Opinion

How is it that after NOAA scientists, and even National Marine Fisheries Service director, Eric Schwabb, have declared overfishing virtually ended in the majority of our U.S. fisheries, we still have regulations and management programs geared toward solving the fisheries crisis and declarations by aquaculture advocates that the "wild caught" fisheries cannot supply domestic demand for product?

As Naomi Klein points out in The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, it's the create-a-crisis strategy.  Not that there aren't plenty of real environmental crises to go around.  This idea, however, refers to a strategically created crisis, a sort of NY subway pickpocket's bump-and-lift type distraction.  It's the "Hey! Look at that over there!!! …all the fish will be extinct in 20 years", while the "free market environmentalism" pickpockets ply their trade and steal another publicly held natural resource. 

Create a crisis mentality as "cover", and while everyone scampers around putting out imaginary brush fires, move in with a new "regime change", a new order—a scheme geared to best enhance the perps' profits. 

 

Read the complete story at Newsvine.

 

 

 

 

 

This week, Congress will be voting on an amendment that will dramatically affect the fate of fishermen and seafood consumers alike. This critical amendment, introduced by North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones, would stop the government from creating certain new catch shares programs. Catch shares are a controversial form of fisheries management that rewards those who fish the fastest and hardest at the expense of small to mid-sized fishing operations.

Catch shares supporters are working hard to kill the amendment and give our fisheries over to big business the way that factory farms have been given over to big agriculture companies at the expense of small farmers. Ultimately, this industrialization of our seafood industry hurts not only smaller business but also consumers, who suffer from a poorer quality, more consolidated food system.
 
Because there is so much at risk and so many supporting catch shares on behalf of big business, my consumer advocacy group, Food & Water Watch, has joined with the Organic Consumers Association, Slow Food USA and Family Farm Defenders to ask Congress to support Jones’ amendment to end certain new catch shares programs. We are urging Congress to step in and stop the federal government under the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) reckless implementation of catch share programs.

Read the complete blog by Food and Water Watch at The Hill.

 

 

 

 

 

The first, and sometimes the only, thing people think they know about Maine fishermen, and especially island fishermen, is how fiercely they resist change. Like all truisms, this view vastly oversimplifies a more complicated reality. Of course, those whose lives are closest to the edge—whether that edge is geographical, economic or political—are more vulnerable to change. And whether those changes come from politicians in Washington or Augusta or from brief violent storms does not really matter because such changes usually threaten lives and livelihoods.

But we should not forget that those who successfully inhabit these edges also have to be highly adaptable. You have to respond to whatever the weather and markets throw at you. History tells us that Swan’s Islanders in the 1880s were among the first herring fishermen to adapt nets to use as purse seines to catch schools of herring. Or that Clarence Howard of Eagle Island in the 1940s rigged the differential and axle of an old pick up truck to his marine engine to develop an early lobster pot hauler. Or that boat builders on Beals Island have been in the forefront of evolving lobster boat design for over a century.

Nor should it be a surprise that the trend continues. Two and a half years ago in the fall of 2008. as the financial crisis gathered steam, the bottom dropped out of the lobster market almost overnight. Lobsters that had been selling for between $4 and $5 per pound were suddenly worth only $2 per pound. In the midst of this market meltdown, the Governor appointed a lobster task force (on which I participated). The task force met for nine months, collected and analyzed lots of market information, and ultimately recommended that the lobster industry—processors, dealers and fishermen—create a new public-private organization for marketing and branding Maine lobsters modeled on the wildly successful Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, in order to capture more value in the lobster commodity chain.

The recommendation unraveled after it became apparent that a marketing fund based on something like a five-cent per-pound levy on the volume of lobster landings strained the ancient tensions between fishermen and dealers and fishermen and processors. End of story? Not quite, because a couple of innovators have stepped into the breach—one from outside the industry, one from inside.

Read the complete story from The Working Waterfront

 

 

 

 

 

A Congressional hearing in Boston last month did little to clear up an ocean of mistrust between New England fishermen and their federal regulators. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, whose officers were once overly aggressive in fining fishermen and seizing their assets, has much to do to rebuild its credibility.

Massachusetts Senators Scott Brown and John Kerry, along with the House delegation led by Barney Frank and John Tierney, who have coastal districts, have been strong voices for federal accountability. They need to work closely with both the fishing industry and federal regulators to resolve disputes about both the extent of fishing limits and federal enforcement. But a bill filed by Brown and New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte would go too far toward striking down an evolving “catch share’’ program of administering the ground-fishing limits. Despite some problems in its implementation, catch share promises to be the fairest way to enforce limits that won’t disappear under any scenario.

Everyone agrees that there were too many regulations in the past, and they were over-enforced. But fishermen note that no one publicly paid the price for a system that rewarded regulators for aggressive enforcement by allowing their agency to keep seized assets. More than $600,000 in fines were returned to fishermen, but NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco says privacy rules prevent her from revealing any disciplinary actions. Meanwhile, the asset forfeiture program remains in place, though the rules governing it have changed.

Some fishermen have redirected their anger toward catch share, the new system that divides them into sectors, based on their location or equipment, and sets overall catch limits within each of the sectors for different ground-fish types. This promises to eliminate such egregious problems as individual fishing boats dumping excess catch overboard, just to stay within regulations.

Read the complete editorial from The Boston Globe

 

 

 

 

 

Objection! A response to the Oct. 23 editorial "A decidedly fishy lack of regulation"

Your editorial on menhaden made several bold claims about the health of the menhaden fishery but failed to back them up with any substantial evidence. A closer look at the best available data reveals a different picture.

Claiming that the damage done to the menhaden fishery is "self-evident," the article impugns the integrity of the fisheries data supplied by the industry without offering proof. Instead, it suggests that anecdotal evidence is a more reliable data source. Data is collected by the industry in close cooperation with the National Marine Fisheries Service and is not manipulated in any way, and this data has formed the core of the stock assessments for more than 50 years. To imply otherwise does not advance the cause of managing the fishery with the best available science.

Furthermore, your assertion that the menhaden fishery is in danger is not scientifically supported. In the most recent assessment, it was found that menhaden had been slightly overfished, only .4 percent above the limit; however, this was the only time in the past 10 years, and only the third time in the past 16 years, that overfishing occurred.

While the editorial is correct in noting that overfishing had occurred numerous times in the past, we find that it is more realistic to view the status of the menhaden population over the past 20 years or so.

When taking into account the menhaden removals by the fishing industry, it is imperative to consider egg-production of the species to determine the health of the stock. According to the most recent stock assessment, menhaden population fecundity estimate was nearly twice (18.6 trillion eggs) the level needed to replace the stock (9.3 trillion eggs). This constitutes clear scientific evidence that the Atlantic menhaden population is not in danger of collapse.

Read the full editorial at The Virginian-Pilot.

 

The menhaden is a humble fish. Many people may have never heard of it. Yet, this unassuming small creature is among the most important species in the Atlantic, playing a critical role in the region's food web and supporting the economies of countless coastal communities. Its numbers, unfortunately, are plummeting.

One of the culprits for the menhaden's dramatic decline is decades of unsustainable commercial fishing. This November, however, a key governmental body known as the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) has the opportunity to put in place sensible policies that could rebuild this severely depleted species.

Menhaden, also known as pogy, have dominated the annual catch along the East Coast since the mid-1800s. This yield helped create a vibrant industry across several states that used hundreds of ships and dozens of facilities to process billions of fish into oil and fertilizer.

While schools of pogy up to 40 miles long once were commonplace, decades of unsustainable fishing relegated this abundance to that of folklore. After peaking in the 1950s, the total menhaden take began decreasing, but not for lack of fishermen trying to catch them.

The quest for pogy continued unabated — surpassing in some years the U.S. catch for that of all other fish on the East Coast combined. For the last 50 years, large-scale commercial operations have continuously exceeded safe fishing targets, and there has been no corrective management action to halt menhaden's decline. As a result, the species' population has dwindled to less than 10 percent of its original size.

Today, a single company has control of 80 percent of menhaden fishing and processing. At its factory in Virginia, hundreds of millions of pogy are "reduced" down to commercial products — including feed for an array of farm animals, food additives, and oil for dietary supplements.

Menhaden are the primary food source for a number of seabirds, whales, and other popular marine mammals. They also provide nourishment for many of the species that East Coast anglers like to catch and eat, such as striped bass. But decades of huge menhaden hauls without any strong checks or balances have taken their toll on this ecosystem.

Read the full article at Foster's Daily Democrat.

Analysis: The article's claim that the menhaden population is "plummeting" due to "decades of unsustainable fishing" that has exceeded safe fishing targets is not backed up by the most recently available scientific data. A look at the most recent stock assessment by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) reveals no pattern of overfishing or the unsustainability mentioned in the article. The assessment made several important findings; the menhaden population is currently not overfished, fishing past the mortality threshold occurred only once in the past ten years, and the abundance levels of menhaden eggs are currently at target. Taken together, these points reveal that the fishery is far healthier than the article claims.

The claim that menhaden are "less than 10% of their original size" is similarly misleading. Menhaden are currently fished to 10% of their Maximum Spawning Potential (MSP), an estimate of a theoretical unfished population. This alone is not an indication of overfishing; menhaden have rarely risen above this level over the past several decades, and their high fecundity rates have previously allowed the population to rebuild itself.

The percentage of menhaden in sea bass diets is also not enough to indicate overfishing. Bass diets are highly variable, and depend on several factors that are independent of the menhaden fishery. Health issues in bass are also more likely attributable to water issues in the Chesapeake Bay rather than the presence or absence of menhaden. Runoff into the Bay has created oxygen dead zones in waters that bass usually inhabit. This has forced the bass into warmer, shallower waters that the bass are ill-suited for, causing them to not feed properly and leading to a greater susceptibility to illness.

 

 

I know that much has been said in The Standard-Times regarding environmental group pressure, particularly through the Environmental Defense Fund, on the commercial fishing industry in recent months; however, I would like to add several facts and experiences that readers can use to determine themselves whether or not industry claims are valid. First, I'd like to describe my personal experience with EDF.

About a month ago, I had the opportunity to meet with a new East Coast EDF representative, a very nice person with whom I have no personal issues whatsoever. However, I was told things such as "EDF wants/tries to work with fishermen" and "EDF doesn't have as much power as you think it does."

Now, when I, along with other fishing industry advocates and fishermen, have had the opportunity to travel to Washington, D.C., for meetings with congressmen, senators and their staffers, or to attend congressional hearings for the purpose of representing, amongst other things, industry opposition to catch shares, I have been told by congressional staffers that EDF personnel have actually been meeting with the same offices before or after our visits, for the purpose of promoting catch shares. They basically try to undo all that we, the industry members and representatives, try to do.

That does not sound like "working with fishermen" to me. EDF tells Congress the complete opposite of what we tell it. In fact, from what I was told by organizers, at the very times when national pro-fishing groups made specific trips to D.C. for the purpose of opposing catch shares before Congress, EDF launched targeted "counterattacks" of pro-catch share propaganda.

In fact, EDF has on-site paid personnel in Washington, on a continual basis, to lobby Congress for its own agenda. I have seen its employees repeatedly at congressional fishery hearings in D.C. At one such hearing, I witnessed EDF pay to have a few, select "poster children" fishermen, whose airfare, lodging and total expenses were paid by EDF, come and sit in a congressional hearing room before a House subcommittee, and wear red T-shirts that said "Fishermen for Catch Shares."

The rest of us from the fishing industry who attended, in order to oppose catch shares, did not have any of those luxuries. We, as the majority of the industry, had to take unpaid time off of our own jobs, away from our own businesses and boats, and money out of our own pockets and those of other cash-strapped industry members who wanted their voices heard, to pay for hotels, food, travel, etc., in order to defend our own interests against groups such as EDF who would lead Congress to believe that we "wanted" catch shares in our region. My experience has been that EDF works against the majority fishermen, not with them.

Read the complete opinion piece from The Standard-Times

 

 

 

 

 

It was in February 2010 that up to 5,000 independent commercial and recreational fishermen, backed by various state and federal lawmakers, turned out for an unprecedented show of allied strength on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol for what became known as the United We Fish rally.

And in the 20 months since that day, a lot of issues have come to light regarding the fishing industry and our own federal government's heavy-handed means of regulating it under National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco.

Just days after that rally, we heard damning testimony at congressional hearings from Gloucester to Washington on excessive NOAA enforcement tactics documented by the Commerce Department's Inspector General's office — offenses so severe that, by this past summer, they prompted a Cabinet-level apology from the feds and reparations to fishermen and waterfront businesses.

We have also seen congressional votes to put the clamps  on any new expansion of Lubchenco's beloved catch-share management program, which has triggered a commodities market based on fishermen's catch allocations and is funneling more quota into the hands of larger corporations, while driving smaller, independent boats right out of business.

Read the complete opinion piece from the Newburyport News.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Massachusetts state Department of Environmental Protection is setting up another unnecessary hurdle for fishermen to overcome — red tape and bureaucracy.

Fisherman Richard Cook's grant, approved by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, the Mashpee Conservation Commission and the Mashpee selectmen, is now the first shellfish farming project in recent state history to undergo the complicated "environmental notification" procedure.

The DEP contends that Cook's shellfish grant must be reviewed because it is in a "velocity zone," an area where waves become more intense during storms; takes up more than a half-acre; and has more than 2,000 square feet of bottom-anchored structures.

Cook says the opposition has lost him money and product. "I've got half a million oysters … in danger of dying over the winter," he said. "I've got a lot of time and money invested and some of it is just going to go out the window."

Read the complete letter from the Standard-Times.

 

 

 

 

 

One focus will be Magnuson-Stevens' National Standard 8 — requiring NOAA to weigh the impact of regulations on fishing communities — Zinser should have a field day showing how nonprofits' interests have far outweighed any concern for the industry and communities.

Then there's the blatant co-opting of the rulemaking process documented in a classic 2005 EDF grant proposal, which encouraged a potential donor to support the primary catch share pusher because EDF could "work the regulatory process from the inside, making aggressive use of our hard-won seat on the New England Fishery Management Council."

There's also the hidden communications among NOAA, the New England council, and Conservation Law Foundation amid the push for catch shares for Gloucester and other New England fishermen. Those exchanges were sought by fishery attorneys in an earlier lawsuit, yet denied after CLF actively fought to keep such emails and other communications out of public view.

This probe is long, long overdue.

Read the complete editorial by The Gloucester Times.