Saving Seafood

Opinion

DAVE MONTI: NOAA called out for doing its job

November 11, 2019 — The fishing industry in Massachusetts and Rhode Island collaborates with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

This is the way it should be.

It was no surprise to me when a story titled ‘Emails show bond between NOAA, fishermen against project’ appeared in Energy & Environmental (E & E) News on Oct. 25.

In Rhode Island and Massachusetts, big fishing (those representing major fishing companies or fishing associations), were reportedly discussing a review of the Vineyard Wind ocean wind farm environmental study with NOAA staff, some from the Northeast Fisheries Science Center.

By design, NOAA and fishermen are supposed to work together. Historically NOAA has conducted the longest running fish stock survey up and down the east coast. The survey serves as a tool, along with formal stock assessments, establishment of allowable catch limits, rebuilding time lines and the development of fishery management plans for each species. These are the successful measures outlined in our national fishing law, the Magnuson Stevens Act (and its eight regional councils), that have successful rebuilt 45 of our fish stocks since 2009.

It is the job of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to work closely with fishermen, so yes, when it comes to ocean wind farm development in our oceans that may impact fishing, it is NMFS’s job to talk to fishermen, review research and research approaches and express their perspective on how it will impact fish, fishing and habitat.

However, the ocean does not belong to fishermen, big fishing companies or ocean wind farm developers. No one special interest group should have the right to block the development of a natural resource (whether it be ocean wind farms or fishing) because the oceans are a natural resource for the benefit of all the people of the United States of America. The ocean belongs to all of us.

Read the full story at The Sun Chronicle

SARAH E. HUNT & CHARLES HERNICK: Trump’s Environmental Legacy Could Be the Rise of U.S. Offshore Wind

November 8, 2019 — The appetite for renewable energy is growing and the East Coast is a top target for companies looking to invest in wind energy. Sarah E. Hunt, with the Joseph Rainey Center for Public Policy, and Charles Hernick, with Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, explain how wind could end up being President Trump’s environmental legacy if the administration stays true to its all-of-the-above approach to energy.

When President Donald Trump took office, he pledged to make America a powerhouse by embracing an all-of-the-above approach to energy. While the president has criticized wind energy, ironically, it may be his administration that green-lights Vineyard Wind and substantially unlocks America’s offshore wind potential.

While dozens of offshore wind projects have been developed over the past two decades from the U.K. to China, only one project has come online stateside. That is about to change.

The U.S. East Coast is a top target for energy companies interested in investing in offshore wind and will bring with development a substantial boon for workers and the economy while also accessing a previously untapped source of emission-free energy.

Read the full opinion piece at Bloomberg

BANGOR DAILY NEWS: Better marking for lobster gear can help answer important whale question

November 8, 2019 — “I don’t like this,” isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement for a government proposal — particularly when those words are coming from the head of the state agency making the proposal.

But that’s what Maine Department of Marine Resources Commissioner Patrick Keliher told lobstermen at a meeting in Ellsworth Monday night, where he outlined the department’s new plan to reduce the risk posed to endangered North Atlantic right whales from Maine lobster gear.

While Keliher’s presentation may have lacked enthusiasm, it included a healthy dose of pragmatic reality.

A couple of fishermen did signal a willingness to give the state proposal a try, but frustration seemed the prevailing response Monday night. Keliher clearly shared some of that frustration, but correctly pointed out that the industry and the state find themselves facing pressure from the federal government and in the courts, where conservation groups are suing for stronger action to protect the endangered right whale.

The state plan is a counter offer of sorts to a federal proposal that would require a 50 percent reduction in the vertical lines in the water that connect to lobster traps. Keliher said the state plan would amount to a 25 percent line reduction.

Read the full opinion piece at the Bangor Daily News

Rep. Joe Cunningham: A healthy ocean in 2050? We need to act now.

November 8, 2019 — The ocean is the lifeblood of our planet. It covers three quarters of the globe, produces more than half our oxygen, supports a wide range of marine fisheries that feed the planet, and absorbs 30 percent of the carbon dioxide we emit and 90 percent of the heat caused by those emissions.

In short, the ocean plays a critical role in our lives and livelihoods. And it’s just as critical that we do everything we can to protect it.

By 2050, the global population is expected to reach 9.7 billion people. While the projections regarding the impact that this population and their actions and emissions will have on the ocean may vary, none of them are good. Without definitive action now, scientists predict that by 2050:

• World fish stocks will be driven to collapse;
• Average sea levels will rise by 30-34 centimeters, increasing coastal erosion and exacerbating storms, flooding cities and coastal communities like Charleston;
• The ocean is expected to contain more plastics than fish (by weight); and
• The world’s coral reefs will be wiped out, increasing threats to coastal communities from storm surges and a loss of fish stocks that rely on corals for survival.

Read the full story at The Charleston City Paper

Senator Lisa Murkowski: Investing in fisheries pays off

November 8, 2019 — Alaskans know just how essential fisheries are to life in the 49th state. The seafood industry is the largest direct employer in our state, providing 60,000 jobs and generating over $5 billion for Alaska’s economy. Over 15 percent of Alaska’s working age rural residents are employed by the industry. And commercial fisheries are a cultural and economic cornerstone in small communities across the state’s 33,000 miles of shoreline.

Alaska’s seafood industry also provides for our nation. Catches in Alaska make up more than 60 percent of all seafood harvests in the United States, and millions of Americans can thank Alaska’s fishermen and processors for the wild-caught, healthy fish and shellfish they enjoy throughout the country. The science on the benefits of eating seafood, especially for children and pregnant women, continues to grow. Alaska fisheries help grow a healthy America. It’s as simple as that.

All the benefits provided by Alaska’s fisheries don’t come free, however. In addition to the hard work of our seafood harvesters, healthy fisheries need investment. We need strong science and management to ensure our fisheries are healthy and sustainable and that catches are the optimal size for our economy, communities, and marine ecosystems. This costs money — but the return on investment is huge. I find myself reminding my Senate colleagues of that fact each appropriations cycle, whenever federal funding to support our fisheries comes under threat.

Read the full story at The Juneau Empire

DAVID GOETHEL: Food sovereignty to include New England fisheries

October 31, 2019 — According to a study released in 2012 by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, between 3.9 and 4.5 billion people get all or most of their protein sustenance from wild caught seafood. The Commerce Department reports that, despite having one of the largest exclusive fishing zones in the world, the United States imports more than 90% of its seafood.

These two facts should concern the American public and our presidential candidates, yet fishery policy is seldom if ever mentioned on the campaign trail. Every candidate has an agricultural policy, just look at the traffic jam of candidates at Iowa state fairs. Fishermen and farmers contribute over $230 million to the state’s economy annually. However, ask a candidate about the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management Act and you will likely get a blank stare.

All candidates have national security policies and food security is inextricably linked to national security. A country that is self-sufficient in fishing and farming is also secure. Long supply chains, often involving countries that do not necessarily have the United States best interests at heart, is inherently risky. So why has this issue not been addressed in the most recent iteration of Magnuson?

Read the full story at Sea Coast Online

JESSICA HATHAWAY: On Pebble: Maybe I’ve had it wrong

October 25, 2019 — I’ve been covering Pebble Mine for my entire career with National Fisherman — coming up on 14 years.

In that time, I’ve pretty consistently hammered home that it’s foolhardy and short-sighted to trade one resource for another. The mine’s long-term risks to biodiversity and healthy, sustainable salmon fisheries in Bristol Bay simply outweigh the short-term benefits offered by the extraction of the Pebble metals deposit. This is based entirely on what we know about mining — not just the process itself, but rather more importantly, the remnants a mine like this leaves behind in perpetuity.

I still believe this, but today I have something else to say.

When I watched Alannah Hurley give testimony about her people, their way of life and that Pebble Mine is a threat to all of it, I had to go one deeper than I have before.

I’ve seen the comments attempting to justify the mine: “Don’t you like your car? Do you like having a smartphone? Then we need mines like this.” It’s true, we may need mines like this to sustain our lifestyles, but that doesn’t mean we need THIS mine.

Read the full story at National Fisherman

Alaska’s hatchery program supports healthy harvests

October 15, 2019 — In the early 1970s, Alaska’s salmon harvests were at an all-time low. Annual statewide harvests for all salmon species were down to nearly 20 million fish. As all Alaskans trying to fish for their business or sport or to fill a freezer at that time know, the lack of reliable harvests resulted in deep and painful impacts in our state and communities. Selective openings and even complete fishery closures failed to reverse the decline. So, too, did efforts to stop foreign vessels from fishing in state waters. It was a time, as the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner observed in 1970, “dominated by tragedy, disaster, intrigue and double-dealing.”

Undaunted, Alaskans banded together to overhaul state fisheries. In 1969, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game started a rehabilitation program to build fish ladders, stock lakes with smolt, and remove log jams and other obstacles from salmon-producing streams. In 1973, voters amended the state constitution’s “no exclusive right of fishery” clause, putting into place limited-entry and hatchery production. And in 1976, Alaska’s congressional delegation helped pass the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which established a federally managed exclusive economic zone up to 200 miles offshore.

To protect wild salmon stocks from overfishing and to support the sport, subsistence and commercial users whose livelihoods depended on the salmon fishery, the Alaska Legislature expanded the hatchery program. Starting in 1974, Fish and Game enabled legislation providing authority for private non-profit, or PNP, hatcheries to operate and to harvest salmon for brood stock and cost recovery. By 1977, the first hatchery fish had returned from the ocean, relieving harvest pressure on wild stocks.

Read the full opinion piece at the Anchorage Daily News

JOHN SACKTON: Anti-Salmon Video Shot at Cooke Seafood Escalates Attacks on Farmed Fish

October 9, 2019 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Following the release of hidden camera video footage from a Cooke Hatchery in Bingham, Maine, Glenn Cooke issued a statement yesterday saying “I am very sorry that this has happened. We are thoroughly reviewing the footage and we are working closely with the Maine Department of Agriculture to review and ensure all our practices are within compliance. We are speaking with all our employees, and we will institute a rigorous re-training program at our Maine facility.”

His statement is an excellent response to an attack on aquaculture by a militant vegan organization called COK, Compassion over Killing.  This group has 18 people on staff, and in 2017 reported income of around $1.3 million.  20% of their budget goes to undercover videos targeting farming, especially industrialized factory farming.

The organization was founded in 1995, and says its aim is to ‘End the abuse of farmed animals using a variety of strategies including vegetarian outreach, investigations, legal advocacy and publications.’

They are very much part of the movement that has led consumers to demand free-range eggs, minimum standards for space for chickens, and regulations against confinement for breeding sows.

They have won a number of concessions from major restaurant chains who have pledged to adopt higher animal welfare standards and offer vegan menu options.

You can see the video they secretly filmed at the Cooke facility on youtube.  It is not getting a lot of hits, less than 5000 as of today.

It shows employees throwing discarded salmon, and in some cases whacking or stomping on fish.  It also shows some deformities being culled from newly hatched embryos.  The emotional tone of the video is that this is no way to treat fish, which Glenn Cooke has forthrightly acknowledged.

But for the salmon industry, and for seafood in general, this raises a larger question about consumer trends.

Farmed and wild seafood has been under continuous attack for both fishing and farming practices for nearly two generations.  Some of the criticisms about overfishing were made largely by people like the MSC, who love and celebrate fish, with the avowed purpose of ending overfishing, or in the case of ASC, certifying farming, to responsibly increase seafood in the global diet.

But others were made by groups who want to halt all consumption of seafood.  This is the category the Cooke critics fall into.

The problem the industry faces is that our customers, who have major retail and restaurant brands, are very sensitive to pressure groups and emotional appeals, regardless of whether they are based on facts or truth.

As a result, restaurant companies have made many changes in response to animal welfare demands and do not want to become targets of animal rights activists.  Part of Compassion’s strategy is to pressure companies like Subway and others to adopt animal welfare standards and to offer vegan options.  Even McDonald’s is subject to these pressures.

For us, complying with social responsibility has definitely increased costs.  The entire infrastructure of certification and traceability has been added to the costs of fishery management in order to demonstrate our social compliance to our customers.

We have no choice but to continue to make our case for responsible harvesting and husbandry.  This applies across the board, whether it is about lobsters being processed and cooked, wild salmon being crammed in RSW tanks, or farmed salmon raised in net pens.  Anyone on a fishing boat knows that gutting and bleeding fish has a cost to the fish.  But just as in nature, we accept that the pain we cause as a predator is no different to the fish than that caused by a seal or a tuna.  We live in a world where there is a food chain.

We have to be responsible stewards of that food chain.  Without the industry making this case, we are going to lose market share not just to vegetarians or people who will not eat fish under any circumstances but even among those who love fish.

As John Fiorello of Intrafish pointed out, there are two camps in the seafood industry regarding fake fish.  One suggests that the idea of plant-based fish products will always be fringe, and that these products will not make headway with real fish consumers.  I have tended to be in that camp.   People eat fish because they like the taste.  If they don’t eat fish, why would they buy fake fish?

The other camp is those sounding the alarm based on what happened to the dairy industry, where the milk aisle now has almond milk, soymilk, and other non-dairy products taking up space and market share.  In the UK, around 15% of ‘dairy’ sales are non-dairy milk products.  I now feel this is more of a true threat.

My kids are big fish eaters, brought up snacking on things like dried squid from a very young age.  But their spouses are vegetarian, and they have certainly been attracted to the non-meat products like impossible beef.

What surprised me in our discussion of fake seafood was their willingness to consider it, because even though they love fish and shrimp, they also think there is an environmental cost, as they do with meat.  So some of our best fish consumers may be tempted to try these fake products due to their overall view that fishing and aquaculture has an environmental cost that they can mitigate through their food choices.

This makes me think that the trend to hold not just fish but all foods to a higher standard is very real, and it means the entire seafood industry must continue to make the case for our responsibility and commitment to environmental and animal welfare.

Glenn Cooke’s statement is an excellent example of how to respond to this type of accusation.  The company was blindsided by someone recording a secret video.

It does not matter if it was unfair, edited, or secretly taped—the response of the company was to own the mistakes shown on the video, and to promise to do better.

Glenn Cooke said he does not judge people’s dietary choices.  If they don’t want to eat salmon they don’t have to, but regardless of their individual choice, Cooke is assuring all those who do eat farmed salmon that it is grown in a responsible, socially conscious way that respects animal welfare.

These are not issues that are going away.

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

JOHN FIORILLO: The US aquaculture industry is on life support

August 28, 2019 — We’ve been writing quite a bit lately about the fledgling land-based salmon farming sector in the United States, but before we rush into predictions about the coming of a golden new age in US aquaculture, let’s take a real assessment of where things are right now with aquaculture industry we currently have.

Spoiler alert: Things aren’t good.

US aquaculture production has been on a flat to decreasing trend since the early 2000s. There are spurts of growth in various species sectors, but nothing substantial. And the heavy lifter, catfish, has been in steep decline for more than a decade.

In 2008, for example, US catfish farmers produced 233,564 metric tons of fish. By 2016, production was down by nearly 38 percent to 145,230 metric tons, according to the most recent data from NOAA Fisheries.

Read the full story at IntraFish