Saving Seafood

Law

Environmental Group Sues Over Ice Seal Habitat Decision

June 17, 2019 — An environmental group sued the Trump administration Thursday for failing to designate critical habitat for two species of seals that rely on sea ice off Alaska’s northwest coast.

The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Department of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries Service for not designating critical habitat for threatened ringed and bearded seals. Agency spokeswoman Julie Speegle said by email the agency does not comment on ongoing litigation.

Designation of critical habitat for a threatened species is required by the Endangered Species Act a year after a listing. Federal agencies that authorize activities such as oil drilling within critical habitat must consult with wildlife managers to determine if threatened species will be affected.

Center for Biological Diversity attorney Emily Jeffers, who drafted the lawsuit, said by phone from Oakland, California, that additional protections are needed for ringed and bearded seals, which already are losing habitat because of climate warming.

“It’s where the rubber hits the roads in terms of actual protections,” she said.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Courthouse News Service

Lawsuit Challenges NMFS Exempted Fishing Permits for Two Pelagic Longline Vessels Off California

June 10, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The Center for Biological Diversity and Turtle Island Restoration Network sued the Trump administration this week for permitting a new longline fishery — two vessels –in the Pacific Ocean.

The fishery, authorized in May by the National Marine Fisheries Service, would operate off California despite a federal ban on longline gear created in 2004 to protect sea turtles. This fishing will threaten endangered leatherback sea turtles, as well as olive ridley and loggerhead sea turtles and Guadalupe fur seals, the Center said in a press release.

“Leatherback sea turtles need to catch a break, not a longline hook,” Catherine Kilduff, a Center senior attorney, said in the release. “Californians demand more selective and sustainable fishing for swordfish. But the indiscriminate longlines authorized by the Trump administration will hook, injure and drown endangered species off our coast.”

“This is basically the same fishery the agency outlawed fifteen years ago, and the same agency is using a backdoor maneuver to get the fishery reopened,” Todd Steiner, executive director of Turtle Island Restoration Network stated. “Sea turtles could go extinct if deadly longline fisheries are expanded. And it’s not just in California— the Hawaii longline fleet has been forced to close early two years in a row because they have exceeded their legal turtle take. It makes no sense to re-authorize this wasteful fishery off of California.”

The exempted fishing permit has been years in the making and was approved unanimously by the Pacific Fishery Management Council after being fully vetted by the Council, its advisory bodies and the public. NMFS then issued the permit that allows for only two fishermen on two vessels to target highly migratory tuna and swordfish.

The EFP requires 100% monitoring by observers and establishes hard caps on ESA-listed species. That is, fishing must stop if the number of incidental interactions with animals exceed certain parameters. It also excludes any fishing within 50 miles of the coast or offshore islands and requires a full suite of verified mitigation techniques be used during all test fishing. These techniques are known to reduce or eliminate interactions with sea birds, sea turtles and marine mammals.

In fact, NMFS issued terms and conditions for the EFP that are more restrictive than those listed in the original application.

“NOAA’s decision is a huge win for American fisheries, fishermen and ultimately, the environment,” Dave Rudie, owner of Catalina Offshore Products and President of the California Pelagic Fisheries Association, said in a statement. “It will greatly benefit San Diego and southern California and our consumers as well.”

The new permits could increase reliance on local seafood, particularly where swordfish and tuna are concerned. The North Pacific swordfish population is very healthy and would support a substantial additional harvest according to all international fisheries experts and published reports. Any increase in U.S. fisheries production improves America’s seafood security as well as provides for a sustainable ecosystem footprint often lacking in the weak environmental oversight of foreign fisheries, the association noted in a press release.

The Center said Pacific leatherback sea turtles are highly endangered, with scientists predicting their extinction in 20 years. Yet the exempted fishery will occur in an area that includes the Pacific Leatherback Conservation Area, which prohibits swordfish fishing using drift gillnets to protect leatherback sea turtles.

However, the increased mitigation requirements mandated by NMFS specify no-fishing areas such as the Southern California Bight and within leatherback critical habitat or 50 nautical miles from the coast, whichever is greater.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, states NMFS’ issuance of the permit violated several environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act. The suit seeks to invalidate the permit, protecting the turtles and seals from longlines.

NMFS issued the permit May 8.

This story was originally published on SeafoodNews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Environmental groups file federal suit to stop California longline fishery

June 6, 2019 — Two environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump on Thursday, 6 June, claiming it used a “backdoor maneuver” to permit a new longline fishery off the California coast.

In a statement, the Center for Biological Diversity and Turtle Island Restoration Network said NOAA Fisheries did not comply with the Endangered Species Act when it approved the longline fishery last month. The fishery will consist of two fishing vessels utilizing lines with numerous hooks that stretch for miles to catch tuna and swordfish.

The groups fear endangered species such as Pacific leatherback turtles will end up caught in some of the hooks and potentially die from the interaction. Scientists believe those leatherbacks could become extinct within two decades.

“The failure of the Fisheries Service to comply with environmental laws in issuing the Permit diminishes leatherback sea turtles’ slim chance to defy predictions of extinction,” the complaint, filed in the Northern District of California, states.

Officials issued the permit even though NOAA Fisheries banned longlines 15 years ago.

“This is basically the same fishery the agency outlawed 15 years ago, and the same agency is using a backdoor maneuver to get the fishery reopened,” Turtle Island Restoration Network Executive Director Todd Steiner said in a statement.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Killers and kings: West Coast group intervenes in orca lawsuit

May 31, 2019 — On Wednesday, May 29, the federation, the West Coast’s largest trade organization of small-scale commercial fishermen, filed its opposition to the lawsuit filed in a Seattle federal court lawsuit on April 3, by the Wild Fish Conservancy and the Center for Biological Diversity.

The suit was reportedly filed to protect endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales which eat primarily king salmon, by arguing that their food supply is not well managed. This orca subgroup migrates from California’s coastal waters to Washington’s Puget Sound and into British Columbia. West Coast salmon fisheries outside of state waters are managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, which prioritizes sustainability and replenishment.

The suit claims that federally managed ocean salmon fisheries are allowing commercial harvest of the orcas’ food supply, which is contrary to NMFS data and management standards that commercial salmon fisheries have little or no impact on the whales. For many years the council has managed West Coast salmon fisheries to minimize any potential competition between orcas and fishermen, including through a NMFS-approved 2009 biological opinion, which contains various required mitigation measures that further minimize and mitigate impacts to the endangered whales.

“Seafood lovers on the West Coast should be proud of their fisheries management system, which is among the best in the world,” said Noah Oppenheim, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations. “The Center for Biological Diversity and Wild Fish Conservancy lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service is naïve, counterproductive, and unnecessary. By suing, these two groups instead undermine the extraordinary coalition of scientists, managers, commercial fishermen, and conservationists that has come together to identify the strategies that will be used to recover the Southern Resident Killer Whale population.”

Read the full story at National Fisherman

Restaurant, catering group nears settlement with Chicken of the Sea on price-fixing suit

May 28, 2019 — A group of restaurants and catering companies have reached a USD 6.5 million (EUR 5.8 million) agreement with San Diego, California, U.S.A.-based Chicken of the Sea and its parent company, Thai Union, to settle a lawsuit alleging price-fixing.

The lawsuit stems from a price-fixing scandal in the U.S. canned tuna market exposed by a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation in which Chicken of the Sea served as the whistleblower. The scandal led to prosecution of Chicken of the Sea’s primary co-conspirators, Bumble Bee Foods and StarKist. Both companies pleaded guilty to criminal charges in cases brought by the DOJ.

Chicken of the Sea’s potential settlement with the restaurants and catering companies, proposed Friday, 24 May, still must be approved by U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Judge Janis L. Sammartino, who has not yet formally certified the grouping of affected companies involved in the agreement as an official class in the lawsuit. The parties suing claim to represent companies that indirectly purchased packages of tuna in 40-ounce sizes or greater from DOT Foods, Sysco, US Foods, Sam’s Club, Walmart, or Costco from June 2011 through December 2016.

Parties in the so-called “commercial food preparers” class involved in the proposed settlement include Capitol Hill Supermarket, Janet Machen, Thyme Cafe & Market, Simon-Hindi LLC, LesGo Personal Chef, Maquoketa Care Center, A-1 Diner, Francis T. Enterprises d/b/a Erbert & Gerbert’s, Harvesters Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Harvester’s Seafood and Steakhouse, Dutch Village Restaurant, Painted Plate Catering, GlowFisch Hospitality d/b/a Five Loaves Cafe, Rushin Gold LLC d/b/a The Gold Rush, Erbert & Gerbert, Inc., Groucho’s Deli of Raleigh, Sandee’ s Catering, Groucho ‘s Deli of Five Points, and Confetti’s Ice Cream Shoppe.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Judge dismisses lawsuit brought by fishermen and paid for by Pebble

May 20, 2019 — A lawsuit brought by a small group of Bristol Bay commercial fishermen to keep a seafood marketing group from spending money to stop the Pebble copper and gold mine has been dismissed.

Anchorage Superior Court Judge Yvonne Lamoureux said the plaintiffs did not make a valid claim. She dismissed the case on Friday.

Six fishermen, with funding from mine developer Pebble Limited Partnership, had argued that the Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development Association had unlawfully spent $250,000 on efforts to stop the mine from being developed.

The marketing group is funded with a 1 percent tax on the harvest that Bristol Bay fishermen catch. The fishermen who sued — Gary Nielsen, Trefim Andrew, Tim Anelon, Henry Olympic, and Abe and Braden Williams -—said the group should only market seafood. Abe Williams also works for the Pebble projectas a regional affairs director.

Pebble has applied with the federal government for permits to build an open-pit mine. It would be located near salmon-producing headwaters of the Bristol Bay fishery, about 200 miles southwest of Anchorage.

Read the full story at the Anchorage Daily News

US tuna companies face class-action lawsuits over “Dolphin-Safe” claims

May 15, 2019 — In the midst of dealing with numerous price-fixing lawsuits, Bumble Bee Foods, Chicken of the Sea, and StarKist now face class-action complaints over the “Dolphin-Safe” claims on their tuna products.

While Lion Capital-owned Bumble Bee, Thai Union-owned Chicken of the Sea, and Downgon Industries-owned Starkist claim that their products are “Dolphin-Safe,” that is not the case, according to the racketeering and fraud complaints filed in United States District Court in San Francisco, California, U.S.A.

The “Dolphin-Safe” label signifies that no dolphins were killed or seriously injured as a result of the catching of the tuna contained in their products. But the suppliers’ tuna fishing practices “kill or harm substantial numbers of dolphins each year,” the lawsuit against StarKist stated.

“And, because defendant does not adequately trace or otherwise identify the tuna that is not ‘Dolphin-Safe’ and physically segregate and store it separately from any tuna that may be ‘Dolphin-Safe,’ defendant may not label any of its products as ‘Dolphin-Safe,’” the StarKist complaint said.

While StarKist “does not comment on pending legal matters”, Michelle Faist, senior manager of corporate affairs for StarKist Co., told SeafoodSource, the supplier “will not purchase any tuna caught in association with dolphins.”

“StarKist Co. is committed to protecting the dolphins and was the first company to adopt a dolphin-safe policy in April 1990,” Faist said.

The policy states that: “StarKist will not purchase any tuna caught in association with dolphins. StarKist continues its practice of refusing to purchase tuna caught with gill or drift nets, which are known to be dangerous to many forms of marine life. StarKist condemns the use of these indiscriminate fishing methods that trap dolphins, whales, and other marine life along with the intended catch of fish.”

Read the full story at Seafood Source

U.S. consumers sue Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea, StarKist over ‘dolphin-safe’ tuna claims

May 14, 2019 — U.S. consumers sued Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea and StarKist, accusing the country’s three major packaged-tuna brands of deceiving them into thinking their tuna is caught only through “dolphin-safe” fishing practices.

The proposed class actions filed on Monday said the defendants employ fishing techniques that kill or harm dolphins, and do not always use safer, costlier pole-and-line and other methods used by such rivals as Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s.

The consumers said this makes the defendants’ dolphin-safe labels false and misleading, violating the laws of several U.S. states including California, Florida, New Jersey and New York.

They also said StarKist violated federal racketeering law through its alleged dealings with foreign fishing companies.

Concern about dolphin safety “makes tuna fish consumers no different from Hindus attributing zero value to beef products, or vegans attributing zero value to animal products, or vegetarians attributing zero value to meat, fish, and poultry,” the complaints said.

StarKist said it does not discuss pending litigation, but would not buy tuna “caught in association with dolphins.” It also condemned “indiscriminate fishing methods” that trap dolphins along with the intended catch.

Read the full story at Reuters

US companies file class-action suit alleging price-fixing by Norwegian farmed salmon firms

April 25, 2019 — A class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of U.S. direct purchasers of Norwegian farmed salmon is accusing multiple Norwegian firms including Mowi, Grieg Seafood, Lerøy Seafood, and SalMar of conspiring to fix the prices of farmed salmon.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday, 23 April, alleges the major players in Norway’s farmed salmon industry exchanged competitively sensitive information among themselves, with the aim of artificially controlling the price of farm-raised salmon bought by U.S. seafood buyers, a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

The lawsuit is largely based on an ongoing investigation by the European Commission into “suspected anti-competitive practices” in the farmed Atlantic salmon sector in Europe, first made public in February 2019. The investigation included raids by E.C. officials of the Scottish and Dutch corporate offices of several seafood companies based in Norway, including Mowi, Grieg Seafood, Lerøy Seafood, and SalMar.

A letter sent by the E.C. to one of the companies, obtained by SeafoodSource, revealed the E.C. approved a decision on 6 February, 2019, to investigate information received “from different actors operating at different levels in the salmon market” alleging that some Norwegian producers “participate or have participated in anti-competitive agreements and/or concerted practices related to different ways of price coordination in order to sustain and possibly increase prices of farmed Norwegian Atlantic salmon.”

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida (Miami Division) on behalf of Mentor, Ohio-based Euclid Fish Company, according to Arthur Bailey of Hausfeld LLP, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys. Numerous other similar suits have and will continue to be filed containing similar allegations, including by Schneider’s Seafood & Meats of Cheektowaga, New York, and by Euro USA Inc. of Cleveland, Ohio, Bailey told SeafoodSource. Within the next month, the cases will be combined into one larger class-action suit including all direct purchasers of Norwegian farmed salmon, Bailey said. The case will be heard by James Lawrence King.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Feds seek to get S.C. claims tossed in seismic testing suit

April 25, 2019 — As cross-arguments continue between the many parties in a federal lawsuit seeking to block seismic testing off coastal waters of East Coast states, three more municipalities in the Carolinas will get their voices heard, while the federal government tries to get some of South Carolina’s specific claims tossed.

Conservation groups, including Georgia’s One Hundred Miles, filed the suit in December in order to stop the seismic testing that is the precursor to offshore oil and gas drilling. The federal government already awarded five companies permits for incidental harassment of marine mammals that would occur during seismic testing.

The federal defendants — the National Marine Fisheries Services, NMFS Assistant Administrator Chris Oliver and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross — argue in a Monday filing that South Carolina “states four novel and legally baseless theories raised by no other party in this suit.”

Those claims, according to the federal attorneys, are that 2017 orders by the president and the Commerce secretary were invalid because “they retract putative policies” from the Obama administration, that they seismic testing is a public nuisance, that any survey activities would constitute trespassing and that the survey activities violate admiralty law.

Read the full story at The Brunswick News