  18including widow, (Love et al., 2002), blue (Mason, 1998), dusky, and yellowtail rockfish (Johnson et al., 2003). Widow rockfish are considered overfished by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC, 2004).  Blue rockfish have experienced declines in abundance, length and weight (Mason, 1998).  (3) Sourcing Alaska jig-caught rockfish may be a problem (Roberts and Stevens, 2006).  The Alaska jig fisheries are preferable to more common trawl or longline fisheries for rockfish because of their comparatively minimal effects on bottom habitat (NMFS, 2005b). Jig fishing also has low bycatch discard rates (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Sourcing may, however, be a difficulty given that that hook-and-line fisheries comprise only 4% of Alaska’s fisheries that catch rockfish, with the sub-category of jig fisheries comprising an even smaller percentage (Roberts and Stevens, 2006). Groundfish are not fished commercially using jigs on the USA West Coast (NOAA, 2007). B.C. does not have a directed jig fishery for rockfish, so jig-caught rockfish are only obtained in B.C. as bycatch in lingcod and dogfish target fisheries (DFO, 2006).    UBC Purchasing Recommendation   In light of the current information on snapper and rockfish labelling in Canada and the USA, the ecological impacts of snapper and rockfish harvesting, and the minimal information on UBC’s sourcing of snapper and rockfish products, I advise that UBC does not purchase snapper and rockfish products. Currently, too much overlap exists in labelling for assurance in species and catch method of snapper and rockfish products. Moreover, rockfish natural behaviour and catch methods make sustainable sourcing of these fish very difficult.   Snappers are not recommended seafood choices. They are long-lived and quite susceptible to fishing pressure. Internationally, many stocks are overfished, declining or data deficient. In many source countries, too, snappers may be fished with destructive fishing methods and their fisheries may be poorly managed. Information on snapper sources that supply Canada is limited, but the status of some of the most popular snapper species indicates that these species should be Avoided.  Rockfish are not an advisable seafood choice for a number of reasons. Rockfish life history characteristics make them heavily susceptible to fishing pressure. Stock data on Pacific rockfish are limited, and most of those for which we do have data are declining or overfished. The main catch method, bottom-trawling, has high bycatch rates and considerable impact on the ocean environment. As stated by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, “trawl-caught rockfish account for over 80% of US West Coast landings and over 90% of B.C. and Alaskan landings,” and consumers should avoid rockfish unless they know the exact species and gear (Roberts and Stevens, 2006, p. 93). Even then, rockfishes’ tendency to aggregate with other rockfish and groundfish species still presents a problem with bycatch. The negative environmental impacts of bottom-trawling, high bycatch rates, and lack of species identification and separation at both the fishery/supplier levels and regulatory levels create extreme difficulty for anyone attempting to find rockfish that were sustainably caught.   19 Yelloweye and canary rockfishes are especially poor seafood choices. They are overfished in the USA and data deficient (but likely overutilized or maximally utilized) in Canada. They also have long stock recovery time projections. Moreover, yelloweye rockfish is a late-maturing long-lived species. Canary rockfish bottom trawls are extensive and associated with the catch of threatened bocaccio stocks. Purchasing yelloweye and canary rockfishes, especially from trawl-fisheries, is not recommended.   Alternative fish products should be used until snapper and rockfish fisheries become more environmentally sound. The Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program (http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp) lists some snapper and rockfish products as Intermediate Choices; in striving to promote a responsible campus seafood purchasing system, however, I advise that the UBC food service providers strive to only use Best Choice items. This recommendation may be revisited in the future. If bottom trawling for these species was significantly reduced or eliminated, stock status data improved, and stocks were rebuilt, they could become a more favourable seafood option. Until that time, however, more ecologically sustainable fish alternatives could be used. As a substitute for snapper and rockfish products, the Monterey Bay Aquarium endorses the following Best Choices: Alaska wild salmon, catfish (USA farmed), Pacific halibut, sablefish (BC and Alaska), striped bass (farmed), Alaska pollock, USA farmed rainbow trout, tilapia (farmed), and white sea bass. Continuing relationships and discussions with seafood suppliers such as Albion is also important in sourcing more sustainable seafood products, encouraging accurate product labelling, and supporting changes that promote ecological sustainability in fisheries.    Acknowledgements  This purchasing evaluation would not have been possible without the generous support from the Fisher Scientific Fund. A warm thanks to all of the UBC Sustainable Seafood Project Partners at the UBC Fisheries Centre, Project Seahorse, UBC Sustainability Office, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, UBC Food Services, AMS Food Services, Green College, and St. John’s College. Dr. Amanda Vincent, Director of Project Seahorse, was immensely patient and helpful in editing this document. Thank you as well to Albion for its generous cooperation and support to this project, as industry is an important part of creating sustainable seafood purchasing practices. Lee Donnelly and Sue Ginter at Albion were especially generous in donating their time to answer my questions. Sian Morgan and Scott Wallace of Sustainable Seafood Canada, and Mike McDermid of the Vancouver Aquarium OceanWise Program also aided me by providing the project with rockfish information.                                                     20                                                                                                                                   References   Albion Fisheries Limited. Accessed November 1, 2006 from http://www.albion.bc.ca/  Albion Fisheries Limited. Ocean Watch Product Sheet (unpublished product information).  Anderson, W.D. Jr. 1987. Systematics of the Fishes of the Family Lutjanidae (Perciformes: Percoidei), the Snappers. In: Polovina, J.J. and Ralston, S., eds. Tropical Snappers and Groupers. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. p. 1-31.  Andruczyk, M. 2006. Personal communication. August 24, 2006.   Annala, J.H. 1995. New Zealand’s ITQ system: have the first eight years been a success of a failure? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 6(1): 43-62.   Auster, P.J. and Langton, R.W. 1999. The effects of fishing on fish habitat. American Fisheries Society Symposium 22:150-187.   Baker, M.S.J, Cox, F.G. and Emerson, P.M. 1998. Managing the Gulf of Mexico Commercial Red Snapper Fishery. Presented to the Committee to Review Individual Fishing Quotas Ocean Studies Board, National Research Council (NRC): 28pp. New Orleans, LA. Accessed November 1, 2006 from http://www.edf.org/documents/550_REdSnapper.PDF  Barnette, M. 2001. A review of the fishing gear utilized within the Southeast Region and their potential impacts on essential fish habitat. NMFS-SEFSC-449. NOAA Technical Memorandum: 62pp.  Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/habitatprotection/pdf/efh/literature/Barnette_gear.pdf  BOI (Blue Ocean Institute). 2004. Snappers. Accessed July 26, 2006 from http://www.blueocean.org/Seafood/species/30.html  Bryant, D., Burke, L., McManus, J., and Spalding, M. (and contributing authors). 1998.  Reefs at Risk - A Map-Based Indicator of Threats to the World’ s Coral Reefs. World Resources Institute (WRI), International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management  (ICLARM), World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://pdf.wri.org/reefs.pdf   Cailliet, G., Andrews, A.H., Burton, E.J., Watters, D.L., Kline, D.E., and Ferry-Graham. 2001. Age determination and validation studies of marine fishes: do deep-dwellers live longer? Experimental Gerontology 36: 739-764.   CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency). 2002. List of Canadian Acceptable Common Names for Fish and Seafood. Accessed July 26, 2006 from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/fispoi/fishlist/canadahomee.shtml   21CFIA (Canadian Food Inspection Agency). 2003. 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising. Accessed July 27, 2006 from http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/toce.shtml   COSEWIC (Committee of the Status of Endangered Animals in Canada). 2006. The COSEWIC Candidate List. Accessed August 18, 2006 from http://www.cosewic.gc.ca/eng/sct3/sct3_1_e.cfm#4  Dewees, C.M. 1998. Effects of Individual Quota Systems on New Zealand and British Columbia Fisheries. Ecological Applications, 8(1): S133-S138.   DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). Undated. Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee (PSARC) - Stock Status Reports and Science Advisory Reports: Groundfish. Accessed August 26, 2006 from http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/psarc/SSRs/groundfish_ssrs_e.htm DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 1999. Canary Rockfish.  DFO Science Stock Status Report A6-08 (1999).   DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2000. Inshore Rockfish.  DFO Science Stock Status Report A6-15 (2000).   DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada). 2006. Pacific Region Integrated Fisheries Management Plan – Groundfish April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2006. Accessed July 24, 2006 from  http://www-ops2.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/xnet/content/MPLANS/plans06/Groundfish06-07/Fnl%2006_07%20Groundfish%20IFMP.pdf  DFO (Fisheries and Oceans Canada) Statistical Services. 2006. Trade – World Imports.  Accessed July 24, 2006 from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/communic/Statistics/trade/world_trade/import_data/index_e.htm  Dhazn, G., Griffin, W.L., and Ozuna, T. Jr. 2001. A bioeconomic assessment of Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Management Policies. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130: 117-129.   Diamond, S.L. 2004. Bycatch quotas in the Gulf of Mexico shrimp trawl fishery: can they work? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 14: 207–237.   Donnelly, L. 2006. Personal communication. August 10, 2006.   FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization). 1996. Fisheries and Aquaculture in Latin America and the Caribbean: Situation and Outlook in 1996. FAO Fisheries Circular No. 921 FIPP/C921. Accessed August 21, 2006 from http://fao.org/fi/publ/circular/c921/c921-1.asp  Fischer, A.J., Baker M.S. Jr., and Wilson, C.A. 2004. Red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) demographic structure in the northern Gulf of Mexico based on spatial patterns in growth rates and morphometrics. Fishery Bulletin, 102 (4): 593–603.  Freese, L., Auster, P.J., Heifetz, J., and Wing, B.L. 1996. Effect of trawling on seafloor habitat and associated invertebrate taxa in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 182: 119-126.    22Geraghty, S. 2006. Personal Communication. August 2, 2006.   Ginter, S. 2006. Personal communication. November 1, 2006.   Grimes, C.B. 1987. Reproductive Biology of the Lutjanidae: A Review. In: Polovina, J.J. and Ralston, S., eds. Tropical Snappers and Groupers. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. p. 239-294.  Haight, W.R. 2003. Snappers of Hawaii: Ruby snapper (onaga) Seafood Watch Report. Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium. Accessed August 3, 2006 from http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_HIOnagaReport.pdf  Haight, W.R. 2003. Snappers of Hawaii: Gray Snapper (uku) Seafood Watch Report. Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium. Accessed August 3, 2006 from http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_HIGraySnapperReport.pdf  Haight, W.R. 2003. Snappers of Hawaii: Pink Snapper (opakapaka) Seafood Watch Report. Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium. Accessed August 3, 2006 from http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_HIPakaReport.pdf  Haight, W.R. 2003. Snappers of Hawaii: Red snapper (ehu) Seafood Watch Report. Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium. Accessed August 3, 2006 from http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_HIEhuReport.pdf  Harrington, J.M., Myers, R.A., Rosenberg, A.A. 2005. Wasted fisheries resources: discarded by-catch in the USA. Fish and Fisheries 6: 350-361.   Hendrickson, H.M. and Griffin, W.L. 1993. An Analysis of Management Policies for Reducing Shrimp By-Catch in the Gulf of Mexico. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 13: 686–697.       Heyman, W.D., Kjerfve, B., Graham, R.T., Rhodes, K.L., and Garbut, L. 2005. Spawning aggregations of Lutjanus cyanopterus (Cuvier) on the Belize Barrier Reef over a 6-year period. Journal of Fish Biology 67 (1): 83-101.                          Hoese, H.D. and Moore, R.H. 1998. Fishes of the Gulf of Mexico. Texas A&M University Press.   Jackson, M.W., Nieland, D.L., and Cowan, J.H. 2006. Diel spawning periodicity of red snapper Lutjanus campechanus in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Journal of Fish Biology 68(3): 695-706.   Johnson, S.W., Murphy, M.L, and Csepp, D.J. 2003. Distribution, habitat, and behavior of rockfishes,  Sebastes spp., in nearshore waters of southeastern Alaska: observations from a remotely operated vehicle. Environmental Biology of Fishes 66: 259-270.   Magera, A. 2006. Sustainable Seafood Purchasing at the University of British Columbia – What’s the catch?  Accessed July 29, 2006 from http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/seeds.html   23Marte, C.L. 2003. Larviculture of marine species in Southeast Asia: current research and industry prospects. Aquaculture 227, 1-4: 293-304.    Mason, J.E. 1998. Declining rockfish lengths in Monterey Bay, California, Recreational Fishery, 1959-94.  Marine Fisheries Review, 60: 15-28.  Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://spo.nwr.noaa.gov/mfr6033.pdf   Millers, A.K. and Sydeman, W.J. 2004.  Rockfish response to low-frequency ocean climate change as revealed by the diet of a marine bird over multiple time scales. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 281: 207-216.   Muller, R.G., Murphy, M.D., de Silva, J., and Barbieri, L.R. 2003. SEDAR - A stock assessment of yellowtail snapper, Ocyurus chrysurus, in the  Southeast United States. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR3_SAR1_Final.pdf?id=DOCUMENT  New Zealand Seafood Industry Council Ltd.  Snapper. Accessed November 30, 2006 from http://www.seafood.co.nz/business/fishaqua/species/snapper.asp  NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). Pacific Islands Region Bycatch Reduction                Implementation Plan FY04-FY05. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/by_catch/PIRfinal_bycatchplanII.pdf  NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Current Fisheries Statistics No. 2005-2 Imports and Exports of Fishery Products Annual Summary 2005. Accessed August 18, 2006 from http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/trade/documents/TRADE2005.pdf  NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2005. Final Groundfish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Environmental Impact Statement. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Fishery-Management/NEPA-Documents/EFH-Final-EIS.cfm  NOAA Office of Science and Technology. U.S. Foreign Trade. Accessed August 16, 2006 from http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/trade/index.html  NOAA Office of Science and Technology. Annual Commercial Landings Statistics. Accessed October 31, 2006 from  http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html  NOAA. 2003. Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Vermillion Snapper; Notification of an Overfished Fishery. Federal Register 68 (214): 62542-43. Accessed October 31, 2006 from http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/register/2003/Nov/05/62542A.pdf  NOAA. 2007. Pacific Coast Groundfish Limited Entry Permits. Accessed January 4, 2007 from http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Groundfish-Halibut/Groundfish-Permits/Limited-Entry-Permits.cfm  North Pacific Fishery Management Council. 2003. Current Issues – Observer Program. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/current_issues/observer/observer.htm   24NZMF (New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries). Characteristics of the Fishing Sectors – Fishing Industry and Aquaculture. 2006. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Publications/Ministerial+Briefings/Annex+1+-+Fisheries+Management+in+New+Zealand/Characteristics+of+the+fishing+sectors.htm  NZMF (New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries). Stock Status – Snapper. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/SOF/StockStatus.htm?DataDomain=Species&DataClass=SNA  NZMF (New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries). 2006. Fisheries Management in New Zealand. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Publications/Ministerial+Briefings/Annex+1+-+Fisheries+Management+in+New+Zealand/Fisheries+management+in+New+Zealand.htm?WBCMODE=PresentationUnpublished  Parker, S.J., Berkeley, S.A., Golden, J.T., Gunderson, D.R., Heifetz, J., Hixon, M.A., Larson, R., Leaman, B.M., Love, M.S., Musick, J.A., O'Connell, V.M., Ralston, S., Weeks, H.J., Yoklavich, M.M. 2000. Management of Pacific Rockfish. Fisheries, 25(3): 22-30.  PFMC (Pacific Fishery Management Council). 2004. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. Accessed July 24, 2006 from http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/gffmp/fmpthru17.pdf  PFMC (Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 2006.  Fishery Management – Groundfish Assessments. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.pcouncil.org/groundfish/gfstocks.html  Porch, C.E. and Cass-Callay, S.L. 2001. Status Of The Vermillion Snapper Fishery  In The Gulf of Mexico: Assessment 5.0. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S9RD13_GOMVS2001.pdf?id=DOCUMENT  PSARC (Pacific Scientific Advice Review Committee). Stock Status Reports and Science Advisory Reports – Groundfish.  Accessed November 1, 2006 from http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/sci/psarc/SSRs/groundfish_ssrs_e.htm  Ralston, S. 1987. Mortality Rates of Snappers and Groupers. In: Polovina, J.J. and Ralston, S., eds. Tropical Snappers and Groupers. Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc. p. 375-404.  Ralston, S. and Dick, E.J. 2003 (National Marine Fisheries Service Report). The Status of Black Rockfish (Sebastes melanops) off Oregon and Northern California in 2003. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://santacruz.nmfs.noaa.gov/files/pubs/00655.pdf  Randolph, S. 2006. Personal communication. August 18, 2006.   RFBPSNZ (Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand). 2005. Best Fish Guide – Snapper. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/bestfishguide/species/snapper.asp     25Roberts, S. and Stevens, M.M. 2006. Rockfishes of the genera Sebastes and Sebastolobus – West Coast Region Seafood Watch Report. Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium. http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_PacificRockfishReport.pdf  SAFMC (South Atlantic Fishery Management Council). 2003. SEDAR - Complete Assessment and Review Report of South Atlantic Vermillion Snapper. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR2_SAR2_VScomplete2.pdf?id=DOCUMENT  SARA (Species at Rick Act) Public Registry. 2006. Species Assessment – Bocaccio. http://www.sararegistry.gc.ca/species/speciesDetails_e.cfm?sid=740  Seafood Business. October 2000. October 2000 Buyer’s Guide, Red Snapper – Supply is no problem with this fish family, as long as you don’t insist on the real McCoy. Accessed July 28, 2006 from http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/archives/searchframe.asp?qu= october%202000&FreeText=off&scope=00oct  SEDAR (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review). 2004. SEDAR- Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S7DW_FINALREPORT.pdf?id=DOCUMENT  SEDAR (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review). 2005. SEDAR- Stock Assessment Report 3Gulf of Mexico Vermilion Snapper. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S9SAR3%20VS%20full%202.pdf?id=DOCUMENT  SEDAR (Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review). 2005. SEDAR- Stock Assessment Report 1 Caribbean Yellowtail Snapper. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/S8SAR1_CaribYTSfinal.pdf?id=DOCUMENT  Silvestre, G.T., L.R. Garces, I. Stobutzki, M. Ahmed, R.A.V. Santos, C.Z. Luna and W. Zhou.  2003. South and South-East Asian coastal fisheries: Their status and directions for improved management: conference synopsis and recommendations, p. 1 - 40. In G. Silvestre, L. Garces, I. Stobutzki, M. Ahmed, R.A. Valmonte-Santos, C. Luna, L. Lachica-Aliño, P. Munro, V. Christensen and D. Pauly (eds.) Assessment, Management and Future Directions for Coastal Fisheries in Asian Countries. WorldFish Center Conference Proceedings 67, 1 120 p. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.worldfishcenter.org/trawl/publications/assessment/PROCEEDINGS.ASP  Stevens, M.M. 2004. Commercially Important Gulf of Mexico/South Atlantic Snappers Seafood Watch Report. Seafood Watch, Monterey Bay Aquarium. Accessed July 28, 2006 from http://www.mbayaq.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/content/media/MBA_SeafoodWatch_GulfofMexicoSnapperReport.pdf  Szedlmayer, S.T., and Schroepfer, R.L. 2005. Long-term residence of red snapper on artificial reefs in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134 (2): 315-325.  Tay, C. 2006. Personal communication. July 20, 2006.    26Thompson, M., Sylvia, G., and Morrissy, M.T. 2005. Seafood Traceability in the United States: Current Trends, System Design and Potential Applications. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 1, 1-7.   USFDA (U. S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition). 2002. Seafood List. Accessed July 26, 2006 from http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~frf/seaintro.html   Wallace, S. 2005. Canary Rockfish – Pacific Canada SeaChoice Seafood Assessment. Accessed September 27, 2006 from http://www.seachoice.org/files/assessment/report/1/Red_CanaryRockfish_SeaChoice.pdf  WCGOP (West Coast Groundfish Observer Program). 2005. Northwest Fisheries Science Center West Coast Groundfish Observer Program Limited-Entry Trawl Report. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observer/datareport/trawl/datareportsep2005.cfm  Williams, E.H. and Ralston, S. 2002. Distribution and co-occurrence of rockfishes (family: Sebastidae) over trawlable shelf and slope habitats of California and southern Oregon. Fisheries Bulletin 100: 836–855.   Workman, I., Shah, A., Foster, D., and Hataway, B. 2002. Habitat preferences and site fidelity of juvenile red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus). ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: S43-S50 Suppl.   WPFMC (Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 2006. Amendment to the Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fishery Management Plan for the Hawaii Archipelago.  Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.wpcouncil.org/bottomfish/Documents/DraftAmendmentto91SSCand131CM.pdf   WPFMC (Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 2006. Bottomfish and Seamount Groundfish Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region – 2005 Annual Report. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.wpcouncil.org/Bottomfish/Documents/AnnualReports/2005/2005%20Bottomfish%20Annual%20Report/pdf   WPFMC (Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council). 2006. Information and Management Alternatives Regarding Overfishing in the Hawaii Bottomfish Fishery. Accessed December 1, 2006 from http://www.wpcouncil.org/bottomfish/Documents/MaterialforPubliMeetings-2006-Jan4FinalDraft.pdf  27APPENDIX  Table III. a. CFIA Rockfish and Snapper Names (CFIA, 2002) Common/Market  Latin Name Other Market/Common Names  Name   (not already indicated on list) Snapper Sebastes ruberrimus Yelloweye rockfish   Lutjanus campechanus Red snapper   Lutjanus johnii John's snapper   Lutjanus sanguineus Blood snapper   Lutjanus sebae Emperor red snapper, Emperor snapper   Lutjanus synagris Lane snapper 7 Lutjanus vivanus Silk snapper       Pacific Snapper Sebastes borealis Shortraker rockfish   Sebastes brevispinis Silvergray rockfish   Sebastes caurinus Copper rockfish   Sebastes crameri Darkblotched rockfish   Sebastes entomelas Widow rockfish   Sebastes flavidus Yellowtail rockfish   Sebastes maliger Quillback rockfish   Sebastes paucispinis Bocaccio rockfish   Sebastes pinniger Canary rockfish   Sebastolobus alascanus Shortspined thornyhead rockfish, Idiotfish   Sebatolobus altivelis Longspine thornyhead rockfish, Idiotfish 12 Lutjanus sanguineus Blood snapper       Pacific Red Snapper Sebastes reedi Yellowmouth rockfish 2 Sebastes ruberrimus Yelloweye rockfish       Red Snapper Sebastes ruberrimus Yelloweye rockfish 2 Lutjanus campechanus Red snapper                 28Common/Market  Latin Name Other Market/Common Names  Name   Rockfish Sebastes alutus Pacific Ocean perch   Sebastes borealis Shortraker rockfish   Sebastes brevispinis Silvergray rockfish   Sebastes caurinus Copper rockfish   Sebastes crameri Darkblotched rockfish   Sebastes entomelas Widow rockfish   Sebastes flavidus Yellowtail rockfish   Sebastes maliger Quillback rockfish   Sebastes paucispinis Bocaccio rockfish   Sebastes pinniger Canary rockfish   Sebastes proriger Redstripe rockfish   Sebastes reedi Yellowmouth rockfish   Sebastes rosaceus Rosy rockfish   Sebastes ruberrimus Yelloweye rockfish   Sebastolobus alascanus Shortspined thornyhead rockfish, Idiotfish 16 Sebastolobus altivelis Longspine thornyhead rockfish, Idiotfish       Rosefish Sebastes alutus Pacific Ocean perch   Sebastes borealis Shortraker rockfish   Sebastes fasciatus Acadian redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish   Sebastes marinus Golden redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish   Sebastes mentella Beaked redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish   Sebastes reedi Yellowmouth rockfish   Sebastes rosaceus Rosy rockfish   Sebastes ruberrimus Yelloweye rockfish   Sebastolobus alascanus Shortspined thornyhead rockfish, Idiotfish 10 Sebastolobus altivelis Longspine thornyhead rockfish, Idiotfish                 29Common/Market  Latin Name Other Market/Common Names  Name   Redfish Sebastes alutus Pacific Ocean perch   Sebastes fasciatus Acadian redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish   Sebastes marinus Golden redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish 4 Sebastes mentella Beaked redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish  Ocean Perch Sebastes alutus Pacific Ocean perch   Sebastes capensis Atlantic Ocean perch, Cape Ocean perch, South African Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish   Sebastes fasciatus Acadian redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish   Sebastes marinus Golden redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish 5 Sebastes mentella Beaked redfish, Atlantic Ocean perch, Atlantic rosefish                      30 Table III. b.  USFDA Rockfish and Snapper Names (USFDA, 2002)     Market Name Common Name Scientific Name Vernacular Names Snapper Black snapper Apsilus dentatus Arnillo   Ruby snapper Etelis carbunculus  Queen snapper, Ehu, Onaga, Ula'ula Kuae, Palu   Yellowstripe snapper Etelis coruscans Ruby snapper   Queen snapper Etelis oculatus Bleareyed snapper, Night snapper, Cachucho   Mutton snapper Lutjanus analis  Muttonfish, Pargo, Pargo Criollo   Mullet snapper Lutjanus aratus     Amarillo snapper Lutjanus argentiventris     Twinspot snapper Lutjanus bohar Twospot snapper, Whitespot snapper, Mu, Tagafi, Twospot red snapper   Blackfin snapper Lutjanus buccanella  Boucanello, Red snapper   Red Snapper Lutjanus campechanus Caribbean red snapper, Mexican red snapper   Colorado snapper Lutjanus colorado Huachinango, Red snapper, Pargo Colorado   Cubera snapper Lutjanus cyanopterus Cuban snapper, cubera   Blacktail snapper Lutjanus fulvus Flame colored snapper   Humpback Snapper  Lutjanus gibbus  Paddletail, Hunched snapper, Boggel-snapper, Humpback red snapper, Mala'I, Red Snapper   Gray snapper Lutjanus griseus Mangrove snapper, Lawyer, Cabellerote, Pargo Prieto   Spotted Rose snapper Lutjanus guttatus Mutton Snapper, Flamenco, Pargo Chibato   Golden snapper Lutjanus inermis      Dog snapper Lutjanus jocu    John's snapper Lutjanus johnii Blackspot snapper, Plainscaled snapper, Thailand snapper, Spotted Scale Seapearch   Rufous snapper Lutjanus jordani Huachinango, Red snapper, Jordan's snapper   Bluestriped snapper Lutjanus kasmira Bluebanded snapper, Ta'ape, Savani, Funai, Yellow and blue seaperch   Gold-striped snapper Lutjanus lineolatus     Mahogany snapper Lutjanus mahogoni Ojanco   Malabar snapper Lutjanus malabaricus Scarlet seaperch, Red bream, Malabar Red snapper, Malabar Blood snapper   Onespot snapper Lutjanus monostigma  Kakaka, Red snapper, Blackspot Mayamaya    31Market Name Common Name Scientific Name Vernacular Names  Snapper (continued) Pacific snapper Lutjanus peru Pacific red snapper   Caribbean red snapper Lutjanus purpureus Southern red snapper   Five-lined snapper Lutjanus quinquelineatus Blue-banded seaperch   Blubberlip snapper Lutjanus rivulatus Speckled snapper   Blood snapper Lutjanus sanguineus Scarlet snapper, Bloodred snapper, Saddletailed seaperch, Red bream, Red jaw, Humphead snapper, Hamrah   Emperor snapper Lutjanus sebae Red emperor   Lane snapper Lutjanus synagris Spot snapper, Redtail snapper, Silk snapper   Silk snapper Lutjanus vivanus  West Indian snapper, Day snapper, Longfin snapper   Midnight snapper Macolor macularis     Black and white snapper Macolor niger     Yellowtail snapper Ocyurys chrysurus     Wenchman Pristipomoides aquilonaris     Crimson snapper Pristipomoides filamentosus     Cardinal snapper Pristipomoides macrophthalmus     Vermillion snapper Rhomboplites aurorubens Beeliner, Clubhead snapper, Night snapper 42 Sailfin snapper Symphorichthys spilurus Blue and gold striped snapper     Rockfish Rougheye rockfish Sebastes aleutianus     Kelp rockfish Sebastes atrovirens     Brown rockfish Sebastes auriculatus     Aurora rockfish Sebastes aurora     Redbanded rockfish Sebastes babcocki     Shortraker rockfish Sebastes borealis     Silvergray rockfish Sebastes brevispinis     Red rockfish Sebastes cardinalis  Red rockcod   Gopher rockfish Sebastes carnatus     Copper rockfish Sebastes caurinus     Greenspotted rockfish Sebastes chlorostictus     Black and yellow rockfish Sebastes chrysomelas     Dusky rockfish Sebastes ciliatus     Starry rockfish Sebastes constellatus Spotted rockfish   Darkblotched rockfish Sebastes crameri Blackmouth rockfish  32Market Name Common Name Scientific Name Vernacular Names  Rockfish (continued) Calico rockfish Sebastes dalli      Splitnose rockfish, Lobejawed rockfish Sebastes diploproa    Greenstripe rockfish Sebastes elongatus    Puget Sound rockfish Sebastes emphaeus    Swordspine rockfish Sebastes ensifer     Widow rockfish Sebastes entomelas Pacific Red snapper   Pink rockfish Sebastes eos     Yellowtail rockfish Sebastes flavidus Pacific Red snapper   Bronzespotted rockfish Sebastes gilli     Chilipepper  Sebastes goodei Pacific Red snapper   Rosethorn rockfish Sebastes helvomaculatus Swordspine, Flyfish   Squarespot rockfish Sebastes hopskinsi     Shortbelly rockfish Sebastes jordani Pacific Red snapper   Freckled rockfish Sebastes lentiginosus     Cowcod Sebastes levis Pacific Red snapper   Mexican rockfish Sebastes macdonaldi Coral red rockfish   Quillback rockfish Sebastes maliger Yellowback rockcod, Brown rockcod, Orangespot rockcod   Black rockfish Sebastes melanops Pacific Red snapper   Semaphore rockfish Sebastes melanosema     Blackgill rockfish Sebastes melanostomus     Vermillion rockfish Sebastes miniatus Pacific Red snapper   Blue rockfish Sebastes mystinus Black rockfish, Rockcod, Priestfish   China rockfish Sebastes nebulosus Yellowspotted rockcod   Tiger rockfish Sebastes nigrocinctus Blackbanned rockcod   Speckled rockfish Sebastes ovalis Pacific Red snapper   Bocaccio Sebastes paucispinis Pacific Red snapper   Chameleon rockfish Sebastes phillipsi     Canary rockfish Sebastes pinniger Pacific Red snapper   Northern rockfish Sebastes polyspinis Multispined bass   Redstripe rockfish Sebastes proriger     Grass rockfish Sebastes rastrelliger     Yellowmouth rockfish Sebastes reedi    33Market Name Common Name Scientific Name Vernacular Names  Rockfish (continued) Rosy rockfish Sebastes rosaceus Corsair   Greenblotched rockfish Sebastes rosenblatti    Yelloweye rockfish Sebastes ruberrimus Pacific Red Snapper, Rasphead rockfish   Flag rockfish Sebastes rubrivinctus Spanish flag  Dwarf-red rockfish Sebastes rufianius     Bank rockfish Sebastes rufus Pacific Red snapper   Stripetail rockfish Sebastes saxicola Olivebacked rockfish   Halfbanded rockfish Sebastes semicinctus     Olive rockfish Sebastes serranoides Pacific Red snapper    Treefish Sebastes serriceps     Picknose rockfish Sebastes simulator     Honeycomb Rockfish Sebastes umbrosus     Pygmy Rockfish Sebastes wilsoni Wilson's rockfish   Sharpshin rockfish Sebastes zacentrus Bigeyed rockfish   Rockfish Helicolenus papillosus Scarpee, Jock Stewart, Seaperch 63 Red rockfish Scorpaena cardinalis Red Rock cod         Ocean Perch Golden redfish Sebastes norvegicus Redfish, Rosefish, Snapper                     The University of British Columbia Sustainable Seafood Project Assessing sustainability of SNAPPER and ROCKFISH purchasing at UBC Executive Summary - May 2007   Snapper and rockfish products have been popular seafood with catering customers at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and have been used occasionally in residence food services. After reviewing the sustainability of snapper and rockfish extraction, the UBC Sustainable Seafood project recommended that neither product be sold on campus.    The UBC Sustainable Seafood project is a consortium that includes UBC Food Services, AMS Food and Beverage, Green College, Fisheries Centre, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, and UBC Sustainability Office1. The partnership of students, faculty, and staff strives to make all UBC seafood purchases as ecologically, economical, and socially sustainable as possible.  Having agreed on steps to increase sustainability of four other seafood products, the partners turned their attention to snapper and rockfish in July 2006.   Assessment of snapper and rockfish products against sustainability recommendations was difficult because of imprecise labeling. Ambiguous and arbitrary use of the names “snapper” and “rockfish” hindered sourcing and product identification. Given UBC’s proximity to key rockfish fisheries, most “snapper” products were probably actually rockfish.  Trade data, official records and commercial information support this inference.  Snappers (mainly the family Lutjanidae) are a family of about 250 predatory and long-lived species from the tropic or sub-tropics. Snappers are worryingly easy to catch because they aggregate to spawn, often at predictable times or places, and may be site faithful.  They are often fished under poor management or with destructive techniques.   Rockfish (mainly the genus Sebastes) are a group of about 100 very long-lived species (up to 200 years) found primarily in the North Pacific and Gulf of California. Rockfish mature very late, breed once a year, carry their young internally, and are site faithful. The main catch method, bottom trawling, has high bycatch rates and damages marine habitats.  The rockfishes’ tendency to aggregate in multispecies aggregations means that fishing gear catches many species of different susceptibility simultaneously.    Virtually all snapper and rockfish come from capture fisheries, and most stocks globally are overfished, declining or data deficient.  Very few fish declared to be snapper or rockfish were captive bred or reared. The species’ slow growth rates limit both their recovery from fishing and their aquaculture potential.  Given that snapper/rockfish species cannot sustain high levels of exploitation and that ambiguous labeling is a problem, all snapper or rockfish products should be removed from UBC menus.  Many ecologically sound alternative products exist, such as farmed tilapia, US-farmed catfish species, or Pacific halibut.                                                   1 This is a SEEDS initiative.  The full report is available at http://www.sustain.ubc.ca.seeds.html  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
China 24 10
Canada 17 6
United States 13 5
Japan 3 0
Mexico 1 0
Tanzania 1 0
Poland 1 0
Sint Maarten 1 0
India 1 0
City Views Downloads
Beijing 19 0
Vancouver 13 1
Unknown 9 9
Shenzhen 5 10
Ashburn 4 0
Tokyo 3 0
Victoria 2 5
Leduc 2 0
Los Angeles 1 0
Mountain View 1 0
Chennai 1 0
Kansas City 1 0
Philipsburg 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0108072/manifest

Comment

Related Items