Opinion

SEAFOODNEWS.COM [Letters] — Sept. 11, 2014 — "Why the do over?": You are exactly right, the "fishery has not changed" and the "area of certification is the same". In fact, there is no need for the "do over". However, MSC does allow other groups to gain certification for an identical fishery as you later point out. Its a choice.

The following is a letter to the editor that was submitted to Seafood.com in response to an editorial published yesterday:

To the Editor:

John, Hope all is well.   

Just read your MSC article of Sept. 10th (MSC certification system imposes $100,000 tax on Maine Lobster Industry).
 
I'm disappointed and surprised that you never contacted me to confirm some of the points you make. Honestly, you are way off base on some key points. I'm not sure where to begin.
 
But, if you don't mind, I'll try to address some of your key points here:
 
"Why the do over?": You are exactly right, the "fishery has not changed" and the "area of certification is the same". In fact, there is no need for the "do over". However, MSC does allow other groups to gain certification for an identical fishery as you later point out. Its a choice.
 
The question then would seem to be why would someone or a group choose to gain their own certification for an already certified fishery. I'm not sure I have all of the answers to that, but the ones that seem to have been given to you are not accurate.
 
Let me try to share with you another perspective:
 
1. "An industry group": Our original certification effort was started more than seven years ago. Our current Client Group Members are Maine natives who were born, raised and educated in Maine. All of us started our own Maine Lobster companies because we love Maine, we love Maine Lobster, and we thought we could bring some new energy to an old industry that wasn't maximizing its real value. For instance, Client Group member Luke Holden started an international Maine Lobster Roll craze when he founded his growing chain of Luke's Lobster restaurants. Others in our Client Group have also brought new technology and innovation to the industry and have won numerous awards. Shucks Maine Lobster is the only Maine company to win the Prix d'Elite Award at the Brussels International Seafood Exposition. In fact, they have won two of them.
 
This is why we started the MSC Certification process seven years ago. We thought the world should know what we in Maine already knew…that Maine Lobster is not only the most delicious food in the world, but that Maine harvesters have worked hard for generations to protect our resource and make it sustainable. We thought MSC Certification was the best way to deliver that message to the world. Its an important message if the Maine Lobster industry is to maximize its value.
 
In contrast, the new group, which under MSC regulations has every right to apply for their own assessment, is led by a New Hampshire business owner and a Massachusetts lawyer. The other members are very large and successful out of state seafood companies who all had a chance to join our original group, and can still do so today, but have decided to take another route. That is their choice. What their reasons for doing so are, I'm not entirely sure. But, some of the reasons you have given are not accurate and I will address those below.
 
The one Maine company in the new group did not support our efforts seven years ago and, in fact, did not support the concept of MSC Certification. I think its good for the industry that he has apparently changed his views.
 
As for the organizers, the New Hampshire business owner was given full access to our information and fee structure. In fact, he took that information and contacted several other companies in what we thought was a good faith attempt to recruit new client group members for us. We were surprised a few months later to be contacted by a Massachusetts lawyer well versed in MSC regulations.
 
The Massachusetts lawyer inquired about a group of companies who wanted to "join" our Client Group. He claimed to represent several companies who collectively purchased more than 70% of the Maine Lobster landed each year. As discussions continued, and his written proposal developed, it became very clear that he was far more interested in taking control of our Client Group rather than merely "joining" it.
 
While our Client Group is open to all Maine Licensed dealers and processors from in Maine or outside of Maine, our Board did not think that a Maine effort that received an important certification that adds value to the Maine Lobster fishery at no cost to the Maine fishermen should be taken over by a Massachusetts lawyer who was less than forthcoming.
 
I think that was a good decision at the time for Maine fishermen and several of them supported that view.
 
2. "Who benefits from this travesty?": I'm not sure I quite understand the term travesty here. This is a choice by the new group. They have every right to seek their own certification. The fees they pay go to the third party certifying body; not to MSC. No matter what client group they join or create, every member has to pay for its own  chain of custody certification. Every member has to pay the royalty to MSC if they choose to place the label on their product. The only additional cost here is the voluntary cost paid by the new group for their own assessment.
 
To avoid that cost, they could have simply joined the current Client Group.
 
3. "The initial push": You are correct. We raised the money privately for the assessment. We promised that it would cost the fishermen and the taxpayers nothing. We kept our word. Still, today, it does not cost the fishermen or dealers anything to sell Maine Lobster to a Client Group member which is where the MSC Chain of Custody begins. It only costs those who choose to join the Client Group.
 
The Client Group is open to all who want to voluntarily join on an open and "fair and equitable" basis. The fee to join depends upon the size of the company but, in general, is less than $.01/lb.
 
The structure, which has always been open and has been widely disbursed, follows MSC guidelines. The fees pay for research to complete certification "Conditions" which are designed to improve the fishery.
 
However, you are totally inaccurate when you state that "…and naturally, they take steps to keep other companies in the same fishery, buying from the same harvesters, and with exactly the same commitment to sustainability, from sharing the certificate."
 
Nothing could be further from the truth. I have no idea where you got this information or how you drew this conclusion. I'm surprised and disappointed that you didn't check the accuracy with us before printing it. I would request that you clarify your statement. There is no evidence to support your point of view. Our Client Group is, and has always been, open to all.
 
To say that "each client group has the right to determine how other members can join" is also inaccurate. Access to the certificate has to be open, "fair and equitable". Any client group plan in Maine has to pass muster with MSC and DMR in this respect.
 
In order to maintain the integrity of the certification, you need a client group to ensure traceability.
 
In order to pay ongoing costs such as research for Conditions, annual audits, legal and accounting fees, recertification costs and others, you need a client group to ensure financial stability.
 
Our Client Group chose to do this by membership fees rather than having the fishermen or the taxpayers foot the bill. The fee structure has always been open and fair and equitable. Both MSC and DMR agree. We have encouraged other dealers and processors to join us. Some, for whatever their reasons, have chosen not to. That is their choice.
 
But, for you to state that "it proved impossible for new companies to join the original client group" is totally false. They all have been asked. In fact, they were all approached on our behalf, or so we thought, by the organizer of the new group. They are all still welcomed to join. Having two client groups for the same fishery seems foolish to me, but they have their own reasons.
 
4. Further, you are inaccurate when you state the following: "…the original members refused to provide this transparency (the costs)". These are not "closely guarded secrets". I have to wonder where you get your information. It wasn't from us.
 
Like all organizations, the Client Group, as required by MSC, put together a proposed budget. Its projected because no one knows the costs of researching for "Conditions" in advance. The new group will face the same "Conditions" and will have to project costs as well. Its their choice to pay a second time to complete the same work. No on is forcing them to do anything.
 
The very person who shared this proposed budget with other dealers and processors on our behalf is the same person who is now heading up the new effort. So, there is no truth to your statement.
 
5. "But, the new client group….has to pay SAI Global to re-examine the entire lobster fishery against the MSC standard when this had already been done by Moody."
 
They don't have to do anything. They are CHOOSING to pay SAI to get their own certification that they can control. Because we would not let a Massachusetts lawyer take over control of our Client Group, does not mean we are not open to new members on a fair and equitable basis. We are, and the new group members know this to be true.
 
This is an issue of control. For better or worse, our Client Group decided last spring that a successful Maine certification effort for a successful and iconic Maine Lobster fishery, should not be controlled by a Massachusetts lawyer and a New Hampshire business owner.
 
We continue to welcome all new client group members on a fair and equitable basis.
 
Under the current Client Group, ALL Maine fishermen and Maine dealers can, at no cost to them, sell their Maine Lobster to our Client Group members as long as that lobster can be traced back to a Maine fisherman. The same rules will apply to the new client group when it becomes certified.
 
When the new client group becomes certified, they will have a projected budget to pay for necessary expenses. These will be projections. The same MSC regulations for projected budgets apply to both client groups.
 
When the new client group becomes certified, they will welcome new members on a fair and equitable basis under the same MSC regulations that the current Client Group follows.
 
There will be no difference between the two client groups. They will each have the same certification under the same MSC regulations. They will be duplicate efforts.
 
The question is why have two client groups. It does not serve the Maine lobstermen or the Maine Lobster brand well.
 
The answer is simply a matter of control. Some people in the industry, in particular a New Hampshire businessman and a Massachusetts lawyer, do not feel comfortable with a Maine based client group. They have chosen to start their own group. They are doing so by choice. They are spending their money by choice. They have a right under MSC regulations to do so. We wish them luck. Its not an easy process. After a seven year effort, we can attest to it.
 
Please let me know if you have any further questions. I hope this helps clarify some of the points you made in your article.
 
Thanks
 
John Hathaway
 
Johnny Shucks
Shucks Maine Lobster

This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

SEAFOODNEWS.COM — September 10, 2014 — This week a curious news item came across our desk.  The Maine Lobster industry was applying for Marine Stewardship council certification as a sustainable fishery.

This seemed odd, because just last year, Governor LePage made a big splash at the Boston Seafood Show announcing the Maine Lobster fishery had been recognized by the MSC.
 
Why the do over?  The fishery has not changed.  The area of certification is exactly the same.  And yet, an industry group consisting of Mazzetta, Craig’s All Natural, East Coast Seafood, Garbo Seafood, Cozy Harbor Seafood, Inland Seafood and Orion – in short the great majority of the major lobster processors in Maine were willing to put up around $100,000 to cover the cost of a new assessment.
 
This money is an unnecessary tax.  It will go to support the bureaucratic regime set up by the Marine Stewardship Council, NGO’s who advise buyers and the burgeoning certification assessment industry.
 
It will not result in one penny for better lobster conservation, improved science, or gear research for bycatch reduction.  In fact it will hinder the science resources available to the lobster fishery as Maine scientists and others have to spend time re-answering questions they answered for the first time a few years ago.
 
Lets take a look at how this happened, and who benefits from this travesty.
 
First, the MSC, while not directly assessing client fisheries, sets the rules and policies under which the assessments take place, and although there have been significant improvements in the delivery of assessments, the fundamental purpose of the system is to provide revenue to the  Marine Stewardship Council so it can perpetuate its mission.   That mission is building a global brand for the blue MSC Eco-label, it is not marine conservation and enhancing sustainability.
 
Because the system is driven by the need for ongoing revenue, all assessments are sponsored by ‘clients’ who have to pay fees to the certifiers and to the Marine Stewardship Council for things like chain of custody certification and logo fees if they are used.  Such fees can be as high as 0.5% of gross sales.
 
This means that the MSC depends on private clients in the fishery who will become the sponsor of the assessment.
 
In Maine, the initial push for certification was led by Linda Bean, of Linda Bean’s Perfect Maine, Shuck’s Maine Lobster, and Goat Island Lobster, later joined by the marketing company Cape Seafood LLC.  This group has financial and business ties to each other, and pushed hard for the initial certification. 
 
John Hathaway, of Shucks Maine Lobster in Richmond, Maine, said that getting Maine lobster certified is not a guarantee for getting the per-pound price that fishermen earn to go back up but it could help the Maine lobster fishery boost its market share in an increasingly competitive global marketplace.
 
“[MSC certification] is just another arrow in your quiver,” Hathaway said. “The world’s going to know that your product is sustainable.”
 
Fishermen were not asked to pay for the first certification, and Hathaway also said they would not be asked to pay for ongoing costs.  Instead, the cost of the first certification, which Hathaway estimated to be around $300,000 was paid from “donations,” he told the Bangor Daily News.
 
What do these companies get for their $300,000?  They get a competitive marketing tool, and naturally, they take steps to keep other companies in the same fishery, buying from the same harvesters, and with exactly the same commitment to sustainability, from sharing the certificate.
 
Although MSC has improved its rules for certificate sharing, it still cannot escape the problem that so long as it needs revenue streams from fishery clients, it has to give them something in return.  So each client group has the right to determine how other members can join.
 
In numerous fisheries around the world, including the Coldwater Shrimp Fishery in Newfoundland, the Cod fishery in Alaska, as well as others, this has resulted in the strange situation of the MSC certifying an entire area, gear type, or fishery as fully sustainable, but then preventing sellers of the product from advertising that fact without being part of the ‘client group’.  This has led to multiple certifications of the same fishery.
 
In the case of the Maine Lobster fishery, it proved impossible for new companies to join the original client group.
 
In the letter on file with the MSC from Linda Bean and Shuck’s client group, called ‘The Fund for the Advancement of Sustainable Maine Lobster’, John Hathaway wrote “The Fund will share the certificate on a fair and equitable basis.  Such terms and conditions may however, be different than those abided to by the current group members.”
 
The prospective new members asked for an accounting of the actual costs of the certification, and what spending went into the reported $300,000 cost.  When the original members refused to provide this transparency – which was needed to determine a ‘fair and equitable share’, the other processors decided to form their own client group.
 
The MSC allows the original members of a client group a 20% ‘risk sharing’ premium.  This means that they can charge later members 20% more then they spent based on their being the first companies to put up funds.
 
One of the biggest failures of the MSC is a lack of transparency on costs and budgets for certifications.  Each certification is a private contract between the certifying body and the client group.  So unlike spending for fisheries management and research, the actual costs of certifications are mostly closely guarded secrets.
 
In the beginning certifying bodies had virtually no financial oversight, and under a monopoly situation costs for certification could balloon to unbelievable numbers.
 
For example, there were unsubstantiated reports that the first Alaska Pollock certification cost well of $500,000, and that the more than 7 year effort to certify BC salmon cost between $500,000 and $1,000,000.
 
With more fisheries using certifying bodies, and more certifiers, competition has improved the situation.
 
The original Lobster assessment by Linda Bean’s group was done by Intertek Moody Marine.
 
The new assessment will be done by SAI Global, who has submitted a much lower cost estimate.  Outside observers estimate the cost would likely fall between $75,000 and $100,000.
 
But the fact remains that these cost are completely unnecessary, and represent a tax on the industry that does nothing to advance science, or fisheries management, or preserve sustainability.
 
When companies want to use other certifications – whether it be The FAO based RFM certification, USDC Grade A, the USDA Organic label, or a European certification like Naturland, they have to pay certain costs:  inspection, chain of custody, and ongoing surveillance.
 
But they don’t have to pay to recreate the entire framework under which their industry meets the standard.  But the new client group, called the Maine Certified Sustainable Lobster Association, has to pay SAI Global to re-examine the entire lobster fishery against the MSC standard when this had already been done by Moody Intertek Marine.
 
Every report, every interview, and every meeting with scientists, reviewers, peer reviewers, will be duplicative of work already done.
 
The new client group says “The Maine Certified Lobster Association Inc. welcomes new members and does not intend to unfairly penalize prospective new members who wish access to the certificate.”
 
This is a welcome statement, but the fact that it is necessary at all shows the costs of an MSC certification process designed to serve two masters:  a revenue stream for the Marine Stewardship council and its commercial allies, including the NGO advisors and certifiers, and the broader public interest in ensuring sustainable fisheries.
 
This is why it is imperative that over time, the sustainable fisheries movement outgrow the MSC and enter into the true public realm where it belongs; along with public and industry funded fisheries management, science, and research.
 
When an industry group like the Bering Sea research Foundation spends $100,000 to study golden king crab, or the scallop industry puts up millions of dollars to fund new revolutionary scallop survey methods , the benefits of this work are available to all. The results are improved understanding of the fishery that make for a better management system, more responsive management, better understanding of gear and habitat impacts and ultimately a huge return to the public in terms of long term sustainable seafood. 
 
If sustainability review is to be a permanent component of fisheries management, and there are many reasons it should be, then just like other research and management decisions, the results have to be open, transparent, shared, and available to all.
 
It is the MSC’s need to build its own global brand that is standing in the way of this.  That is why they have seen the growth of competition and the development of open seafood sustainability standards, such as the benchmarking being developed by GSSI, as a mortal threat to their brand.
 
This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

September 8, 2014 — That still-true ancient line, penned by Tamil poet Avvaiyar some two thousand years ago, reminds us all that while it is worth paying attention to what we see, it is often critical not to be seduced by our convictions about what it means. And so it is that recent reports from the Portland waterfront of bountiful cod can neither be ignored nor fully credited.

They are what they are: observations. While a lot of cod have apparently been landed in Portland compared with recent years—and when was the last time anyone heard good news from the Portland Fish Exchange?–and while everyone hopes for good news about cod and a future for cod fishermen in New England, a couple of hundred thousand pounds of landed cod hardly leads to the conclusion that the recent scientific stock assessment update is wrong in indicating that Gulf of Maine cod populations are in extremis.

This situation brings to mind the experience several years ago when fishermen from Gloucester were reporting that they had never seen so many inshore cod while the scientists concluded that cod prospects were terrible and getting worse. As it turned out then, they both were right in their own ways. An unusual and concentrated burst of the sand lance populations off Cape Ann had attracted cod from far and wide, but those high catch rates were not representative in any sense of a recovery of cod in the region.

That was the year when almost 50 percent of all the landed Gulf of Maine cod were caught within just a 100-square-mile hot spot off Gloucester. The abundance of cod that Gloucester fishermen were seeing did not reflect the larger condition of the stock. Even then, old timers at the St. Pete’s Club in downtown Gloucester were no doubt snorting that these “young guys” had never seen the abundance of cod that Gloucester boats once fished in earlier times.

Is the science about Gulf of Maine cod wrong? Probably, if one is talking about any kind of precision. Population models are now being asked to look into biological territory that the people who build these models have never seen before. But based on the best scientific judgment, there have never been as few cod in the Gulf of Maine as today. Never. The uncertainties introduced by that fact alone dwarf the conventional uncertainties inherent in population modeling and suggest that prospects are worse than already imagined.

Read the full opinion piece at TalkingFish.com

September 4, 2014 — In essence, what the trawlers of the West Coast have done under this new system is renew the social contract that they have with the public, by providing assurance that they are harvesting a public resource in a sustainable manner.

The following op-ed was submitted to Saving Seafood by Chuck Della Sala, the Mayor of the City of Monterey, California; Joe Pennisi, the owner and skipper of the F/V Pioneer; and Shems Jud, of the Environmental Defense Fund's Oceans Program:

Most California seafood lovers are familiar with the Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Consumer Guides – the booklets that recommend which fish to eat and which should be avoided.

Seafood Watch just dramatically increased its list of recommended seafood options from the West Coast. They now rank nearly all bottom trawl-caught groundfish as “good” and “best” alternatives. Those species include lingcod, chilipepper rockfish, Dover sole, and dozens more. 

Readers accustomed to grim news about marine resources will find this news a pleasant surprise; but for those who closely follow commercial fisheries of the West Coast it may seem more like a miracle.

Fourteen years ago the West Coast groundfish fishery was declared a disaster by the federal government. Years of overharvesting and science and management failures had resulted in rapidly dwindling stocks as too many boats chased too few fish in a classic example of the “tragedy of the commons.” Eight species were declared overfished, and the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and the National Marine Fisheries Services were scrambling – along with fishermen – to figure out some way to save a major American fishery, and one of great importance to Monterey and the region.

There’s nothing like disaster to bring unlikely partners together. In the years following the declaration it has been our privilege – fishermen, fishing communities, and conservationists, to sit together at the same table with the Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service to help develop an entirely new approach to managing one of the most complex multispecies fisheries on earth. 

The quota-based management system that was eventually implemented in 2011 became known as the West Coast Groundfish Trawl Catch Share Program. It combined practical conservation incentives with a system of full accountability by putting federal observers on fishing vessels.   The program gives fishermen the flexibility to fish when the weather is right and to work with their markets to time landings to meet demand. Fishermen are also able to actively manage their portfolio of species, which has dramatically reduced both bycatch and discards.

 Today, fishing businesses are slowly becoming more stable, and several of those overfished species are rebuilding at a surprisingly rapid rate.

In essence, what the trawlers of the West Coast have done under this new system is renew the social contract that they have with the public, by providing assurance that they are harvesting a public resource in a sustainable manner. The recent assessment from the Seafood Watch Program, and the June certification of thirteen species of West Coast groundfish as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, verifies that.

This is an unfolding success story; West Coast fishermen still face stiff challenges. They have to pay for those observers and bear much of the cost of administering their catch share program. But the announcement by Seafood Watch signifies a remarkable course change in this fishery, a change that California seafood lovers – and that’s everybody reading this, right? – can be proud of.

August 29, 2014 — Despite gloomy predictions of El Niño and the broader impact of climate change on the ocean and planet, California's historic wetfish fisheries carry on — still the foundation of California's fishing economy.

More than 150 years ago, Chinese fishermen rowed Monterey Bay at night in sampans, with baskets of burning fat pine on the bow used as torches to attract market squid, which fishermen harvested with round-haul nets.

This was the modest beginning of California's "wetfish" industry. The immigrant Asian, Italian, Slavic and other nationalities of fishermen who came to America introduced new fishing methods. Around the turn of the 20th century, Sicilian immigrants to Monterey brought their lampara nets, another type of round-haul net, and launched what would become the largest fishery in the western hemisphere — California's famed sardine industry, popularized in our collective conscience by John Steinbeck's "Cannery Row."

It was the plentiful schools of fish — especially sardines that stretch from the Gulf of California to Alaska — that provided opportunity for generations of enterprising fishing families to prosper. The complex of fisheries that makes up California's wetfish industry, including mackerel and anchovy as well as squid and sardines, helped to build the ports of Monterey and San Pedro, as well as San Diego and San Francisco. Wetfish, now called coastal pelagic species (CPS), have contributed the lion's share of California's commercial catch since before the turn of the 20th century.

Read the full opinion piece from the Monterey Herald

August 27, 2014 — The same level of scrutiny that is directed towards fishing must be directed at seismic testing – or any other activity that has the potential to impact negatively on our coastal waters. There's too much at stake otherwise.

The following opinion piece was submitted to Saving Seafood :

by Captain Kirk Larson, Mayor of Barnegat Light, NJ;
Captain Eddie Yates; and
Captain Kevin Wark

BARNEGAT LIGHT, N.J. (Saving Seafood) August 27, 2014 — Seismic ocean blasting off New Jersey and the Mid-Atlantic Coast is of tremendous concern to those of us who make our living on the ocean. Seismic blasts are known to interfere with marine animal communication and movement and can cause fish and squid to scatter, negatively impacting catch rates. 

This summer, commercial and recreational fishing organizations and leaders joined with ocean advocacy organizations like Clean Ocean Action, divers, marine mammal experts, coastal businesses and concerned citizens to stop a seismic study led by Rutgers University. Rutgers and its collaborators – Columbia University, the University of Texas and the National Science Foundation – have postponed a seismic study originally scheduled to begin this summer until next year. The aim of the study is to generate 3-D images of 30-60 million year old sea floor sediments to gauge historical changes in sea level. To do this, the research vessel Marcus G. Langseth would use airguns that blast 250 decibels into the water every 5 seconds, 24 hours a day for 30 days.

Since core samples have already been taken in the same area, the value of the study is questionable, particularly when balanced against the threat to fisheries, marine mammals and our coastal economy.
 
Now we have another seismic study to worry about.  The US Geological Survey (USGS) just received federal approval to begin a two-year survey to research tsunami threats in the mid-Atlantic using an array of 36 airguns that will blast the ocean at 236-265 decibels every 20 to 24 seconds, 24 hours a day for at least 17 days each year of the survey.  The survey has begun, and blasting will continue next spring.
 
New Jersey's offshore waters are host to numerous marine mammals and five threatened or endangered sea turtle species. What's confounding about the Rutgers University ocean blasting and the proposed USGS testing is the damage that could be done to our fragile fisheries, and the sheer volume of marine mammal "takes" that have been granted to Rutgers (over 600) and requested by the USGS (over 19,000).  
 
If the "takes" are authorized or "allowable," what other harm to marine life is expected.

Federal requirements under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act have required a host of changes in the way we fish. Implementing these changes is time consuming, expensive and reduces our harvest. Why aren't these seismic blasting studies subjected to comparable scrutiny?  The proposed and allowable "takes" are a smack in the face to fishermen who've participated in "take reduction meetings" with NOAA and environmentalists.

When it comes to endangered species and marine mammals all of our fisheries have been examined microscopically and we have spent so much time dealing with NOAA on these issues that we've become part of the process. We feel totally within our rights to demand that these surveys be examined with an equivalent level of scrutiny.

We will also point out that nobody has approached us to discuss what we can expect in the way of fallout from seismic testing.  We have many unanswered questions. For example, will commercial fishing and charter/party boats that have limited days to fish for fluke and other fish be granted more days by the National Marine Fisheries Service if time is lost due to seismic testing? And what is seismic testing going to do to the scallop fishery that is a huge part of our economy (Philadelphia Inquirer 8/2/14)?

Seismic testing is used for oil and gas exploration, and it's clear that oil and gas interests will have access to and will be perusing the data collected by Rutgers and the USGS.  In fact, that's what the National Science Foundation, the funder of Rutgers' study, said in its summary of the Rutgers-led blasting experiment.
 
Add to the mix the Obama Administration's recent opening of the Mid-Atlantic coast to seismic testing – overtly for oil and gas exploration – and we're looking at the inevitable.  What comes after seismic testing is oil and gas drilling. This is particularly troubling considering recent reports that oil spill damage to the Gulf of Mexico after the BP disaster was far greater than we had all been led to believe initially.
 
Fishing is a significant part of the US coastal economy according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). In 2012, US commercial and recreational saltwater fishing generated more than $199 billion in economic activity.  In New Jersey alone, the state Department of Agriculture estimates that in 2012, New Jersey landed 108.5 million pounds of fin and shellfish, valued at $187.7 million (Newark Star Ledger 7/29/14).
 
Many factors are at play for a successful fishing operation and ultimately a vibrant coastal economy that thrives on fishing: good fisheries management, timing, good crews, good boats, regulations, and a clean and safe ocean for marine life.
 
What we need is time for robust public input and congressional oversight.  It is our hope that our colleagues in the commercial and recreational fishing industries up and down the mid-Atlantic coast join us and demand that we have rigorous congressional oversight with regard to seismic blasting and the prospect of oil and gas drilling off our coast.

The same level of scrutiny that is directed towards fishing must be directed at seismic testing – or any other activity that has the potential to impact negatively on our coastal waters. There's too much at stake otherwise.

About the Authors:
Captain Kirk Larson is the Mayor of Barnegat Light, NJ; Mayor Larson owns several scallop fishing boats and is on the board of Viking Village on Barnegat Light.  Captain Eddie Yates runs the charter fishing boat "Hunter" out of Barnegat light. Captain Kevin Wark operates the commercial fishing vessel "Dana Christine" out of Barnegat Light and is on the board of the Garden State Seafood Association.

August 25, 2014 — Obviously, the fishing industry in Gloucester is showing signs of distress. We look out in the harbor and see old and rusty boats, aging fishermen, more days in port than out fishing, and struggling shoreside processors and support businesses, like the ice company and marine railways.  But the word “dead” is clearly premature. 

Editor's note: An abridged version of the following opinion piece ran in the Gloucester Daily Times on August 22. At the author's request, the full opinion piece is reproduced below:

Is the fishing industry dead?   “Yes”, I was told, at a dinner party recently, followed by the typical second line, that “fishermen were the cause” of their own demise.   These assertions were made by someone that I know to be far afield from the events and complexities of the fishing industry, so I consider the confident diagnosis to be a sign of the great success of a public relations narrative claiming a disaster in the ocean and blaming fishermen for it.

Really, “dead” is a pretty strong term.   Obviously, the fishing industry in Gloucester is showing signs of distress.  We look out in the harbor and see old and rusty boats, aging fishermen, more days in port than out fishing, and struggling shoreside processors and support businesses, like the ice company and marine railways.  But the word “dead” is clearly premature. 

What comes to mind is a medieval deathbed, where “doctors” attach leaches that further weaken the patient, relatives are gathered in an anteroom to divide up the estate while the patient is still breathing, and an assembled crowd outside chants “The man’s a sinner.   Good riddance!”

In our case, the fishing industry may have arrived in crisis in the emergency room, but take note of our “governing elite” of bureaucrats, fisheries economists, and environmentalists at the bedside.  Some are giving the appearance of actually trying to help, but are really not, while others are urging sedation and putting our port “out of its misery”.   

In the anteroom are the speculative real estate developers who want the waterfront property for hotels and marinas, recreational anglers who want the quota, corporations and investors who want the fish and the profits, and aquaculture, sand and gravel mining, wind, and, in the wings, oil and gas enterprises who want the ocean territory.

And outside the hospital?   We’re the neighbors and fellow citizens of Gloucester who are idly standing by, feeling no empathy and no responsibility to help, because we’ve been persuaded by the mythology to think that our “greedy” fishermen are the cause of their own problems and underserving of our time.

There are multiple causes for the crisis in the fishing industry and plenty of blame to go around, with many problems tracing back to unsustainable harvesting pressures on just a few keystone stocks, such as cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder.   We seafood customers have played our part in so heavily favoring these stocks and in losing interest in other fish, such as mackerel, whiting, and others.   Water pollution and loss of essential fish habitat, eelgrass beds, whales, and oyster reefs have compromised the productivity of the ocean.   Foreign imports have driven prices so far down, that local fishermen can’t compete and cover the costs of operation.  And, fuel prices have risen.

But, centrally, government and the affiliated elite of economists and environmentalists have grotesquely mismanaged the fisheries for several decades.  When foreign factory trawlers were thrown out of the 200-mile zone, government, and not fishermen, drove the domestic industry toward larger and larger boats.  

The government took what was a well-funded Saltonstall-Kennedy (S-K) investment strategy in harvesting, processing, and marketing, including both a federal lab on Emerson Avenue and a U/Mass lab in Hodgkins Cove, and redirected nearly all funds to single-species stock assessments and acquisition of large research vessels, none of which adequately predicted or understood the swings in cod stocks.  

When fishermen, particularly from the Northeast Seafood Coalition, urged a “point system” for multiple species harvesting and “ecosystem-based management” in the late 2000’s, the federal government, at the urging of conservative foundations, chose the path of privatization and quota “markets” for single-species.  

Most people don’t realize it, but in the last five years, the federal government spent over $125 million for the expenses of conversions to Catch Shares and limited access market-based programs.  And if S-K funding had been kept in place, that would have been about another $300 million.    Just think what $425 million could have accomplished if investments had been made in collaborative science with fishermen, in pilot projects around multi-species harvesting, in fuel-efficient boat design, in seafood hubs and institutional markets for underutilized species, in oyster reef restoration, in resource recovery from seafood waste, and in diversification into seaweeds and invasive species such as green crab.

What fishermen need to do now, hardy and inventive as they are, is get up off of the sickbed and work with processors, scientists, academics, and progressive environmentalists, and start demanding from government a new era of fisheries management that throws away the “death by their own hands” mythology and that rebuilds a community-based industry to supply us with fresh fish, solid jobs, and a resilient, healthy ocean.  And, as citizens of this fishing port, we should reflect on our responsibilities to offer assistance, wherever and whenever we can.

August 18, 2014 — It would be nice to think that, in the wake of an “unscheduled” stock assessment that conspicuously left out any input from fishermen or others inherently familiar with the industry, the planned “peer review” of the findings by NOAA’s NFSC would include someone who represents the fishermen’s interests before there is any move to carry out even more dire limit cuts for Gulf of Maine cod.

Sadly, however, the peer review panel pulled together by the New England Fisheries Management Council shows no outreach whatsoever toward the industry that is already caught in a recognized economic disaster — and one that was declared even prior to NOAA’s 78-percent cod limit cut in the spring of 2013.

The “peers,” instead, will include at least two scientists who work closely with NOAA’s science arms, and thus could be seen as having every reason to back the center’s findings.

The panel will be headed by Pat Sullivan, who also serves as the vice chair of the NEFMC’s scientific and statistical committee, and includes Chris Legault from the population dynamics branch of NOAA Fisheries Northeast Fisheries Science Center — both of whom have every reason to uphold the study’s findings.

Read the full opinion from the Gloucester Daily Times

August 15, 2014 — If there are no fish at docks in Gloucester, it is not because there are no fish in the ocean.

It is because the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is virtually prohibiting fishermen to fish. The reason is that NOAA is expected by its empowering legislation, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, to prevent overfishing. But how can a dwindling family fishing fleet do the overfishing?

Any open-minded observer is concluding that NOAA is applying an agenda-driven science.

We owe much gratitude to Scott Lang, a former mayor of New Bedford, for giving to the Gloucester Daily Times the latest list of arbitrary changes of mind by NOAA.

Read the full opinion piece by Carmine Gorga at The Gloucester Daily Times