Saving Seafood

Opinion

DAVID H. WALLACE: Grateful for Jon Mitchell’s advocacy of clam industry

December 12, 2018 — I would like to publicly thank Mayor Jon Mitchell for attending Tuesday’s New England Fishery Management Council’s meeting to advocate on behalf of the clam industry and the 500 local families that depend upon it. Mayor Mitchell spoke fervently in favor of Alternative 2, citing the $10 million economic value of the industry to New Bedford’s working waterfront.

Mayor Mitchell has great respect for the commercial fishermen, processors, and other related supply chain businesses that generate incredible economic value throughout New Bedford and the greater northeast coast. He understands that all industry members are not only small business owners that provide jobs and wages to Greater New Bedford residents but are also stewards of the ocean with a belief in the long-term sustainability of its resources.

Read the full opinion piece at the New Bedford Standard-Times

JACK SPILLANE: A rogue agency gets set to shut down another New Bedford fishery

December 10, 2018 — Scott Lang has been around fisheries issues for a long time.

Both when he was mayor and afterwards.

In 2013, Lang helped organize the Center for Sustainable Fisheries as a grassroots lobbying group to try to make sure New Bedford fishermen were not totally forgotten by NOAA. He’s worked for the industry for a long time and seen a lot of arguments from both sides back-and-forth over the years.

But until last week, he said he had never seen NOAA make a decision to close a fishery with no science behind it. Not even questionable science, as for years NOAA has used for New England groundfishing limits in the opinion of many.

NOAA’s decision to close the Rose and Crown Zone and Zone D to surf clammers is based on anecdotal evidence related to UMass Dartmouth scientist Kevin Stokesbury’s research for the scallop industry, first done almost two decades ago.

The camera net device Stokesbury invented was for measuring scallop habitats but NOAA has used his science to measure clam beds. It’s not the same, Stokesbury told The Standard-Times. The images his survey produces are of the ocean floor about a kilometer apart and clammers often dredge in much shorter distances.

The clammers have offered to do surveys that will be more applicable to clam beds in the areas of Nantucket Shoals in question. They would need about three years to do that but they would have to keep fishing in the closed areas in order to pay for it.

Read the full opinion piece at the New Bedford Standard-Times

JOHN BULLARD: Trump policies threaten New England fishermen

December 5, 2018 — The Trump Administration just approved dangerous seismic blasting to look for oil and gas in the Atlantic Ocean, a move that will threaten marine wildlife and fisheries. This announcement came on the heels of the National Climate Assessment, which the Trump Administration tried to downplay by releasing it the day after Thanksgiving. That’s right, Trump just sidestepped science — twice — to deliver a one-two punch to fishermen.

The scientific report on climate change offers a devastating look at the impact of climate change on the American economy — including fisheries in New England — if we fail to act fast. According to the report, the American economy will decline by up to 10 percent by the end of this century. Failure to reduce carbon emissions will continue to negatively impact the health of fish stocks, threatening the economic stability of our fishing industry and coastal communities.

None of this is news to New England fishermen, who already know the changes happening in their place of business: the ocean. They know warming waters have driven lobster out of southern New England towards Canada. They know that despite difficult quota cuts, cod is much harder to rebuild, and many flounder species don’t reproduce the way they used to.

Fishermen know that warming oceans have pummeled the Maine lobster industry, where revenues fell by $99 million in 2017. Some scientists warn that ocean acidification could make the scallop industry, a $500 million-dollar mainstay of New England’s fishing economy, the next to go. There’s no Plan B if this happens. And new oil and gas development could accelerate the decline of these and other species. Without action, the working waterfronts of New England could cease to work.

What was President Trump’s response when asked about the climate report from his own administration? “I don’t believe it.” Apparently his self-professed intellect is superior to more than 300 scientists from inside and outside the government who wrote the report. Because of his inability to accept the advice of his own scientists on what may be the issue of gravest importance to future generations, the president is putting our region’s fishing industry at risk.

Read the full opinion piece at the New Bedford Standard-Times

California seeks plan to protect whales and Dungeness crab fishery

December 3, 2018 — Crabs are a big deal in California as one of our oldest and most valuable fisheries. They are often a treasured part of holiday feasts and they supply jobs to coastal communities. Whales are a big deal, literally, as the most majestic, largest animals swimming off our shore. What the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has done in the past several years with our partners to prevent whale entanglements in fishing gear is a big deal, too.

California’s ocean waters are home to one of the most productive marine ecosystems in the world, hosting a diverse assemblage of migrating birds, marine mammals, sea turtles, and fish and invertebrate species. Protecting the ocean is a high priority for Californians.

That is why our department is taking actions to protect the whales and our prized crab fishery. The department is working to create a conservation plan that will analyze the effects of crab fishing on whales, identify steps to minimize the risk of whale entanglements in the crab fishing gear, secure funding to implement the plan, and submit it to the federal government for needed approval.

Read the full story at the San Francisco Chronicle

DON CUDDY: Seafood comes in many forms — how fresh is yours?

November 27, 2018 — We live, as we are often reminded, in the top grossing fishing port in the United States and have some of the planet’s most productive fishing grounds right off our shores. So for those among us who enjoy and appreciate the harvest of the sea, and its clean, healthy, wild-caught protein, there is no better place to live than New Bedford. Lately however I have begun to wonder just how many people around the SouthCoast are fish eaters and include our excellent seafood as a regular part of their diet? Apart from perhaps ordering fish and chips or fried scallops in a restaurant on a Friday night that is. That counts certainly but what I have in mind is selecting some seafood at the market and bringing it home.

I regularly enjoy eating all kinds of great seafood at my house. In the past couple of weeks, I have bought, prepared and eaten swordfish, yellowfin tuna, haddock, scallops and oysters, all of it fresh and of surpassing excellence. On the other hand I have read that the vast majority of seafood consumed in the USA is confined to just three varieties — shrimp, salmon and canned tuna. I’m not a fan of shrimp nowadays as most of it is imported, farmed in Southeast Asia under dubious conditions, and I find the end product to be devoid of flavor. Decades ago when I lived in Miami, I would catch shrimp, one at a time, using a dip net and lantern as they entered Biscayne Bay via Government Cut so I know what wild shrimp tastes like.

Salmon fares a little better chez moi although wild salmon runs have all but disappeared on the East Coast and the commonly used marketing term ‘Atlantic salmon’ means that it is raised in pens, predominantly in the Canadian Maritimes and Norway. Both of these items enjoy great popularity in the restaurant trade and you will frequently find salmon and shrimp on seafood menus where even such New England staples such as cod and haddock are absent. But even at the local fish counter there is a high probability that the cod and haddock on offer, while fresh, is not caught or landed here.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Poaching needs a judge who understands fishing

November 12, 2018 — Poaching is back and apparently, as popular as ever. The recent arrest of a local businessman for being more than twice the normal average of greedy is, sadly, yet another reminder of man’s weakness when it comes to taking, which in this case, is the same as stealing. This was his third offense. Social media is ablaze with good people calling for, finally, the justice system to make an example of someone sneaking more than what we have determined is a fair share. What’s a fair share is a whole different argument. What clearly is needed here and now is justice for the environment and one whipper of a judgment. Most crimes have a victim; this one has a sea and shoreline full.

Poaching has deep roots winding its way to wallets and pocketbooks across the globe. Rhinos in South Africa, elephants in Southeast Asia, deer in the states; the end results are similar: a resource gets plundered for capital gain or garage freezers.

How long will greed, disrespect for our environment and blatant, planned ignorance of not just our laws but of the respect they require, meet with just a small fine and two line notice in a small town paper? This most recent arrest is a daily news reminder that our system isn’t operating to its potential. I propose a solution.

Read the full story at Southern Rhode Island Newspapers.

DON CUDDY: An industry still fishing for answers on offshore wind

November 12, 2018 — Attending the day-long symposium on offshore wind held at the Whaling Museum on October 30 was time well spent. As our region is poised on the brink of this new era there are more questions than answers and the symposium afforded participants a broad overview of its potential development and impact.

There was considerable expertise present. Of particular interest was the experience and counsel shared by a delegation from the UK that included fishermen, regulators and businessmen. The takeaway, for me, was the enormous scale of this enterprise, if fully developed as envisioned, along with the sheer immensity of its component parts. The numbers involved, in financial, engineering and logistical terms, are truly galactic.

Mark O’Reilly, CEO and chairman of Team Humber Marine Alliance hails from Grimsby, which found itself in a position similar to that facing New Bedford now when offshore wind was proposed in that region. The city, an old whaling and fishing port, had fallen on hard times but was favorably located, geographically, to become a hub for offshore wind. Without any experience, the city had to grapple with this new and unknown industry to discover how it might benefit from the opportunity. In Grimsby it has become a success story but some hard lessons were learned and O’Reilly cautioned New Bedford, and everyone else involved, on the dangers of parochialism. With the U.S. government currently offering leases for wind farms off the Atlantic coast from here to Delaware there is burgeoning competition among coastal states to attract developers. But the majority of ports in the sector are simply not large enough, or do not have sufficient land mass available, to accommodate all of the needs of this giant industry. Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut must learn to collaborate, he said. Ports such as Davisville, New London, Brayton Point and New Bedford will all be involved and should present a unified front. O’Reilly suggested that New Bedford’s role in the industry would be in ‘O and M,’ operation and maintenance. However, one surprise that emerged from his account of the Humber experience was the amount of fabrication completed elsewhere. The nacelles came from Cuxhaven in Germany while the towers came from Spain and Vietnam.

From Northern Ireland came a tale of offshore wind and fishing brought by Davey Hill from Kilkeel, a small port suffering because of low fishing quotas. When fishermen viewed the areas mapped out for a wind farm in prime fishing grounds they were aghast but soon realized protest was futile. So Hill and other fishermen looked to take advantage of the situation and formed a successful company, Sea Source Offshore, that provides “guard vessels” to patrol turbine sites. They then used the income to start their own fishing cooperative and acquire a larger offshore fishing vessel.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Brad Warren & Julia Sanders: Washington’s Initiative 1631 will help fight ocean acidification

November 2, 2018 — We write today to announce our support for Washington’s Initiative 1631. As businesses who rely on healthy fisheries for a significant portion of our income, we believe this is a well-designed policy that offers us – and our customers – the best possible chance against an uncertain future fraught with the threats of changing ocean conditions.

It’s become clear that our fisheries need a lifeline. Here in Washington, we are experiencing the worst ocean acidification anywhere in the world. Research has firmly established the cause of this problem: emissions from burning coal, oil and gas mix into the ocean, altering its chemistry. The consequences loomed into headlines a decade ago when the oyster industry lost millions and nearly went out of business during the oyster seed crisis. Temporary and limited adaptation measures in hatcheries are keeping them in business, but in the rest of the oceans, fisheries that put dinner on billions of tables are at risk. Here in the Northwest, harvests are already being eroded and even shut down by the effects of unchecked carbon emissions.

The “warm blob,” an unprecedented marine heatwave off the West Coast, reached its height in 2015 and caused mass fatalities. In the Columbia River, a quarter-million salmon died. The largest recorded toxic algae bloom shut down the Dungeness crab fishery for months. The food web crashed, and marine creatures were spotted farther north than ever before. Sea surface temperatures never returned to their previous norm, and new research indicates another blob is forming.

Summers have become synonymous with a smoky haze from wildfires causing poor visibility and poor health – this summer the National Weather Service warned even healthy adults in some Washington areas to stay indoors due to hazardous air quality. At the same time, our iconic orca whales are starving from a lack of Chinook salmon. The Chinook in turn are suffering from a lack of the zooplankton that juveniles eat.

Research has made it clear that some of our most lucrative fisheries are vulnerable to ocean acidification: king crab, Dungeness crab, and salmon. Scientists also warm that combining stressors – like warming with ocean acidification – makes survival in the ocean all the more precarious.

Read the full op-ed at Seafood Source

 

National Fisherman: Tax to Grind

November 2, 2018 — Everyone is talking tariffs. First it was anticipation, and now we’re in reality check, keeping an eye on the long-term consequences.

My first instinct with the tariffs was to gather information and watch what happens. There’s no denying our federal government is in fickle hands. The tariffs could have been canceled as easily and swiftly as they were declared. So wait and see seemed the best course of action.

Of course, I’m not a fisherman, processor or retailer. Wait and see is a luxury for me. And now it’s also a luxury for the purveyors of many itemized seafood products that have been granted dispensation from the tariffs.

As the deadline inched closer this summer, fisheries with decent lobbying power began to appeal to U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to get a pass for their product — meaning the United States would not add a tariff to those products being sold into Chinese markets (most of which are already taxed as exports). In the case of U.S. seafood products being processed in China and reimported to the U.S. market, the government also granted a waiver on Chinese import taxes for some products.

The result was good for many stakeholders — they got the pass they need to stay competitive. But fisheries that don’t have access to Capitol Hill are left out there alone to bear the brunt of the tariffs on their own. They are now the guinea pigs for the whole industry.

Read the full editorial at National Fisherman

 

JOHN FIORILLO: A Retraction is Not Enough

November 1, 2018 — The following editorial was originally published by IntraFish. It was written by IntraFish Executive Editor John Fiorillo:

Patience may be a virtue but how long must we wait for a scientific journal to decide if it is going to retract a controversial paper that the US government, eminent fisheries scientists and industry executives say is a bunch of crap?

It has been more than a year – yes, I said a year – since US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Assistant Administrator for Fisheries Chris Oliver requested a retraction of the controversial scientific paper published in the journal Marine Policy that alleges a significant portion of Alaska salmon, crab and pollock is entering the Japanese market from illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fisheries.

Last October, Oliver challenged the veracity of the scientific paper and asked that it be retracted to avoid damaging the reputation of the US fishing industry and its fisheries management. In December, a team of top US fisheries scientists, led by preeminent fisheries researcher Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington, joined the US government in demanding a retraction of the paper. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), under which the fisheries are certified sustainable, also came out in support of the industry.

In June, Hance Smith, editor of the journal Marine Policy, told IntraFish: “The status is simply that we have been waiting for additional reviews of the paper. I expect we shall be able to progress shortly.”

Shortly?

On Monday, I asked Smith again for an update on the status of the paper and its possible retraction. I was told: “We are still waiting for a response from the corresponding author.”

Umm. OK. What?

Anyway, this is about more than getting a retraction. This is a scientific paper, that critics — bonafide critics, not crackpots — say is fundamentally flawed. And if that is not bad enough, it is eerily similar to a 2014 paper by the same researchers — Tony Pitcher, Katrina Nakamura, and Ganapathiraju Pramod — that provided estimates for IUU fish entering the US market. This report has been cited at least 59 times in academic reports and countless times in government and NGO reports. In other words, repeat the story enough times and it becomes unquestioned gospel.

The 2014 study was cited regularly by those supporting the creation of the US Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), which was indeed launched in January and requires a new level of record keeping by US importers aimed at eliminating IUU fish from the US seafood supply chain.

Made up

Hilborn, in December, said the paper at the heart of the current controversy cites several dozen published papers as sources yet none have any mention of IUU fishing. “The paper also lists a number of ‘sources’ of IUU such as ‘unreported catch in artisanal fisheries’ which do not exist,” said Hilborn. “As near as we can tell, the paper made up all of its results without any data on IUU fishing.”

NOAA’s Oliver, in his October 2017 letter to the report’s authors, said the “allegations made in the paper, are absent of transparency regarding the data, and assumptions supporting them are irresponsible and call into question the authors’ conclusions.”

The Japan study claims that an estimated 15 percent of the US pollock entering Japan is from IUU fisheries. Further, the study says between 10 and 20 percent of the salmon and crab coming from Alaska fisheries is IUU. In the paper, Pitcher and the other authors argue for the creation of a seafood traceability program in Japan to thwart what they claim is the importation of seafood produced by IUU fishing activity.

The paper was funded by the Walton Foundation, which has largely skirted the fray. “Independently, we are reaching out to talk with all of the parties to ensure we fully understand the issues,” Barry Gold, director of Walton’s Environment Program, said a year ago.

But Pitcher told me Tuesday in an email that “neither the Walton Foundation nor the Marine Stewardship Council has been in touch with us to ascertain the truth of the matter.”

He also said he has a revised table showing “only 2 percent IUU from that US pollock fishery,” and he says that the revised table “has been waiting to be inserted [into the paper] for almost a year now.” In other words, the original 15 percent IUU estimate is wrong.

“The editor wants us to retract and then resubmit to include the new table, and despite our arguing that is not necessary as they can easily insert a correction, Ray Hilborn in Seattle has queered the pitch by a ridiculous letter accusing us of data fraud and absurd unprofessional threats that the journal will be ‘exposed on his blog,'” Pitcher said in his email to me.

“My co-author has been travelling extensively (earning his living!), and so have I, so neither of us have had the time required to deal with this. We are aiming to get it done before Xmas.”

What a mess.

Look, we need to be able to trust science, especially in this Trumpian era where science is dismantled, devalued and dismissed.

It’s time for the editors of the Marine Policy journal to settle this issue so we don’t allow flimsy science to contribute to the potentially unnecessary creation of another new traceability program in Japan, as it did for the new SIMP program in the US market.

Marine Policy editors need to retract the report, and while they are at it they need to look at the authors’ 2014 report. And stop being careless with fisheries science.

Read the editorial at IntraFish