Saving Seafood

Fishermen who fled slavery in San Francisco sue boat owner

September 22, 2016 — SAN FRANCISCO — Two Indonesian fishermen who escaped slavery aboard a Honolulu-based tuna and swordfish vessel when it docked at San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf are suing the boat’s owner for tricking them into accepting dangerous jobs they say they weren’t allowed to leave.

Attorneys for Abdul Fatah and Sorihin, who uses one name, say in a lawsuit filed in federal court Thursday that they were recruited in Indonesia seven years ago to work in Hawaii’s commercial fishing fleet without realizing they would never be allowed onshore. They have since been issued visas for victims of human trafficking and are living in the San Francisco area.

The lawsuit alleges that San Jose, California, resident Thoai Nguyen, owner and captain of the Sea Queen II, forced Sorihin and Fatah to work up to 20-hour shifts, denied them medical treatment and demanded thousands of dollars if they wanted to leave before their contracts expired. Nguyen did not return calls seeking comment.

The lawsuit seeks payment for debts the men incurred, fees they paid and promised compensation but does not specify a value, and asks for unspecified damages for “mental anguish and pain.”

It comes two weeks after an Associated Press investigation found around 140 fishing boats based in Honolulu, including Sea Queen II, were crewed by hundreds of men from impoverished Southeast Asia and Pacific Island nations. The seafood is sold at markets and upscale restaurants across the U.S. A legal loophole allows them to work without visas as long as they don’t set foot on shore. The system is facilitated by the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as Customs and Border Protection who require boat owners to hold workers’ passports.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at KWWL

Can farmed fish feed the world sustainably?

September 14, 2016 — The world’s population is expected to soar by 2.5 billion people by 2050, bringing a host of global challenges – including how to feed so many hungry mouths.

If projections hold, the global demand for animal protein will double over the next four decades, rising along with pressure to find ecologically sustainable food production practices.

Could farmed fish save the day? Just maybe, says UC Santa Barbara’s Steve Gaines. He and his team looked at wild-caught fish, farmed fish and land-based farming to assess the most viable long-term options.

The surprise: Fish farming floated above the rest for ecologic and economic reasons.

But there’s one big catch: Aquaculture has gotten a bad rap with American consumers.

“I meet people all the time who say, ‘I will only eat wild fish because aquaculture is bad,’” said Gaines, dean of the Bren School of Environmental Science & Management at UC Santa Barbara.

Gaines has been working to change minds about aquaculture, speaking at conferences around the country like this week’s Monterey Bay Aquarium Sustainable Foods Institute.

While some forms of aquaculture can harm the environment, others have a much lower impact, especially when compared to raising livestock – and in some cases even compare favorably to an entirely vegetarian diet, he said.

Read the full story from the University of California

Port of Hueneme Opposes CA Monument in Letters to Boxer, Feinstein, and Brownley

September 14, 2016 – In letters sent yesterday to Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), as well as Congresswoman Julia Brownley (D-CA-26), leaders of the Oxnard Harbor District expressed their opposition to the proposal to declare a new California marine monument under the Antiquities Act.

The letters, which were signed by Dr. Manuel Lopez, President of the Oxnard Harbor Commission, and Kristin Decas, CEO and Port Director of the Port of Hueneme. Their opposition to a new monument was grounded in the potential economic harm of a new monument and the non-transparent way by which the proposal was developed.

Under the current proposal, the declaration of a new monument in California’s seamounts, ridges, and banks, would close off numerous areas of high value to local fisheries, including tuna, mackerel, and market squid. These fishing grounds are responsible for millions of pounds of seafood taken in each year. The loss of the squid business alone would be heavily impactful, according to the letter.

“The current squid landing operation at the Port of Hueneme supports nearly 1,400 direct, induced, and indirect jobs, generates approximately $11 million in annual state and local taxes revenues, and provides $56 million of business revenue to local businesses dependent upon existing squid operations,” the letter states.

Dr. Lopez and Ms. Decas went on to criticize the opaque nature of using the Antiquities Act to circumvent existing fishery management laws to declare a new monument. These laws, according to the letter, were passed in a bipartisan fashion and promote science-based analysis conducted fully in the public forum.

Dr. Lopez and Ms. Decas write that the existing proposal for California was done in the opposite fashion, and that the document proposing the new monument was “drafted and advanced with no science, no NEPA analysis, and virtually no public engagement nor outreach to the parties who will be most affected by this unilateral action.”

The letter instead requests that Senators Feinstein and Boxer, and Congresswoman Brownley work with the White House and appropriate regulation agencies to support fishery management under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Read the letter here

Will Obama fence off more of the ocean? US fishermen are fearful

September 13, 2016 — American fishermen are deeply fearful that the Obama White House could cut them off as early as this week from major fishing areas of the U.S. continental shelf on both coasts, further restricting one of the most highly regulated fishing industries in the world.

At stake are millions of dollars in fishing revenue and hundreds of jobs — and in some parts of the country, the survival of an embattled way of life that has persisted for centuries but is facing environmentalist pressures unlike anything before — and without  the chance for hearings and legislative back-and-forth that U.S. laws normally require.

“This totally affects us, but we don’t know what’s going on,” one fishing boat owner, who asked to remain anonymous, told Fox News. “We are just out of the loop. No one even wants to say what effect it will have.”

“They are throwing all fishermen under the bus, along with their supporting industries” declared Marty Scanlon, a fishing boat owner and member of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fisheries advisory panel on highly migratory fish species in the Atlantic. “They’ve done everything they can to put us out of business.”

What the fishermen fear most is the kind of unilateral action by the White House that they have already seen elsewhere. As part of their ongoing environmental ambitions, the Obama administration’s Council on Environmental Quality, and the president himself, are aggressively interested in creating preservation zones that would ban fishing and other activities within large portions of the 200-mile U.S. “exclusive economic zone” of maritime influence, and just as interested in getting other nations to do so, in their own as well as international waters.

That aim, supported by many important environmental groups, is cited as urgently required for protection against diminishing  biodiversity, overfishing and damage to coral and unique underwater geological features — not to mention the fact that with only a few months remaining in his term, the president sees such sweeping gestures as part of his legacy of achievements, and as the boat owner put it, “the window is narrowing” for the administration to act.

As one result, pressure from lobbying campaigns both for and against new declarations of such no-go zones both along the U.S. northeastern Atlantic coast and the coast of California have been mounting.

So has, apparently, behind-the-scenes maneuvering to get influential Democratic legislators to support such new preservation areas publicly — a tough call, since the affected fishermen are also constituents. So far, many of the Democrats are keeping a low profile.

Read the full story at Fox News

Tough Seasons for California Crabbers

August 31, 2016 — The recent crab season in California was abysmal, to say the least.

Epic neurotoxin levels found in Dungeness and rock crabs forced state officials to close fisheries for months instead of weeks, crippling one of the state’s most lucrative fishing industries and leaving fishermen in California’s Northern and Central coasts unable to make a living.

Boats loaded with new fishing gear and crab pots sat in harbors such as Bodega Bay and Monterey. Boat owners have had to lay off crewmembers, who left to find work elsewhere or collect unemployment.

In Crescent City, a small Northern California town of fewer than 8,000 people, the community has been hosting fundraisers to help struggling crabbers. The city has one of the largest landings for Dungeness crab.

Angel Cincotta, who owns the Alioto-Lazio Fish Company on San Francisco’s Fisherman’s Wharf with her two sisters, told an NBC Bay Area affiliate that they have had to assuage customers’ concerns about the product they were selling.

“Crabs are currently coming out of Washington and Alaska, out of certified clean waters, so they’re safe to eat,” she told NBC.

The neurotoxin also affected rock crab season in Santa Barbara, one of the state’s biggest ports for rock crab fishing. The rock crab season, which runs all year, was delayed for months in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties.

“Thousands of Californians are dependent on healthy a crab fishery, and this year we have faced a disaster,” said State Sen. Mike McGuire, chairman of the Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture. “Our magnificent and iconic crab fishery has gone from abundant to scarcity. And after a lousy salmon season, our fishery boats sit idle. Crabbers are struggling to make ends meet.”

Read the full story at Fishermen’s News

D.B. PLESCHNER: Why Does President Obama Want to Eliminate Sustainable Commercial Fisheries?

August 29, 2016 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Dear Seafood News Editor,

“Help us identify Champions who are helping the ongoing recovery of America’s fishing industry and fishing communities,” Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker and Council of Environmental Quality Director Christy Goldfuss posted on the White House Blog on August 10.   They were appealing for nominees for this year’s White House Champion of Change for Sustainable Seafood.”

The blogpost had many complimentary things to say about our U.S. commercial fisheries:

“America’s fishers, and our seafood industry, have fed Americans and their families since our nation’s beginning. What’s more, this industry remains critical to the economic health and well-being of communities across the country.

“After decades of decline, we are witnessing the economic and ecological recovery of America’s fishing industry.  Overfishing has hit an all-time low, and many stocks are returning to sustainable levels. The U.S. fishing industry contributed nearly $200 billion annually to the American economy in 2014 and supports 1.7 million jobs.

“This shift did not come easy.  It took hard work, collaboration, and sacrifice by many across the country. Although there’s still more to do, America’s fisherman have led the way to the United States becoming a global leader in sustainable seafood management.

“This turnaround is a story about innovative ways to catch fish and other seafood sustainably, and connect fishers with their customers. It is a story about the value of science and management working together, and a willingness to make sacrifices today for a better tomorrow. And it is a story about sustaining a proud livelihood that is the backbone of so many coastal communities nationwide.

“President Obama and his Administration want to honor America’s fishers and our coastal communities for their efforts.”

We agree with everything Secretary Pritzker and Director Golfuss said.

Yet on Friday, August 26, President Obama announced he was expanding the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument off the coast of Hawaii, creating the world’s largest marine protected area. The fact sheet stated:  “Building on the United States’ global leadership in marine conservation, today’s designation will more than quadruple the size of the existing marine monument, permanently protecting pristine coral reefs, deep sea marine habitats, and important ecological resources in the waters of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands.”

But President Obama’s executive order, authorized under the Antiquities Act, also prohibited commercial fishing in an area increased by 442,781 square miles, bringing the total protected area of the expanded monument to 582,578 square miles.   This unilateral action happened without the transparency, science-based decision-making and robust public process trumpeted in the President’s own National Ocean Policy, nor the bipartisan Congressionally mandated Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which requires fisheries to be managed under a transparent, science-based process administered by regional fishery management councils.

The announcement precipitated extreme disappointment from commercial fishermen and Council members alike, who decried the lack of science and economic pain inflicted on sustainable fisheries and fishing communities. “Closing 60 percent of Hawaii’s waters to commercial fishing, when science is telling us that it will not lead to more productive local fisheries, makes no sense,” said Edwin Ebiusi Jr., chair of the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council.  “Today is a sad day in the history of Hawaii’s fisheries and a negative blow to our local food security.”

“It serves a political legacy rather than any conservation benefits …” said Council Executive Director Kitty Simonds.  “The campaign to expand the monument was organized by a multibillion dollar, agenda-driven environmental organization…  The President obviously chose not to balance the interests of Hawaii’s community, which has been divided on this issue,” she added.  Fisheries are the state’s top food producer, according the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.

“Our party’s over,” wrote Sean Martin, president of the Hawaii Longline Association, but the monument lobbying effort continues on the east coast and off California, where well-heeled environmental advocates are lobbying to close productive sea mounts in New England, as well as most of the offshore seamounts, banks and ridges off the California coast, all of which are critically important to the long-term sustainability of commercial fisheries in those regions.

On both the east and west coast, fishermen, allied seafood companies and business interests as well as the regional fishery management councils have mounted vigorous opposition to the use of unilateral executive order under the Antiquities Act to manage fisheries.   They point to existing National Ocean Policy promises and the Magnuson Act, which require science-based decision-making and robust stakeholder involvement.  A transparent process that includes scientific and economic analysis and public involvement already exists through the MSA and fishery management councils.    Why not use it?

This Administration’s disrespect for Congressional mandate and its own ocean policies begs the question:  Why does this President want to curtail sustainable fisheries?

D.B. Pleschner
Executive Director
California Wetfish Producers Association

This letter originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

New Bedford Standard-Times: Stakeholders deserve open process in monument designation

August 26, 2016 — Today, the Standard-Times in New Bedford, Mass., the highest grossing seaport in the country, dedicated its opinion section to the issue of marine monuments designated by executive authority under the Antiquities Act. This was done in conjunction with today’s announcement that President Obama will quadruple the size of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument off the coast of Hawaii.

In its editorial, the Standard-Times noted that a monument designation off the coast of New England “lacks checks and balances that would deliver a better policy” and that environmental groups have pushed for a monument in secret “in order to gain an advantage over industry and other stakeholders.” 

Together with today’s editorial, the Standard-Times published letters to the White House by two coastal mayors, Jon Mitchell from New Bedford and Clyde Roberson from Monterey, Calif., questioning the efficacy of offshore monument designations and asking for a more transparent process. The following is excerpted from the Standard-Times’ editorial:

The National Park Service was established 100 years ago when President Woodrow Wilson signed the National Park Service Organic Act.

The 84 million acres under the NPS is a treasure that belongs to all of us, and we applaud efforts to expand the protection of our natural resources, but we also recognize some such efforts go too far, including in the push to establish a national monument off the New England coast.

The Canyons and Seamounts are indeed precious resources, but the scope and the current process being advanced by environmental organizations lack checks and balances that would deliver a better policy.

New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell last week sent a letter to the acting director of the Council for Environmental Quality, a White House agency that advises the president on such issues, noting the push for the seamounts monument has kept stakeholders from participating in the process.

Indeed, we have previously reported on efforts by environmentalists to keep their advocacy for the monument designation a secret in order to gain an advantage over industry and other stakeholders.

The president did not go along with the environmentalists last fall, and it is our fervent hope that if he isn’t advised by CEQ to pursue the more open process, the duty to represent and hear all stakeholders will prevail.

See today’s opinion page in the New Bedford Standard-Times

Read the full editorial at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Read Mayor Jon Mitchell’s full letter here

Read Mayor Clyde Roberson’s full letter here

Fishing industry fears Obama’s power over coastal waters

August 25, 2016 — The prospect that President Barack Obama could designate as marine monuments areas off the Massachusetts and California coasts is being met with resistance from various fishing groups and port-town mayors. If Obama uses his authority under the Antiquities Act to name as federal monuments the New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts, and many of the seamounts, ridges and banks off California’s coast, commercial fishing would be significantly restricted and the viability of two of the country’s most important fishing ports would be threatened — Monterey, Calif., and New Bedford, Mass., (the nation’s highest-grossing fishing port), the mayors of those ports argued in letters to the White House on Wednesday.

The mayors — Jon Mitchell of New Bedford and Clyde Roberson of Monterey — and industry groups, like the National Coalition for Fishing Communities, also argue such actions would sidestep the fishery management system overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which makes decisions based on scientific analysis and public input to ensure the sustainability of seafood stocks.

Read the full story at POLITICO

Coastal mayors join to oppose Obama administration’s ‘marine monuments’ plan

August 24, 2016 — The Obama administration is running afoul of transparency and openness as it prepares to create offshore marine monuments off California and New England, two mayors including Jon Mitchell are telling the administration.

Mitchell was joined by Monterey, California Mayor Clyde Roberson in sending the Obama White House letters expressing “serious concerns” about the potential economic harm to their ports from the use of executive action by the administration to create new federal marine monuments off the coasts.

A chorus of opposition has been rising from fishermen and fishing communities across the country opposing the creation of marine monuments outside of the existing ocean management processes.

New Bedford is the highest-grossing fishing port in the nation; Monterey is one of the most valuable fishing ports in California.

Writing to Council on Environmental Quality Acting Director Christy Goldfuss, Mitchell praised the successes of the current fishing management process, overseen by NOAA, a process that includes the voices of all ocean stakeholders in its deliberations, according to a release from the The National Coalition for Fishing Communities. “The process is far from perfect, but it affords ample opportunity for stakeholders and the public alike to review and comment on policy decisions and for the peer reviewing of the scientific bases of those decisions,” Mitchell wrote.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Mayors of Major East and West Coast Ports Express Concern About Possible Economic Harm from Marine Monument Designations

August 24, 2016 — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

WASHINGTON (NCFC) – In letters sent on Friday to the President and the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), New Bedford, Massachusetts Mayor Jon Mitchell and Monterey, California Mayor Clyde Roberson expressed “serious concerns” about the potential economic harm to their ports from the use of executive action by the Obama Administration to create new federal marine monuments off the coasts of New England and California. The mayors also emphasized the need for “transparency” and “robust stakeholder input.”

The letters reflect a growing movement from fishermen and fishing communities across the country opposing the creation of marine monuments outside of the existing ocean management processes. New Bedford is the highest-grossing fishing port in the nation, and Monterey is one of the most valuable fishing ports in California.

In his letter to CEQ Acting Director Christy Goldfuss, New Bedford Mayor Mitchell praised the successes of the current fishing-management process, overseen by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – a process that emphasizes including the voices of all ocean stakeholders in its deliberations.

“The process is far from perfect, but it affords ample opportunity for stakeholders and the public alike to review and comment on policy decisions and for the peer reviewing of the scientific bases of those decisions,” he wrote.

The Mayor went on to contrast this with the much more opaque process that has governed the marine monument debate.

“The use of a parallel process, however well-meaning, which has none of the checks and balances employed in the NOAA process, could leave ocean management decisions vulnerable to political considerations in the long run,” he wrote.

 On the other side of the country, Monterey Mayor Roberson’s letter to President Obama was similarly critical of efforts to declare new monuments by executive fiat. Mayor Roberson emphasized the value of the California seamounts to commercial fishermen and the need to strike a balance between environmental protections and fishing concerns. According to Mayor Roberson, reaching this balance requires basing decisions on science, rather than politics.

“[Monterey] supports publically transparent, science-based processes in making ocean management decisions – such as the mandate embodied in the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act,” he wrote. “This proposal was developed without public knowledge or participation, much less scientific or economic review and analysis. Certainly there was no transparency. “

Both Mayors also expressed serious reservations about the potential impact monument declarations would have on their regions’ commercial fishing industries. In New England, a monument declaration would devastate the red crab, swordfish, and tuna fisheries, as well as the processors and shore side businesses that depend on them. In California, the albacore tuna fishery would be deeply impacted, as would that of the rockfish, spiny lobster, sea urchins, and white sea bass.

Mayor Mitchell also noted that while the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has provided “coordinates of a line seaward of the canyons that is acceptable to the industry” the Administration has not provided a concrete proposal. He noted, “if a proposal actually exists, it has not been shared with any of the stakeholders.”

Fishing groups on the East and West Coasts, including many NCFC affiliates, whose members collectively produce the majority of the edible finfish and shellfish harvested from U.S. waters, have expressed opposition to the creation of a new monument via executive order. These organizations include:

  • Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers
  • Alaska Scallop Association
  • American Albacore Fisheries Association
  • American Bluefin Tuna Association (ABTA)
  • American Scallop Association
  • At-Sea Processors Association
  • Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association
  • Blue Water Fishermen’s Association
  • California Fisheries and Seafood Institute
  • California Lobster & Trap Fishermen’s Association
  • California Sea Urchin Commission
  • California Wetfish Producers Association
  • Coalition of Coastal Fisheries
  • Coos Bay Trawlers
  • Directed Sustainable Fisheries
  • Fisheries Survival Fund
  • Garden State Seafood Association
  • Golden King Crab Coalition
  • Groundfish Forum
  • Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
  • Midwater Trawlers Cooperative
  • National Fisheries Institute
  • New England Red Crab Harvester’s Association
  • North Carolina Fisheries Association
  • Oregon Trawl Commission
  • Organized Fishermen of Florida
  • Pacific Seafood Processors Association
  • Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative
  • Southeastern Fisheries Association
  • United Catcher Boats
  • Ventura County Commercial Fishermen’s Association
  • Washington Trollers Association
  • West Coast Seafood Processors Association
  • Western Fishboat Owners Association

Read Mayor Mitchell’s letter here

Read Mayor Roberson’s letter here