Saving Seafood

JACK MERRILL: Offshore and off course

January 22, 2021 — For more than 50 years I have understood that humans need to reduce their fossil fuel consumption, and that green technology, giving us solar, hydro, and wind power, are great alternative options. Through my association with the Lobster Institute in Orono, Maine, I have participated in multiple research projects and backed others with financial support. I’m a supporter of green energy. I believe in the potential of wind energy.

Why then am I appalled by proposed wind platforms off of Maine’s coast? I had to ask myself: Is this simply a “not in my backyard” knee-jerk reaction? The answer is unequivocally no. While wind power itself (with improved technology) makes sense, Maine’s current offshore project, which essentially is doing research to open the door for ownership of hundreds of thousands of ocean acres to private corporations, is foolhardy.

Here are some of the reasons I oppose offshore wind initiatives off the Maine coast:

They threaten the economic health, cultural fabric, and history of Maine.

By removing thousands of acres of bottom from fishing access, these turbines threaten the economic health of Maine’s second largest industry (lobstering alone has an estimated value of a billion dollars a year), at the same time forcing a severe social impact for coastal communities. In fact, they would have a negative impact on all three of Maine’s coastal economic engines.

The uniqueness of Maine’s coast brings millions of tourists every year. A blow to the lobster industry would be a serious blow to that uniqueness. For the summer resident yachting population (large taxpayers) who now enjoy the freedom of today’s open oceans, the hundreds of platforms we are now being told are coming will be an eyesore and pose serious hazards to navigation. We are living in difficult and unusual times. Covid times. Today Maine’s economy is suffering. Where would we have been in 2020 without the fisheries, our summer population, and tourism?

Read the full opinion piece at National Fisherman

Another country has banned boiling live lobsters. Some scientists wonder why.

January 16, 2018 — Poached, grilled, or baked with brie.

Served on a roll, or in mac ‘n cheese.

Lobsters may be one of the most popular crustaceans in the culinary arts. But when it comes to killing them, there’s a long and unresolved debate about how to do it humanely, and whether that extra consideration is even necessary.

The Swiss Federal Council issued an order this week banning cooks in Switzerland from placing live lobsters into pots of boiling water — joining a few other jurisdictions that have protections for the decapod crustaceans. Switzerland’s new measure stipulates that beginning March 1, lobsters must be knocked out — either by electric shock or “mechanical destruction” of the brain — before boiling them, according to Swiss public broadcaster RTS.

The announcement reignited a long-running debate: Can lobsters even feel pain?

“They can sense their environment,” said Bob Bayer, executive director of the University of Maine’s Lobster Institute, “but they probably don’t have the ability to process pain.”

Boiling lobsters alive is already illegal in some places, including New Zealand and Reggio Emilia, a city in northern Italy, according to the animal rights group Viva.

A Swiss government spokeswoman said the law there was driven by the animal rights argument.

“There are more animal friendly methods than boiling alive, that can be applied when killing a lobster,” Eva van Beek of the Federal Office of Food Safety and Veterinary Affairs said in an email.

Read the full story at the Washington Post

 

Trump’s proposed cuts to NOAA alarm Maine’s marine community

March 7, 2017 — A Trump administration proposal to slash funding for the federal government’s principal marine agency and eliminate the national Sea Grant program is prompting alarm in Maine’s marine sector because it depends on services provided by both.

President Trump wants to slash the budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – the agency responsible for fisheries management, weather forecasting, nautical surveys and assisting marine industries – by 17 percent, The Washington Post reported Friday. And he wants to eliminate NOAA’s Sea Grant program, the marine equivalent of the federal agricultural extension and research service, in the fiscal 2018 budget, which begins Oct. 1.

“There was a lot of concern when the news broke, and a flurry of messages went out to our congressional delegation from fishermen and aquaculturists who understand how they benefit from Sea Grant,” said Paul Anderson, director of Maine Sea Grant at the University of Maine in Orono, one of 33 Sea Grant universities in the country. “I don’t now if on October 1st we will all of a sudden not exist.”

The news has sent reverberations across Maine’s marine community, which has long benefited from the partnership between UMaine and the federal government. Sea Grant researchers created the Fishermen’s Forum – the industry’s premier event – in 1976, and also helped found the Portland Fish Exchange and the university’s Lobster Institute, which researches issues of concern to the industry.

Patrice McCarron, executive director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association, said the cuts to NOAA would be terrible for fishermen. “The industry relies pretty heavily on their forecast reports on the wind and the wave heights and make decisions day to day if they are going to go out, so those satellites are really important,” she said. “And nobody loves (the National Marine Fisheries Service), but keeping them fully funded and their research going is essential to manage our fisheries.”

She noted that recent cuts to the agency’s right-whale monitoring program had hurt fishermen because if scientists didn’t have time to find the whales, they had to assume they weren’t there, increasing the regulatory burden on lobstermen, whose gear the whales sometimes get entangled in.

Read the full story at the Portland Press Herald