Opinion

March 4, 2013 — Wild fisheries in U.S. territorial waters are governed by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This act contains strict requirements for conservation and sustainability that essentially mandate no fish stock be subjected to overfishing. The overfishing limit is strictly defined. It is not only precautionary, but is a level that allows fish stocks to rebuild to the maximum sustainable yield level over time.

In 1996, federal lawmakers adopted the Sustainable Fisheries Act as a substantial amendment to Magnuson-Stevens. It is perhaps the most aggressive conservation law currently in place in the world. Essentially, it requires that all fish stocks be evaluated for their status relative to what is believed to be their fully rebuilt potential. If a stock is believed to be below 50 percent of the rebuilt goal, fishery managers are required to initiate a rebuilding plan that reduces fish mortality to a level that will allow the stock to be fully rebuilt in 10 years or less.

 

Read the full story at The New York Times

 

 

March 4, 2013 — Northeast Seafood Coalition's Vito Giacalone and Bristol Bay Sockeye Salmon Fisherman Corey Arnold contribute to NY Times "Room for Debate" roundtable.

Fish plays a starring role in the Mediterranean diet that’s supposed to keep us healthy. And yet it’s a disappearing commodity.

Meanwhile, there is growing concern about what is sustainable, or even identifiable.

Is there a way to meet consumer demand for quality seafood and protect threatened marine life at the same time?

 

Read the "Room for Debate" discussion at the New York Times

 

 

March 1, 2013 — Gulf of Mexico states and their anglers are increasingly frustrated with short seasons for prized red snapper in federal waters. They have every right to be angry. The management of the recreational share of the fishery is utterly failing.

Gulf of Mexico states and their anglers are increasingly frustrated with short seasons for prized red snapper in federal waters.  They have every right to be angry. The management of the recreational share of the fishery is utterly failing. This year’s projected federal season of a few weeks at best, together with large over-harvests each year, are obvious signs.  The system stinks and punishes everyone including those who enjoy fishing on their own and fishermen and families who use for-hire guides to access the Gulf.

There are a lot of passionate voices advocating change. Open discussion should be respected and welcome – in fact, exploration of new ideas is the only way to get closer to solutions.  Unfortunately, the gossip and finger-pointing simply diverts attention from important issues and does nothing to help.

I am proud of the partnerships between Environmental Defense Fund and fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico.  I am convinced that cooperation between conservationists, fishermen and government are critical to the long term health of the Gulf.  I am also convinced that the progress of commercial red snapper management towards rebuilding the fish population and sustained financial viability is vital to success.

It is important to understand the commercial fishery.  Both recreational and commercial fishermen are able to catch more fish today than a few years ago in large part because the catch share management program works so much better than the former derby system. The total catch for both sectors has increased 60% since 2008.  Commercial fishermen who already enjoy year-round fishing immediately see the benefits as their individual quota increases.  This is a fair result for making a huge and challenging transition to new management after years of advocacy to convince regulators to fix (not just band-aid) the system.

On the other hand, recreational fishermen don’t see benefits at all.  Their catch limit has risen, but the seasons get shorter and in most years the recreational share is busted.  This is not the result of recreational fishermen breaking rules. It happens because management has failed.

“Re-allocation” of red snapper from commercial to recreational fishermen is offered by some as a solution.  Such arguments have been around for years.  But re-allocation is just an allocation tool, not a solution to the failed recreational management system.  It will do nothing to ensure longer seasons over time or contribute to long-term health of the stock. As long as limited seasons and bag limits remain the only options for recreational fishermen, today’s problems will continue.

For over 20 years I’ve worked in the field of fisheries and ocean conservation, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico.  During that time I’ve been privileged to catch and enjoy the region’s red snapper, kingfish and flounder.  In my view, we can and should balance conservation of the region’s resources with people’s need for jobs, food, and enjoyment.  In fact, finding the balance is at the heart of the Gulf’s future. Recreational fisheries deserve real options that seek that balance.

In a recent letter to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, Daniel Willard and I outlined part of EDF’s views. Here is an excerpt:

“…we recommend the Council and stakeholders focus on developing new red snapper recreational management with the goals to contribute to rebuilding of the stock and meet other important objectives including longer fishing seasons.  The Council has already discussed new management models that are a good place to start.  Examples include proposals for head-boat IFQs, charter days-at-sea, harvest tags, and inter-sector quota transferability.  These options should be further developed to see how they can provide needed benefits for the stock and recreational fisheries: longer seasons, improved access and flexibility, better data and information, and contributions to rebuilding.

Recreational and commercial fisheries are important to the region’s economy and culture.  Both sectors seek long seasons and management that accomplishes this goal can also be good for the economy and rebuilding of the stock – the commercial red snapper fishery is one example.  Just as the Council made significant changes to commercial management seven years ago which are now paying off, now it needs to make significant improvements to improve recreational fisheries management.  This is not easy and there are no perfect off-the-shelf models for effective long-term management in joint commercial/recreational fisheries.  However, new management models offer promising features and potential to expand recreational fishing access without undermining rebuilding.  This can improve economic efficiency, preserve conservation incentives, and help relieve the allocation impasse that is stalling fishery management progress in the Gulf.”

EDF is more than happy to debate the important issues facing our fisheries, but that debate must be grounded in facts and not merely rhetoric that undermines the passion all of us share for the ocean.

Pamela Baker is the Director of EDF’s Oceans program in the Gulf of Mexico.

 

Read the entire letter from Daniel Willard and Pamela Baker to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council

 

 

February 28, 2013 — Federal law demands that economic impacts be minimized on our fishing families, and make sure that they can continue to participate in the fishery.  Mr. Bullard and his agency seem to forget and disregard this part of the law — the law, not a suggestion — that binds their actions.

Section 303(a)(9) of the same law states that "any" fishery management plan must "include a fishery impact statement … which shall assess, specify, and analyze the likely effects … of the conservation and management measures … and possible mitigation measures…  To ignore one side of the law while pretending to adhere to another side of the same law is just not good enough.

…

In response to the newest cuts, which signal the end for New Bedford's groundfishing fleet — which will essentially allow each boat to work for only a couple or few days next year — Mr. Bullard stated, "A plant shuts down. A person who's worked there for 30 years all of a sudden goes to the factory door and it's closed. You learn a new trade and you adapt." I am dumbstruck by the indifference of this statement to our fishermen. Basically, it is "too bad." But too bad for Mr. Bullard and his agency that the federal law protects fishermen and fishing communities in a way that factories do not. Maybe he has forgotten that.

The federal law governing our fisheries, The Magnuson-Stevens Act, states in Section 301(a)(8) that, "Conservation and management measures [which the newest cuts purport to be] shall "¦ take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data "¦ in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities." The federal law demands that economic impacts be minimized on our fishing families, and make sure that they can continue to participate in the fishery. No factory I know of has such overt federal legal protection. Mr. Bullard and his agency seem to forget and disregard this part of the law — the law, not a suggestion — that binds their actions. To cut groundfish quotas by such draconian levels, based on science that continues to be debated as to accuracy and reliability, without any provision for the socio-economic impact and continued fishing opportunities for fishing families is, quite frankly, illegal.

Section 303(a)(9) of the same law states that "any" fishery management plan must "include a fishery impact statement for the plan or amendment … which shall assess, specify, and analyze the likely effects, including the cumulative … economic, and social impacts, of the conservation and management measures on, and possible mitigation measures for (A) participants in the fisheries and fishing communities affected by the plan or amendment." I have seen no such statement, analysis, or mitigation measures put forward by Mr. Bullard or his agency. But they still plan to essentially annihilate the groundfish fleet by their so-called "conservation" measures. To ignore one side of the law while pretending to adhere to another side of the same law is just not good enough. It is not good enough for our fishing families. It is not good enough for the Port of New Bedford.

What is good enough is an emergency action, also provided by the law, to address the brink of disaster. Section 305(c)(1) gives the Secretary of Commerce the ability to issue emergency regulations and interim measures to address an emergency in the fishery. This is an emergency. If Mr. Bullard used his position, based on the above considerations, to request such emergency measures, perhaps fishing families could have a chance to survive the coming fishing year. And perhaps he would be more respected.

 

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times

 

 

February 26, 2013 — Oceana, an advocacy organization devoted to "protecting the world's oceans," and the latest to test fish samples, would have us believe the mislabeling problem is dire, dire, dire. But dig into the report, and it's hard to find evidence for most of those claims.

By now, we all know that the fish we buy has about a one in three chance of being something other than what's on the label.

Just how much should we care?

We can all agree that, in a perfect world, fish would be labeled accurately, but Oceana, an advocacy organization devoted to "protecting the world's oceans," and the latest to test fish samples, would have us believe the mislabeling problem is dire, dire, dire:

"As our results demonstrate, a high level of mislabeling nationwide indicates that seafood fraud harms not only the consumer's pocket book, but also every honest vendor or fisherman along the supply chain. These fraudulent practices also carry potentially serious concerns for the health of consumers, and for the health of our oceans and vulnerable fish populations."

But dig into the report, and it's hard to find evidence for most of those claims.

Oceana collected fish samples from around the country, identified 1215 of them with DNA testing, and found that 401 didn't match the FDA's "Guide to Acceptable Market Names for Seafood Sold in Interstate Commerce." "Oceana Study Reveals Seafood Fraud Nationwide," reads the headline, and the report goes on to use the word "fraud" another 99 times. Read beyond that headline, though, and the picture changes.

The first problem with the report is the standard it uses to determine mislabeling. The FDA's list isn't law, it's a set of "non-binding regulations" that lists the "acceptable market name" of each fish species. The problem is that many fish have many names – what's a pogy to someone like me, who learned to fish on Cape Cod, is a bunker to someone like my husband, who learned to fish on Long Island, but a menhaden to someone at the FDA, whose fishing education is not clear. The list acknowledges some "vernacular" names, but specifies that they "are included ONLY for reference." The emphasis is theirs.

It's an emphasis Oceana takes to heart. "Labeling seafood with something other than the acceptable market name is mislabeling," they say, because "The FDA's general policy on vernacular names is that they are unacceptable market names for seafood." So, even though striped bass is almost always called "rockfish" on large swaths of the East coast, Oceana counts it as mislabeled.

The FDA's list applies only to fish sold interstate and, even then, it is a guideline and not a law. Yet Oceana counts every instance of a label not on the list as fraud.

 

Read the full opinion piece at The Huffington Post

 

 

February 27, 2013 — Fishermen and their backers would do much better to challenge first the shaky science and assessment study that has yielded data forcing a virtual shutdown, without a single rank-and-file fisherman having any role in gathering or evaluating the data. And they must challenge the adamant and arrogant stand by NOAA regional chief John Bullard and general counsel Lois Schiffer, who claim — in contrast to federal lawmakers, industry officials and even the New England Fishery Management Council – they are somehow blocked from extending the current, interim 22 percent cod cut limits for another year.

On the surface, there seems some context to a fishermen’s petition calling for NOAA to shut down its Northeast regional headquarters in Gloucester and use the estimated $15 million paid into those 200 or so salaries to provide relief for the Northeast groundfishery’s “economic disaster.”

After all, given the NOAA actions that have already forced 30 percent of Gloucester’s groundfishing fleet off the water and the devastating prospects of the agency’s declared 77 percent cut in Gulf of Maine limits for the coming fishing year, there will be no need for most of the enforcement personnel, who will have no one left to police. And NOAA and the Department of Commerce must be held accountable for providing financial relief to fishermen caught up in the disaster that Commerce Acting Secretary Rebecca Blank declared last September.

 

Read the full editorial at the Gloucester Times

 

 

February 27, 2013 — It does the domestic fishing industry little good to have customers avoiding fish because they don't trust the sellers.

I confess that I had never heard of escolar until last week when the environmental group Oceana found it being fraudulently sold as white tuna 84 percent of the time across the United States.

Escolar is remarkable for possibly having more side effects than everything but fugu, or pufferfish, which can kill you.

It really says something when the Japanese allow preparation of fugu by licensed chefs but consider escolar so toxic that it's been banned.

The problem is that escolar, which is quite waxy, oily and delicious (I am told), can cause a couple days of very colorful, explosive digestive problems because of all that wax.

I guess the Japanese must consider that a fate worse than death.

Escolar is but the most vivid example of a problem stemming from the false labeling of fish in markets and restaurants.

Like the horsemeat that's showing up in hamburger across Europe, most of the mislabeled fish in this country isn't really going to hurt you. Mostly it's a matter of sellers taking advantage of people's ignorance or the sameness of many species of fish to extract more profit from the exchange.

So good for Oceana, along with the Boston Globe last year, for spending the time and money to do hundreds of DNA tests to determine what exactly is being sold to us.

 

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard Times

 

 

February 21, 2013 — Eco-labeling schemes like MSC’s add additional layers of bureaucracy on retailers, farmers and fishermen while passing on costs to consumers.  These programs also ignore the fact that fishermen already participate in taxpayer-funded government management regimes ensuring the long-term health of fisheries.

So seafood lovers buying MSC-certified fish pay twice – once to government in the form of income taxes and again at the checkout counter where, hidden in the price, are fees paid to “green” certifiers and logo licensing agencies like MSC.  This explains why “certified” swordfish can cost $18.99 a pound instead of $15.00.  Another fisherman in the very same fishery, working under the exact same management regime, can sell his fish for less two doors over.  His fish is every bit as good and, when you buy it, you’re not supporting Big Green.

Layers of Green

After years of “green” campaigners wailing about overfishing the oceans, it was inevitable that some “green” corporation would step forward and offer to certify product as sustainable.  For a fee, of course.  Eco-labeling or eco-extortion? Or just another tax-free way to shelter profits?

NPR’s report revealed the size and scope of the MSC program:

MSC says its system has certified more than $3 billion worth of seafood, representing at least 8 percent of the world’s annual seafood catch.

But MSC own financial reports reveal it closed 2012 with 275 fisheries in its program, representing 10 million tons of seafood, fully 11% of the annual global catch:

Total group income in 2011/12 was £15 million [US$23M] compared to £12.8 million [US$20M] in the previous year, a 17.6% increase.  For the first time, incoming resources from charitable activities (that is, logo licensing revenue) exceed the contributions from foundations and trusts in the USA, Europe and UK.  The percentage of logo licensing income compared to total income increased to 56% (2010/11 49%).

 

Read the full story here

 

 

February 24, 2013 — Fishermen are a bit like indigenous folk. They live, quite literally, at the margins of society, they work irregular hours, have their own social codes, can occasionally be viewed as uncouth, do something most people don’t understand and they are viewed by many as taking something for nothing from a public resource.

Most conservation organisations appear to find it convenient to ignore the fact that fisherfolk have been working the sea for hundreds or thousands of years (without adding tonnes of pesticide, fertilizer or resorting to GM crops). In passing you might like to watch a world renowned fisheries scientist (Ray Hilborn) comparing the ecological impacts of fishing v farming. The differences between them and a landowner are:

1) they don’t have a piece of paper that says they own anything,
2) their ancestors didn’t steal land from peasants by force,
3) they are not over-represented in the house of lords,
4) you can’t do a mickey mouse degree at Oxford or Cambridge in “Marine management” because your parents come from the right social class
5) when you retire you leave with a broken body and a boat that is worth less than when you started.

Fishing has been perhaps one on the last occupations where you can succeed purely by dint of hard work and tenacity.

Recently we have seen the high profile application of pseudo-science to the world of fisheries by a cook. Would you ask a fisherman how to chop vegetables? Hugh-Feelmy-Walletall is making enormous amounts of money out of his public haranguing of the fishing industry (Fishfight isn’t a charity by the way). With his initial campaign against discards I just felt a mild irritation that someone who chops vegetables and heats meat was able to get further than many many marine scientists who have wrestled with the problem of discards for years. More recently however he has jumped on the Marine “Conservation” Zone bandwagon. Something that rich propaganda organisations such as Conservation International and Greenpeace are only too happy to support. I recommend listening to Ray Hilborn for a bit of balance in the face of this well financed barrage of mis-information.

The fact that there is virtually no evidence to support the idea that MCZs work in temperate areas, especially over soft sediments, seems to have been completely ignored. The government and most sensible people agree that there is a complete vacuum of evidenceto support the establishment of many of the proposed MCZs and some work that suggests their dominance as a paradigm in marine conservation ecology is a function of ideology rather than hard science. Simple folk like to believe that if you leave things alone things will get better and the world will return to some halcyon state – the “Erroneous equilibrium paradigm”. Real and positive conservation/resource management requires us to look more broadly than single species or drawing lines on charts. As Ostrom said, complex situation require complex solutions – there is no single solution, no magic bullet. As Beth Fulton said at the last World Fisheries Congress, “We need to tread lightly and with a broad footstep”

 

Read the full opinion piece here

 

 

February 25, 2013 — For centuries the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank have supported bountiful stocks of cod, haddock and flounder, attracting fishermen from all over the world. Unfortunately today, these fish stocks are just a remnant of what they were only a few decades ago.

In fact, two of the most sought after stocks, Gulf of Maine cod and Georges Bank cod, are at just 20 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of sustainable levels — that is levels that would allow those fish stocks to reproduce and keep pace with the number of fish being removed by fishing. The number of young Gulf of Maine cod being born is the lowest it's been since the 1980s, and cod on Georges Bank aren't growing as fast or as big as they used to, which means they will produce fewer eggs in the future. At last week's New England Fisheries Management Council meeting, I heard more than once from fishermen and scientists alike that once-abundant fish in the waters off New England "just aren't there."

The big question is: Why has this happened? Over the years, quotas have been gradually reduced, but still the fish aren't coming back as expected. It isn't simply a case of overfishing. There are environmental forces at play such as predation from recovered populations of dogfish and seals, changes in ocean water temperature and increases in ocean acidity. So, while it may not be totally on the fishermen's shoulders, it will be the fishermen who will have to pay the price.

The day of reckoning is here.

The New England Fishery Management Council, a group of fishermen, state managers and environmentalists who develop management measures for all federally managed fish stocks, took a tough vote a couple of weeks ago. They recommended very low catch limits for several key groundfish stocks for the next three years.

The cuts are going to hurt. But taking "no action" would have hurt more. The vote is the only chance to rebuild the fishery and put it on a path toward sustainability and profitability. And, it is possible to rebuild fisheries. Just look at the successful Atlantic sea scallop fishery. Today, the port of New Bedford, Mass., ranks number one in the country due to revenues generated from scallops.

 

Read the full story at Seacoast Online