Opinion

Measured by any meaningful criteria the Keep Fishermen Fishing rally held on the steps of the Capitol on March 21 was a stunning success. It was attended by thousands of fishermen from as far away as Alaska, twenty one Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, and at least a half a dozen other VIPs made room in their busy schedules to come out and address the people who attended.

From the most conservative of the conservatives to the most liberal of the liberals, these politically divergent speakers had one message; fix the Magnuson Act and bring back the balance between conservation and harvest.

For the second time at the national level recreational and commercial fishermen – no matter what fisheries they participated in, no matter what their disagreements on allocation or lesser issues were, and no matter where they were from – were standing together and demanding a return to the original intent of the Magnuson Act; that independent fishermen regain the significant role they once played in Magnuson management which has been pre-empted by environmental extremists, the bureaucrats who seem to be at their beck and call, and their pet “fishermen.”

But, and this will come as no surprise to anyone with a knowledge of the hundreds of millions of dollars that a handful of charitable foundations have been shoveling into the coffers of what can only be described as anti-fishing ENGOs (for an idea of their contributions, visit The Big Green Money Machine at http://www.fishtruth.net), there were isolated voices raised both pre- and post-rally distorting the purpose of the rally and the single unifying message of Keep Fishermen Fishing. There was also a paucity of coverage in the main stream media, which might be understandable considering there were no crises involved (other than the manufactured world crisis in fishing), no angry confrontations and no civil or uncivil disobedience.

Just a bunch of hard working people who invested their own time and money into trekking to Washington to voice their dissatisfaction with job-killing federal fisheries policies and their elected officials who have taken their dissatisfaction seriously and intend to do something about it.

Who were these people who objected to the rally?

Read the full article here.

 

 

Capt. Ford owns and operates a trawler that can no longer sell to Whole Foods Market. He wrote this letter to Whole Foods last November upon learning that they decided to implement their new purchasing policy this year instead of in 2013.  Captain Ford views the ratings of Monterey Bay Aquarium and Blue Ocean Institute as inconsistent, noting that gill nets, which are considered acceptable in the ratings, have issues with marine mammal captures.

November 27, 2011

Dear Whole Foods,

I am the owner and operator of the F/V Lisa Ann II out of Newburyport, MA.   Before your company bought out Bread and Circus, I had been a supplier of fish to them for a number of years.  After Pigeon Cove took over Bread and Circus I continued to be a supplier and I am currently the largest supplier of cod in the northeast for your company.

Whole Foods was founded on building a lasting relationship with local farmers, local producers, and local vendors.  I am a local family owned and operated business that has always strived to provide fresh quality fish.  More importantly, I have always thought of myself as part of the team at Whole Foods because of the relationship between our two businesses.  Because I felt our business relationship was strong and because I believed in the vision of Whole Foods I have been basing my business decisions knowing that I was working with Whole Foods for the long haul. I have always been treated fairly by Whole Foods and have always worked with them in a positive way so that all parties involved would be successful not just in the moment but for future growth too.  I have believed so much in Whole Foods, that every month I put money back into the company by buying stock in the company.

I understand the reasoning behind Whole Foods following the guidelines Blue Ocean Institute has set down, because I do firmly believe that it is important to protect our environment so that our industry is sustainable. I feel like, however, that Whole Foods is basing decisions on what Blue Ocean Institute is telling them to follow, not what they see is happening locally.  Blue Ocean Institute bases their decisions on outdated science and lumps ALL trawl boats into one category.  It is not taking the time to make exceptions for those fishing boats trying to change and make a difference and nor does it seem to be taking into consideration the recent local and regional changes in the Northeast.

Trawl caught fish has historically been seen as not being environmentally friendly because the fishing gear used drags along and tears up the bottom of the ocean.   To address this issue, I chose to switch over to new environmentally friendly trawl doors from Denmark.  These doors do not drag along the ocean floor tearing it up, instead they remain off the floor of the ocean.  In fact, 2 out of the 5 boats in the fleet that supplies Whole Foods have these doors.  I feel that it would be easy to persuade the 3 remaining boats to also switch over to this new technology that Blue Ocean Institute has not yet taken into consideration.

In addition to switching over my fishing gear, I have also made other modifications to my boat that reduces my reliance on fossil fuels.  I am currently running a hydrogen fuel cell on my main engine of my boat to reduce emissions and fuel consumption.  Wind generators on the boat also help to reduce fuel costs because it reduces power consumption on my generator.  Lastly, I have added trawl sensors to my nets that let me know when my nets are full of fish.  This technology has reduced the amount of time that I need to fish because I no longer need to guess when my net is full.  In the past I might drag my nets for 4 hours before checking them, and now there are days where my new technology lets me know only after 15 minutes that my net is full.

Blue Ocean Institute’s decision does not seem to be taking into consideration that the entire fishing management system in the Northeast changed drastically a year ago.  I may be wrong, but I do not think that Blue Ocean Institute has based their current Red List for Gulf of Maine fish on any NEW data collected after a year of this new management system.

All fisheries have a good and bad side to them, but yet I am working hard to minimize the negative impact that my fishing has on the environment.  I am trying to become a more environmentally friendly business so that I could continue to have a partnership with Whole Foods and provide fish to the public that I can stand behind.  Unfortunately, I feel like Whole Foods is no longer trying to stand behind my environmentally friendly and local business.

I can only wonder what the lasting impact will be on the local fishing economy and that of the entire Northeast if Whole Foods does continue to follow the guidelines set down by Blue Ocean Institute.  If Whole Foods does choose to blindly follow the guidelines rather than make decisions based on what is happening locally, I cringe to think of the domino effect that will occur.  Other businesses look to Whole Foods to see what they do and if they too choose to turn their back on the local fisherman, who will buy the cod?  If there are no local buyers for cod, fisherman will do the only thing they can and target a new species.  If all fishermen target a new species, it too would soon become Red Listed.

It seems that if Whole Food truly wants to support the local fishermen that they would work with them and not just drop them.  Whole Foods could continue to be at the forefront of positive change simply by supporting and encouraging the local fishermen to change to fishing systems that are more environmentally friendly.  I am sure that the press associated with supporting the local fishermen would be more welcome than the press associated with Whole Foods choosing to no longer work with the local businessman.

I truly hope that I can continue to work with and for Whole Foods because I do believe in the direction that the company is going.  I feel, however, that the only way that it will happen is if Whole Foods makes decisions based on what is happening locally rather than what an outsider is telling them is happening in general.

Sincerely,

Jim Ford
Captain & Owner  F/V Lisa Ann II

Anger between New England fishermen and their federal regulators at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would be far worse if a major headquarters of NOAA’s fishing management division weren’t in Gloucester, a location where local fishermen and federal officials can at least talk directly to each other.

But Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee’s subcommittee on commerce and science, is pushing to close the Northeast regional fisheries office in Gloucester. The committee has approved her plan to move the regional headquarters, which services the waters from Maine to North Carolina, from Gloucester to Silver Spring, Md. Mikulski’s main criticism about NOAA seems to be that her constituency does not “get calls back” from an office so far away.

There is no evidence that the proposal would save money, or that it would change federal policies in any meaningful way. But the new building in Gloucester is the agency’s largest regional facility; it is not easily replaced. Massachusetts’s fishing industry is six times larger than Maryland’s, and Mikulski’s proposal would merely shift the pain of dealing with absent regulators from her state to those in New England: Maryland, after all, is hardly a central location between North Carolina and Maine. Jobs would be lost here in the process.

Read the complete editorial by The Boston Globe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The second memorial of the nation’s worst oil catastrophe has come and gone, forever linked to Earth Day and seared into the psyches of millions of Gulf residents and fishermen. In recent weeks, the media has unleashed a torrent of stories about the devastating impacts of the nation’s worst oil spill disaster; deaths, disease and deformities in the fisheries; a two-year record-setting die off in dolphin populations; medical emergencies and family health crises in coastal communities; and ongoing Congressional wrangling over tens of millions of dollars in fines needed to save and rebuild the rapidly disappearing Gulf coast.

But it won’t be long before these stories fade from the consciousness of a nation once riveted by the volcanic well spewing out Louisiana crude a mile below the sea. Instead we will see more stories like this one BP published in the Alabama Press-Register last week: "After Two Years, The Grandeur of the Gulf Is Returning."

"These days, we don’t see oily sheens and miles of orange containment boom; we see sparkling water and clean sand, dotted with deck chairs and beach towels. On the horizon, we don’t see an armada of ships skimming oil; we see fishing vessels at work gathering the day’s catch. And, in the skies and on the ground, we don’t see planes and large cleanup crews; we see birds and other wildlife at play.

"But one thing is clear: Many of the dire predictions for the Gulf, made in the days and weeks after the accident, have not turned out to be true. Indeed, after two years of hard work alongside local, state and federal officials, the scientific community and the people of the region, substantial progress has been made. And the grandeur of the Gulf is steadily returning."

You can expect the media and the airwaves to be clogged with happy talk about the Gulf in the months ahead. We all wish it were true, but the facts — and perceptions of those toiling in the fisheries — just don't support it. After reading BP’s latest polemic, veteran Alaska marine toxicologist and author Riki Ott remembered Exxon's tactics after the Valdez disaster in an email this week; 

Read the complete opinion piece at The Huffington Post

 

 

 

 

 

The fishing and seafood processing industries got great news yesterday when a federal district court judge in Florida handed down a decision to delay implementation of new H-2B guest worker program rules.

The new Labor Department rules threatened to shut down processing facilities from Alaska to the Chesapeake Bay by complicating the process that allows seafood processors to bring in foreign workers for jobs that are no longer appealing to American workers.

“The new rules force us to spend more time and money on recruitment initiatives that have proven almost worthless. They greatly complicate efforts to bring in employees who have demonstrated their willingness to do what American workers simply won’t do,” said Jack Brooks, president of the Coalition to Save America’s Seafood Industry, in a press release.

The coalition is committed to continuing to work with Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA) and Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) to improve labor regulations as well as communication between the federal government and the industry that relies on a staggered influx of foreign workers based on varying needs as fishing seasons progress.

While I think it's unfortunate that millions of American college students would rather pile on student loan debt than work in seafood plants for the summer, we must recognize that the system has changed. Students are often expected to further their career credentials by working for nothing (or next to it) in summer internships.

As a nation, we have veered away from understanding what a day's work really means. I hope to teach my own child the value of true labor. In the meantime, I'm happy to know the processing and picking houses will be humming along as usual.

 

 

 

 

 

Whole Foods’s decision to cast its sustainability lot with national organizations that fail to account for the localized impacts of their policy pronouncements also speaks directly to the broader problem of the consolidation of our food-purchasing decisions.

Two recent pieces in the national news media expose some of the problems with the current piecemeal system of sustainability ratings that establish guidelines with no clear accountability to any third-party source. The New York Times’s Abby Goodnough analyzeda decision by the organic supermarket chain Whole Foods this month to no longer sell seafood not certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council or if it was red-listed by either the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program or the Blue Ocean Institute. And The Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin probed questions about the credibility of such labeling in the first place.

Eilperin’s article focused primarily on whether organizations that create sustainability ratings are applying sufficiently stringent standards. She cited a study published recently in the academic journal Marine Policy, which found that up to 31 percent of fish stocks certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council were experiencing overfishing. Council officials refute this claim, pointing to flaws in the authors’ methodology. Eilperin’s piece also quoted fisheries scientist Daniel Pauly saying the group’s criteria have declined so much in recent years that the organization now “[certifies] everything that moves.”

Others suggest that the problem is precisely the opposite—that the standards applied by these organizations are too stringent and fail to account for nuances of local fisheries. The Times’s Goodnough quoted David Goethel, a member of the New England fishery management council, touting the stringency of U.S. fishery management, arguably the strongest in the world, and suggesting “using the word ‘sustainable,’ maybe it looks good in your advertising. But, without being too harsh, [the word] means absolutely nothing.”

Absent a clear definition of the word “sustainability,” Goethel’s point is actually well taken.

Whole Foods’s purchasing decisions have attempted to account for local seafood sensitivities in the past, but as an exception, rather than a rule. In 2006 the chain announced it wouldn’t sell live lobsters at any of it stores because it didn’t feel it would be “in line with our commitment to humane treatment and quality of life for animals.”

Less than a year later, when the chain opened a store in the heart of lobster country, Portland, Maine, it made an exception, though it still requires employees to electrocute the lobsters before shoppers take them home to prevent the animals from being boiled alive.

Whole Foods’s decision to cast its sustainability lot with national organizations that fail to account for the localized impacts of their policy pronouncements also speaks directly to the broader problem of the consolidation of our food-purchasing decisions. Policies set at a corporate level will inherently be made in the best interests of the company. Environmental health or animal cruelty issues may play a role, but at the end of the day the decision will come down to what’s best for the company’s bottom line.

And regardless of whether or not lobsters prefer the electric chair, any vision for sustainable-fishery management must include the human element. Sustaining fisheries doesn’t just mean sustaining fish. In an interview with Boston’s WBUR radio, chef and National Geographic fellow Barton Seaver said, “We're talking about a human product. As much as we talk about sustainable seafood, let's talk about sustainable fishermen. Because of all the charismatic species on the redlist, those in most danger, fishermen are right up there.”

Programs that encourage consumers to steer clear of fish caught by fishermen using legal methods, like trawls, and adhering to scientifically based catch limits may have the unintended consequence of bankrupting some fishing operations by taking away their market. Not all fishermen will be able to eke out a living using gear that some may consider more environmentally friendly.

Part of ensuring a sustainable future for the seafood industry means maintaining access for fishermen who operate under scientifically defined catch limits, and then identifying their products with clear, verifiable, traceable labels.

In sum, organizations like the Gulf of Maine Research Institute that develop policies accounting for regional specificity are inherently better equipped to understand and explain their local fisheries than even the most well-intentioned national group. And local fish mongers know far more than a supermarket manager what fish will best meet his or her customer’s needs.

So if you’re really looking for a sustainable fish dinner, bypass the big box store all together and make an extra stop at a fish market on the way home.

Read the complete opinion piece from The Center for American Progress

 

 

 

 

 

April 27, 2012 – NOAA has never undertaken a stock assessment for sturgeon, regional council members were told Tuesday. The agency declared it endangered when acting on a petition by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The New England Fishery Management Council, not to mention fishermen out of Gloucester and across the region, have a new obstacle to face when they begin the new fishing year next Tuesday. And this one's spawned from a NOAA decision that may truly mark a new low, even for an agency with virtually no credibility left.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has declared the Atlantic sturgeon as an endangered species, and that bodes badly for fishermen across the region.

It's not that New England fishermen are illegally hauling in a lot of sturgeon. But the declaration also means that fishermen cannot haul up sturgeon in their bycatch — the fish that nets accidentally snag when fishermen are targeting other species. And that may mean dire new limits on the catches for other species in the sturgeon's habitat, which ranges up and down the Atlantic coast.

Read the full story at the Gloucester Times.

 

 

April 25, 2012 – Forget the recent headlines suggesting that there is no decline in the numbers of alewives, the precious little forage fish that, along with its lookalike blueback herring cousin, underpins the marine food pyramid.

Alewives swarming up local rivers to spawn in recent weeks have inspired talk that the fish are as plentiful as in the past, but the runs are deceptive. To the contrary, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is investigating whether to afford protection to the alewife and blueback herring, together called river herring, under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). A determination on whether to propose classification of the fish as ‘threatened” under the act may be made as early as this autumn.

“There is no evidence yet that there is a better alewife run than normal,” says Steve Gephard, veteran fisheries biologist with the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEEP).

Low water has made fish more evident and warm weather not only triggered the run almost a month early but probably brought more people to waterside to see the fish as they moved up from the sea. An accurate assessment of the alewife run cannot be made until another month or more passes, says Gephard, who also notes that blueback herring begin spawning runs in May. Low water, due to lack of rain, may impede upstream traffic of the river herring, says Gephard. Beaver are building dams to raise water levels, creating another potential barrier, he adds.

Read the full story at Ellington-Somers, CT Patch.

 

 

April 25, 2012 – EDF's work in fisheries management has not been insignificant and has not endeared it to fishermen in the Northeast. Development of and advocacy for the 2-year-old catch shares system here have contributed to a belief on the waterfront that EDF's commitment to prosperity and partnerships is calculated lip-service that belies a more radical agenda to simply run fishermen out of business. Fishermen's predictions that catch shares would consolidate allowable catch into the hands of a few deep-pocketed fishermen have largely come to pass.

That hasn't stopped EDF's Johanna Thomas from trying to find and engage those partners. Thomas is a strategic adviser for EDF in New England and the Mid-Atlantic, with experience in the catch shares system on the West Coast. She visited with The Standard-Times editorial board about a year ago and again earlier this month, and both times she expressed how important she thinks it is to work with fishermen in order to keep them fishing in a sustainable way.

EDF's history, outside of fisheries, has been one of making a difference. It was launched in the late 1960s when a group of scientists banded together to try to ban the use of DDT. The causes taken up since then run the gamut, from seeking a ban on whale hunting to pushing McDonald's for biodegradable packaging.

EDF's creed includes the word "stewardship," and we would urge the fund to be aware of its own responsibility to be good stewards of its considerable political capital.

Thomas was in New Bedford again this week to meet with the mayor and SMAST scientists on trying to improve the relationship with fishermen, but local fishermen, SMAST scientists and political leaders are justifiably skeptical as a result of years of bad regulations and punitive enforcement of unreasonable environmental standards.

We are convinced that Thomas' efforts in New Bedford on behalf of the fishing community are far more than lip-service, and we hope to see her success in finding the partnerships that will address the struggles of dealing with the more and more stringent regulations of fisheries rulemakers. And we likewise hope that as EDF puts more resources into the area — financing for struggling small fishermen, for example — the waterfront community will respond and benefit from a climate of cooperation.

Read the full article at the New Bedford Standard-Times.

 

 

April 24, 2012 – In recent weeks, Republicans in Congress have once again taken aim at a comprehensive ocean management and protection plan. In misleading hearings and op-eds, their talking points mirror rumors that have long been exposed as false—that the National Ocean Policy (NOP) is somehow a direct assault on fishing.

Frankly, such an assertion is ridiculous. The National Ocean Policy, with proper stakeholder input, would actually protect habitat and access and result in the common sense management of marine resources. Current attempts to defund and delay implementation of the National Ocean Policy are a thinly veiled attack on the basic programs that protect, maintain and restore the health of our oceans and coasts.

The policy’s improved ocean management effort is designed to protect and create jobs, and grow our economy by ensuring all the multiple uses of the ocean don’t come crashing down on each other. It requires the more than 20 federal agencies that govern our seas—currently in an uncoordinated and ad hoc way—to finally work together, with input from local governments, ocean industries and, yes, fishermen. To some, this may appear as yet another layer of government intervention. But the truth is it will actually streamline the process, reduce bureaucratic red tape and perhaps more importantly, enlist local stakeholders in the decision-making process.

Recreational and commercial fishermen would indeed benefit from the National Ocean Policy. It would help us address all the factors that stand to jeopardize fish populations, from habitat destruction to water pollution. While ocean-use conflicts between industries like fishing and energy development continue to increase, the NOP will help us manage these conflicts by planning ahead to help keep, for example, energy plants off prime fishing grounds and unique habitat, so that all sectors can coexist. In fact, a recent Massachusetts case study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that planning ahead for ocean industry could generate more than $10 billion for the energy sector and prevent more than $1 million in losses to the fishery and whale watching sectors, compared to the status quo.

Read the full article at The Hill.