Opinion

The Conservation Law Foundation's Sean Cosgrove responds to our analysis of their criticism of NEFMC Council Member Laura Ramsden and their arguments on proposed changes to closed areas.

13 March 2013

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” – Upton Sinclair

There appears to be a conspiracy in our midst. Or so, some would think. Saving Seafood, “a 501(c)(6) association organized as a non-profit corporation funded by the fishing industry,” appears to have become rather discomposed by uncovering the fact that some people in New England believe that the practice of ripping up the ocean floor with heavy bottom trawling fishing gear might have deleterious effects on ocean fish and wildlife and the habitat that these species depend upon. Clearly, CLF is mistaken, Saving Seafood claims, as they go to a wide-ranging and energetic attack today on a two-week old blog post of mine titled “Destructive Trawling and the Myth of Farming the Sea.”

The point of my blog was to call into question a reference that New England Fishery Management Council member Laura Ramsden made during a Council meeting that protecting habitat areas (i.e. “closing” to trawling) might cause “damage” and the potential risks of not tilling the soil.” (Ms. Ramsden replied to my blog with a cordial note, and I responded. It’s still posted if you want to read it. ) In the blog I also make the point that not dragging heavy bottom trawls and dredges across sensitive seafloor habitat (i.e. “habitat protection”) benefits the health and productivity of our region’s fisheries.

 

Read the complete opinion piece by Sean Cosgrove at CLF's Talking Fish

 

n.b.  "Talking Fish" allowed a response reproduced below from "Peter" to be posted to their site.  Saving Seafood would like to make the following known:

– The founders of Saving Seafood were not New Bedford processors, but rather were the owners of the display auction. Organizations engaged in processing provided funding well after our organization was established, and we deeply appreciate their support.

– No one on our staff is a lobbyist. We employ journalists, media professionals, and public relations specialists.

– No one on our staff worked in either Bush Administration.

– Nils Stolpe's work has appeared on our site, and we appreciate his work, but we published it just as we have linked to opinions by numerous individuals in the fishing community, including a recent opinion piece on the cod fishery by CLF's Peter Shelley and a response to a Seafood News piece on herring by Pew's Peter Baker.  Neither Mr. Stolpe, nor Mr. Shelley, nor Mr. Baker have ever been paid by Saving Seafood.

Saving Seafood remains committed to bringing diverse opinions from throughout the fishing community to our readers. This includes the viewpoints of actual industry participants, as well as the viewpoints of "stakeholders". And we respectfully note that a quick online search shows that the "Conservation Law Foundation" has been referenced 50 times on Saving Seafood's website, whereas before today, "Saving Seafood" has been refernced just once on CLT's Talking Fish, when Ben Martens of the Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association submitted a letter stating: "Saving Seafood recently outlined a compelling case as to how regulations could be changed (including opening up closed areas on Georges Bank) to allow the offshore fleet to target haddock."

 

The response from "Peter" published by Talking Fish follows:

PETER SAYS:
MARCH 13, 2013 AT 1:26 PM
These arguments coming from SavingSeafood are consistent with their strategies on a number of fisheries. They have been a mouth piece for the menhaden reduction industry, the draggers, and the big scallop dredgers. They were founded and funded by some New Bedford processors that for years have fought against conservation, they are staffed by a lobbyist who is a former Bush administration staffer, and they pay folks like Nils Stolpe who have made their living attacking conservation groups. At some point it comes down to who you trust: conservation groups working in the public interest or industry lobby groups working for self-interested private businesses? From my point of view, CLF and other conservation groups have been right time and again while the advice of the processors and their lobbyists has led to less fish, less fishermen, and less communities in the fishery, but more and more control of the industry by the shoreside processors and fleet owners. Which seems to be what they desire.

March 12, 2013 — So, you’d like to think that New England will be well represented at these hearings, right?

Congressional hearings regarding the fourth 10-year review of commercial fishing’s landmark Magnuson-Stevens Act begins in the nation’s capital today. 

And it obviously comes at a critical time for the industry — especially in Gloucester and across New England, where the groundfishery is in a state of federally recognized “economic disaster” and facing an even more dire crisis May 1, when limits on Gulf of Maine cod and other stocks are being cut by up to 77 percent.

So, you’d like to think that New England will be well represented at these hearings, right?

Wrong. The only scheduled New England witness scheduled to speak before the House Natural Resources Committee, where Malden Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Ed Markey is the ranking Democrat, is John Pappalardo of the Cape Cod Hook Fishermen’s Association. And that’s a shameful affront not only to rank-and-file fishermen in Gloucester and beyond, but at slap at our fishing communities, as well.

 

Read the full editorial at the Gloucester Times

 

 

March 11, 2013 — The Free Lance-Star of Fredericksburg, Virginia published an industry response to their March 1 editorial "Better days for Bay?"

In discussing cuts by the General Assembly to the Chesapeake Bay's menhaden catch, The Free Lance-Star's editorial ["Better days for Bay?" March 1] states that Omega Protein "has been blamed" for reducing Atlantic menhaden numbers and, in turn, weakening the health of the bay.

The editorial's reliance on disputable findings misleads readers regarding menhaden status. It would have been more accurate to state that Omega has been "falsely accused." Instead, by implication, you suggest that the unproven rhetoric surrounding menhaden abundance is accurate.

Scientists at NOAA and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission have repeatedly concluded that menhaden abundance–which has fluctuated over the past half-century–is largely independent of fishing efforts. Biologists contend that environmental factors are the defining component for the population's health.

The article also faults Omega Protein for "question[ing] allegations about menhaden's lessening numbers." But Omega isn't alone in questioning these latest findings. Limited data are available on the fishery's current status. The most recent assessment, released in 2012, was deemed severely flawed by the ASFMC, and the commission concluded in a January 2013 conference call that there is currently insufficient information to definitively categorize the stock as overfished.

Menhaden do not "filter" water as stated. A 2007 study by the Virginia Institute of Marine Science demonstrated that menhaden don't provide significant benefits to water quality. Only juveniles, who are too young to be targeted by the fishery, consume phytoplankton, which, in excess, cause harmful algal blooms. Menhaden older than one year generally eat zooplankton, which do not affect water quality.

Although the article references menhaden as a "top menu selection" for striped bass, menhaden compose only a portion of the species' diet. In 2010, VIMS found that menhaden represented about 8 percent of striped bass diet in the Bay.

Ben Landry

Reedville

Ben Landry is director of public affairs at Omega Protein.

 

Read the original editorial at the Free Lance-Star.

Read the response from Omega Protein

 

 

March 9, 2013 — For Gloucester, the value of positive media coverage is priceless. We experienced this with what was called the “PR for Gloucester” campaign.

From wind power and the maritime economy to the Harbor Walk and diversified fisheries, Gloucester has been the subject of much media coverage over the past year.

The city is truly fortunate that outlets like National Public Radio, the Boston Globe editorial page, the New York Times and most recently the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams see fit to cast a spotlight on our achievements, challenges and aspirations.

Sharing Gloucester’s stories with regional and national audiences serves a very important purpose. By telling a story outside traditional Gloucester narratives, especially our recent emphasis on diversifying our port economy, the city is able to promote business opportunities for our working waterfront and the community at large.

For Gloucester, the value of positive media coverage is priceless. We experienced this with what was called the “PR for Gloucester” campaign. Tourism businesses in the community passed the hat and raised money to promote Gloucester as a destination. The result was coverage in publications ranging from USA Today to Coastal Living.

We are taking that lead and promoting our economic development efforts. Articles like the recent New York Times’ piece on the fisheries crisis provide an opportunity for the city to promote our vision of expanded maritime opportunities on the working waterfront. In the case of the Times’ coverage, the city was featured (briefly on Page 1 and prominently on two-thirds of page at the top of the National News section) before an audience of nearly one million readers. This audience includes investors, venture capitalists, innovators, technology gurus, life science industry leaders and cultural trendsetters.

 

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times

 

 

March 8, 2013 — In barring state-permitted fishermen from gaining a new access to fishing areas that have traditionally been closed, state Division of Marine Fisheries chief Paul Diodati could have simply noted that his denial was based on a lack of cod and other groundfish as cited in the latest NOAA assessment data that is on the verge of choking out an entire industry.

To his credit, however, Diodati was more specific than that.

Noting that he shares the concerns of the relatively few state-permitted, small-boat fishermen, he made it clear that the shortage of fish within those fishermen’s usual grounds is due in large part to the fact that more and more big boats — “unencumbered by trip limits …particularly on Gulf of Maine Cod when they are aggregated for migration, feeding (and) spawning, has significantly contributed to declines in local abundance.”

 

Read the full opinion piece at the Gloucester Times

 

 

March 8, 2013 — The chances of accurate labeling are more likely in New England, with genuine off-the-boat markets and restaurants, but stepping into any supermarket immediately makes the process of buying fish a very generic, global experience.

The ability of a consumer — even a SouthCoast consumer — to be sure that the fish they pay for is the fish they get is no sure thing.

The chances of accurate labeling are far more likely in these parts, with genuine off-the-boat markets and restaurants, but stepping into any supermarket immediately makes the process of buying fish a very generic, global experience.

A much-discussed study by Oceana, the largest international ocean conservation and advocacy organization, has found that about one-third of more than 1,200 samples of fish from retail outlets was mislabeled. That has prompted some to say the problem threatens the oceans, while critics complain Oceana is overstating the problem to advance a strategy of curtailing fishing.

We don't know about that, but we do know that mislabeled fish is a problem that needs to be corrected because of its impact on consumers and local fishermen.

In the consumer's eye, that tray of wild-caught, frozen-at-sea Norwegian cod is nowhere near as appealing when Oceana reports that Atlantic cod might be Pacific cod, or hake or something else. A habit of walking past the fish counter soon turns into a habit of avoiding fish off the menu once confidence is undermined. That erodes the whole market, which is not the direction the local fisherman wants to see the market take.

One solution would be to buy more locally caught fish.

 

Read the full editorial at the New Bedford Standard Times

 

 

March 7, 2013 — The ice plant closure offers a compelling reminder that the NOAA-generated economic disaster recognized by the Department of Commerce is not “just” about hurting fishermen and their boat crews.

It is a true economic calamity that will have a wide-reaching effect on this city’s overall economy, from dealing dire business hits to not one but two waterfront seafood auction houses, to hurting a tourism trade built upon one of the nation’s last, authentic working fishing ports, and, yes, driving down an ice supply business that has gone hand-in-hand with the Gloucestermen of the seas for well over a century.

To his credit, Memhard wasted few words in explaining what has led him to put this iconic Gloucester waterfront business up for sale; he said the decision by NOAA against allowing the industry a second year of relief via interim catch levels has clearly forced his hand — and it’s difficult to argue with him.

Over the last 20 years, Memhard and Cape Pond have seen the company’s fish ice sales fall by as much as 90 percent, from 40,000 tons a year to 4,000 tons a year. And with several Gloucester fishermen talking openly of being forced to stay on the piers for the coming fishing year, the simple fact is that businesses like Cape Pond Ice will likely have few customers to whom to sell. A first year of interim limits allowed under the still-questionable stock projections crafted by NOAA trimmed the limits in Gulf of Maine cod by only 22 percent, but with allowable landings slashed by 77 percent for this coming year, fishermen will likely not be able to target Gulf of Maine cod at all since the limits may account only for the bycatch, or discards, of cod taken up when fishermen are targeting other species.

…

It doesn’t have to be that way, of course. Despite the claims of NOAA regional administrator John Bullard, based right here in Gloucester’s Blackburn Industrial Park, there is in fact nothing in the Magnuson-Stevens Act precluding him and his job-killing agency from declaring a second year of interim limits at the 22 percent mark. That, of course, is the way congressional leaders, who put the law in place, have seen it, too. Yet Bullard, basing his position on legal advice from NOAA General Counsel Lois Schiffer and her notorious anti-fishing agenda — refuses to grant the second year because he and Schiffer claim Magnuson doesn’t specifically allow it.

 

Read the full editorial at the Gloucester Times

 

 

March 6, 2013 — The human crisis in the groundfishing industry is a real crisis. It is not contrived, it is not looming, it is not a threat, it is here.

It [government] must turn its focus on the people, and bring financial support to the families and port communities that have made the fishing industry a vibrant part of New England’s economy, heritage and culture.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) have all realized, and admitted, that the scientific conclusions that guided their fisheries management system over the past decade are wrong. The government’s cuts to the New England 2013 groundfish allocations to the fishing fleet are 77 percent of the previous year’s anemic allocations. The reason for these cuts is that the science that was used to determine allocations indicates that many of the ground fisheries are in peril due to “overfishing.”

Interestingly though, the New England groundfishing fleet, while operating in good faith under NOAA’s management plans, has each year caught only about 40 percent of its stock allocations, hardly “overfishing.” No, “overfishing” is not the reason the fisheries are in danger. The reason is that, over a period of years, the government’s scientific stock assessments were not gathered, compiled or interpreted correctly by NOAA. These miscalculations and faulty assumptions have caused the government’s management plans to fail.

NOAA’s indifference to the human aspect of fishing communities is no longer tolerable. We in the fishing communities know; that fishing families are being decimated, that working waterfront infrastructures are being lost, and that the culture and heritage of the fishing communities of New England will shortly become a memory.

We all agree that accurate science is crucial to establishing a sustainable fisheries management plan. The retooling of the science and establishing effective fisheries management plans will take the government, at the very least, several years. While the government reconstitutes its scientific procedures, it cannot turn a blind eye to the devastating effect of its 77 percent cut in ground fish allocations. No fisherman or family can survive a 77 percent reduction in stock allocation.

These reductions will accelerate, and, quite frankly, are designed to continue the fleet’s consolidation and, in a short time, its ultimate collapse. The families and the port communities will suffer severe socio-economic harm; families’ savings, families’ homes, their health insurance and pension plans will be lost. Ancillary fishing businesses will face financial ruin, and what’s left of the port communities’ working waterfronts will be lost forever.

In order to stop this economic and social disaster, the government must work with the industry and the communities to literally and figuratively mothball the ground fishing fleet. Let’s put the emphasis on the needs of the people. Tie up the fleet for the period of time it takes for Congress to rewrite Magnuson-Stevens Act, for NOAA to reboot the science, and to draft and promulgate workable regulations.

The government should buy whatever permits are offered by fishermen who desire to leave the industry. It should also provide job training and placement to those persons in the industry who desire to change careers.

Let’s use the revenues from the Saltonstall/Kennedy Act to save the fleet, the fishing families and the port communities, not to supplement the budget of a bloated non-functioning agency. Let’s creatively use the Magnuson-Stevens Act emergency authority and disaster provisions to support the people negatively affected by the failed regulations.

Let’s reject the proposal to provide dollars that should be used to improve fishery science, for “at-sea monitoring.” Addressing “at sea monitoring” under the current circumstances illustrates how out of touch NOAA is to the economic catastrophe that has hit the industry. The industry doesn’t need monitors. It needs a plan to save the fishing families.

Fishermen are the original conservationists. They don’t require someone looking over their shoulder. They have followed the laws which have led them on a path to extinction. It is time for the government to act to save the people in the fishing industry.

Let’s spend the dollars that will one day benevolently be allocated for “a study to determine why there are no longer New England fishing communities,” on taking immediate steps to preserve the industry for the future. Until it is able to successfully manage the New England fisheries, the government must be accountable and take responsibility for its fishery management failures.

It must turn its focus on the people, and bring financial support to the families and port communities that have made the fishing industry a vibrant part of New England’s economy, heritage and culture.

Scott W. Lang is a practicing attorney and former mayor of the city of New Bedford.

 

Read the opinion piece at the Gloucester Times

 

 

 

March 4, 2013 — When there are no embattled folk left in a couple of years, the government may declare that the ocean has replenished itself. We may find that the people fishing our New England waters are not our sons and daughters, but may be persons contracted for hire by a mega fish conglomerate.

Between 1932 and 1933, Joseph Stalin determined to centralize control of agricultural production in the Soviet Union.

The Ukraine had been the bread basket for the country. The mostly small, independent farms, had been significantly able to satisfy the vast country’s need for food. Stalin’s policies were not about improving either the production of food, or assisting the independent farmer, but were about an aggressive confiscation of private land for the consolidation of power. The consequence of that power grab resulted in the starvation of between 6 and 10 million of its citizens in those two years.

While our current administration is surely not about starving its citizens, it does appear to be seeking to accumulate heightened powers. The Times’ Feb. 19 editorial questioned the reliability of NOAA’s scientific data that has initiated new fishing limits, for reasons including “no rank and file fishermen who know the waters (were) allowed input into the study.”

Why would NOAA seek input if the goal is to consolidate the fishing industry into a few larger corporations that can be maintained, controlled and perhaps even influenced for campaign contributions? Independent contractors are unpredictable and far less manageable than corporate managers who can make deals over a vastly greater collective product than one small vendor can provide.

The fishing industry is not the only institution facing dramatic government challenge. Google sites like “Michigan declares war on family pig farms,” or “government interference, crop problem connection seen.” Investigation of various sites on the Internet related to the production of food, whether animal or agriculture, and government intervention, reveal a fertile ground for concern.

The independent and hardworking farmer/fisherman has always been at the heart of our country’s ability to feed and care for its people. Why would the government, seemingly, and even apparently, attempt to frustrate the efforts of the independent American food contractor and provider? The answer may include government ambitions to increase centralized power. If the government controls energy, and if it controls the nation’s food, it controls the people.

It is reasonable to expect that when there are only a few/no embattled folk left in a couple of years, the government may then declare to us that, through its great wisdom, the ocean has remarkably replenished itself. We may find it disconcerting in the future, to observe that the people fishing our New England waters are not our sons and daughters, but may be persons contracted for hire by a mega fish conglomerate.

There will be no consolation that the New England fisherman may be sharing a similar fate to the American independent farmer.

The cause of the demise of both groups will not be related to the failed efforts of hardworking Americans, however, but it may be because of an appetite for control by a power hungry government seeking to consolidate power to the few, in order to govern the many.

 

 

 

 

March 4, 2013 — When I'm asked about the future of wild fish in the sea, I often cite my personal experience working in Alaska’s historically volatile salmon and crab industries. The science-based management of Alaskan fisheries has proved over time to be sustainable and is generally embraced (awkward man hug) by the fishermen.

I landed my first job as commercial fisherman in 1995. We spent the season gillnetting in a small skiff for Sockeye salmon near the mouth of the Kvichak River in Bristol Bay, Alaska. At age 19, I came for the adventure and allure of quick but hard-earned money. We landed an average amount of fish that year but the following season and subsequent decade proved to be a bust. The mighty
Kvichak Sockeye run had collapsed and it was unclear exactly why.

At the same time, farmed salmon from Norway and Chile had saturated the market with cheap red filets. This in turn devastated the price of wild salmon. The Alaska department of Fish and Game closed fishing in the Kvichak district for a number of years to allow for the spawning biomass to recover. Many Bristol Bay fishermen reluctantly quit the bay entirely during this period, including myself, as crew wages proved unsustainable.

More recently, the Kvichak began to show signs of revival. The price of salmon at the dock has more then doubled since its low point and continues to climb as consumers are now better educated on the health and environmental benefits of wild salmon. The Kvichak is back. It is now the highest producing river in the region.

 

Read the full story at the New York Times