Saving Seafood

Marylanders warned to avoid Venezuelan crab meat after nine sickened by Vibrio bacteria

July 9, 2018 — State health officials are warning consumers to avoid unpasteurized Venezuelan crab meat because they believe it has sickened nine people in Maryland with infections of Vibrio bacteria.

They have not pinpointed a single source of the contaminated meat. Illnesses have been traced to crab dishes prepared at homes and in restaurants, and the cases are spread around the state.

Two of the people have been hospitalized, but no deaths have been reported.

Symptoms of food-borne Vibrio infection include watery diarrhea, abdominal cramping, nausea, vomiting, fever and chills.

Venezuelan crab meat was already a concern for many Maryland watermen, but not for health reasons — the imports are major competitors to local seafood. The United States has imported more than 1,000 pounds of Venezuelan crab meat so far this year, fourth-most from any country after Indonesia, China and the Philippines, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Read the full story at The Baltimore Sun

NEFMC Sends Clam Dredge Framework Back to Habitat Committee to Develop New Alternatives

July 5, 2018 — The following was released by the New England Fishery Management Council:

The New England Fishery Management Council voted on June 14 to remand its draft Clam Dredge Framework Adjustment to the Habitat Committee for further development. The Council also issued a specific request to the surfclam industry to propose additional alternatives for consideration and analysis.

The Council initially was scheduled to select the framework’s range of alternatives, which then would have been analyzed in detail over the summer by the Habitat Plan Development Team (PDT). Under this timeline, the Council potentially could have taken final action on the framework in September.

However, during the Council’s recent meeting in Portland, ME, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, NOAA Fisheries) Regional Administrator expressed concern that all of the alternatives proposed to date in the Clam Dredge Framework appeared to include a fair amount of “sensitive habitat” and may not meet the framework’s “purpose and need for action.”

The Regional Administrator recognized that additional analyses were forthcoming and stressed that no conclusive determination had been made.

Nonetheless, the Council clearly heard the words of caution, noting that NMFS may have a challenging time approving proposed surfclam hydraulic dredge exemption areas within the Great South Channel Habitat Management Area (HMA) if the framework’s purpose and need aren’t met.

Read the full release here

Gulf’s deep-sea coral granted new protections by federal regulators

July 3, 2018 — Federal fisheries regulators have approved a plan granting new protections to some of the Gulf of Mexico’s oldest and most fragile stands of deep-sea coral.

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council unanimously voted to designate about 480 square miles as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern, a status that would make them a priority for conservation and scientific study. The protected areas are broken up into 21 sites, most off the Louisiana coast.

The council’s designations have been submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service for review. Final approval is expected after a two-month public comment period.

Environmental groups had been lobbying for the protections for years. The Pew Charitable Trusts, which gathered 16,000 signatures in support, called the council’s decision “a major milestone” for critically important marine habitat.

Read the full story at The Times-Picayune

Senate GOP seeks overhaul of Endangered Species Act

July 3, 2018 — Senate Republicans are embarking on an ambitious effort to overhaul the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

Draft legislation due to be released Monday by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) would give new powers and responsibilities for state officials to determine how animals and plants should be protected.

The GOP contends that its goal is not to weaken protections, but to take advantage of the experience of state regulators.

“When it comes to the Endangered Species Act, the status quo is not good enough,” Barrasso said in a statement to The Hill in advance of the unveiling. “We must do more than just keep listed species on life support — we need to see them recovered. This draft legislation will increase state and local input and improve transparency in the listing process.”Conservationists, however, say the new bill represents the most significant threat in years to the 44-year-old law, which has been credited with rescuing the bald eagle, gray wolf and grizzly bear from possible extinction.

“It’s a bill which, on a broad basis, rewrites the ESA, with a whole host of consequences — as far as we can tell, almost entirely adverse consequences — for the protection of species,” said Bob Dreher, senior vice president for conservation programs at Defenders of Wildlife.

Dreher and other critics fear the effort would tilt the balance too far toward industries while de-emphasizing the role of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

“This bill is all about politics. It’s not about science. It’s especially not about better ways to conserve endangered species,” he continued. “It’s a partisan bill.”

Read the full story at The Hill

ALASKA: Kodiak May See $11.5 Million in Salmon Disaster Relief

July 2, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — A National Marine Fisheries Service internal document sent to the Kodiak Island Borough on Monday details preliminary estimates for regional allocation of the federal relief funding for the 2016 pink salmon disaster. According to the document, of the $56 million in relief funding that was allocated to the Gulf of Alaska for those affected by the 2016 pink salmon disaster, $11,477,873 might be set aside for Kodiak.

NOAA spokesperson Julie Speegle said that the numbers in the document are simply an estimate and are not set in stone.

“The $56.3 million allocation across all impacted fishing districts and gear types has not been determined. That is being worked on over the next month by PSMFC in consultation with the State of Alaska and NOAA,” Speegle wrote in an email. “Finalization occurs when the spend plan has been completed and the grant award has been approved.”

According to Speegle, the estimate of the regional allocations is based on preliminary ex-vessel losses to commercial pink salmon harvesters in 2016 and it is “difficult to predict” the likelihood of final allocation.

With regards to the rest of the $56 million, preliminary estimates for regional allocation are as follows: Southeastern – $10,030,734; Yakutat – $46,712; Lower Cook Inlet – $310,352; Prince William Sound – $32,200,363; South Alaska Peninsula – $1,752,664; Chignik – $542,635.

Another $63 million will be allocated among seven other regions for various fishery disasters in Washington and California.

At a recent Kodiak Fisheries Workgroup meeting, the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Island Borough’s D.C. lobbyist Brad Gilman explained that NMFS and the office of the Governor have to come to a spend plan that identifies the categories of entities which could receive funding and then quantifies how much each of the categories receive within the

available funds. Gilman said that once approved, the Pacific State Marine Fisheries Commission (the entity charged with administering the funds) will likely “start cutting checks immediately.”

A spokesperson for PSMFC said that a distribution method is still pending.

“We were notified that we’ll be administering the funds,” the spokesperson said. “Currently, we don’t have a distribution method figured out.”

Rep. Louise Stutes (R-Kodiak) once again expressed her delight that Kodiak will be receiving some relief funding. Stutes said she’s been pressing the governor’s office to ensure that the funds are distributed, not just to fishermen, but to all of those who were affected.

“I want to make sure that our processor workers receive some of those dollars,” she said.

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

‘Storminess’ Could Make Fishing More Risky as Climate Warms

July 2, 2018 — Tens of thousands of people die every year trying to catch fish to eat or sell, and weather is one of the biggest hazards to lives and equipment. The International Red Cross estimates that 3,000–5,000 people, mainly fishers, are killed by intense thunderstorms on Africa’s Lake Victoria each year. In 2013, Typhoon Haiyan destroyed some 30,000 fishing boats in the Philippines.

The dangers of fishing are no secret, but a warming planet could make the job even more risky. A team of researchers in England is calling for a closer look at how increasingly stormy weather will affect global fisheries.

In a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change, they warn that nastier weather in the future will make fishing more dangerous for millions of fishers and, by reducing catches, could threaten the health and well-being of billions of people who eat seafood. The biggest challenge is that few have studied this question. Although there’s been plenty of research on how ocean warming could reduce fish catch in the next 50–100 years, they said, changing “storminess” could actually be a more immediate, catastrophic issue.

“We really want to encourage more research in this area, because we think it’s really critical for the future,” said lead author Nigel Sainsbury, a scientist at the University of Exeter’s Environment and Sustainability Institute.

Already, scientists have looked at how large storms can damage coral reefs, cause fish to evacuate large areas and flood estuaries with salty ocean water. Some storm systems may also benefit fish by strengthening ocean upwelling that allows phytoplankton and zooplankton – food at the base of the marine food chain – to thrive, according to research led by United States National Marine Fisheries Service scientists.

Read the full story at Oceans Deeply

Maine lobster industry braces for looming bait shortage

July 2, 2018 — Maine’s lobster industry is on watch as fisheries regulators weigh whether to make significant cuts to herring catch limits, which could drive up bait costs that have already seen a sharp increase over the past decade.

Maine’s lobstermen draw their bait from the Atlantic herring stocks, which are managed by the New England Fishery Management Council and National Marine Fisheries Service.

In recent updates, the council said it planned on setting a significantly lower herring catch quota in 2019 than in 2018. The catch limit for 2018 was 111,000 metric tons, the same as it was in 2017. But the herring fleet landed many fewer fish than that last year, harvesting just 50,000 metric tons.

The council also called for a reduction to the catch cap for the rest of 2018 amid concerns about low densities and slow replenishment in the fish stock.

“The decline of the most important forage stock in New England is a significant blow, not only for the lobster industry that uses it for bait, but also for those species that rely on herring as forage like groundfish, tuna, whales, and seabirds,” Ben Martens, executive director of the Maine Coast Fishermen’s Association, wrote in a recent post. “Without this motion, rumor has it that the herring fishery would need to be capped at 15 metric tons in 2019, far lower than the 100-metric ton fishery that has operated in recent years.”

A herring stock assessment group held meetings in late June to try to determine its next steps and come closer to determining what quota it might propose. The group should release more details about the expected catch limits in the fall.

“Everyone’s worried about the quota and what that’s going to be,” said Kristan Porter, a Cutler lobsterman and president of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association. “There’s bait around right now, but what happens in the fall? We just don’t know.”

Read the full story at the Bangor Daily News

Trump administration considering National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Services merger

June 29, 2018 — The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is looking to make changes to the U.S. government, and one of the recommendations it is considering would impact the seafood industry.

Earlier this month, the White House released a 128-page report, “Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century,” detailing steps it’s considering to streamline governmental functions. The report was written by the Office of Management and Budget after Trump issued an order to the agency in March 2017 to devise a plan to revise organizations within the executive branch.

“This plan will serve as a cornerstone for a productive, bipartisan dialogue around making the Federal Government work for the 21st century,” the administration said in a statement.

One of the recommendations in the report proposes to merge the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is part of the Commerce Department, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which falls under the Department of Interior. It’s not the first time the two agencies have been targeted for consolidation as the report mentions Congressional proposals and similar recommendations dating back to the administration of former president Jimmy Carter.

NMFS – sometimes referred to as NOAA Fisheries – and FWS hold similar responsibilities in protecting endangered species and marine mammals, and the report indicates the split can lead to confusion. Earlier this year, a committee in the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that would eliminate redundancies in the Endangered Species Act and put FWS in charge of protecting fish that migrate between fresh and ocean waters.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

ALASKA: Jellyfish Numbers Rising in Bering Sea; Scientists Studying Potential Impacts

June 29, 2018 –Jellyfish have been a natural part of the Bering Sea ecosystem for decades, but in recent years, their population numbers in the region have dramatically increased. Now, a research team funded by the National Science Foundation is in Nome to find out what the cause and implications might be.

“There are certainly fish that do feed on jellyfish: some of the salmon do, some other fish. But in this part of the world, not this many fish feed on jellyfish.”

That’s Mary Beth Decker, a research scientist from Yale University who is part of a three-person research team sailing to Slime Bank in the southern Bering Sea this week, north of the Alaska Peninsula. As she noted, there are minimal benefits from having jellyfish around. Not only do few types of fish eat them, but these species aren’t exactly edible for humans, either.

When it comes to potential consequences of having more jellyfish, though, Decker says that’s a different story.

“And we know that they have impacts on the ecosystem, because they feed on things that fish eat. For example, they’ll eat small crustaceans, zoo plankton, that are prey for other seabirds and marine mammals. And also fish, both young fish and some older fish, like herring, as well.”

According to Decker, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has been recording jellyfish numbers in the Bering Sea for the last 40 years using their trawls. The populations have fluctuated up and down throughout that period for multiple species of jellies, including larger ones like Pacific Sea Nettle, but Decker also points out there are smaller types that are harder to see or even catch in trawl nets.

That’s why Joanna Chierici, a teacher from New Jersey, is onboard this research voyage, to educate and reach out to groups about the types and numbers of jellyfish present in the Bering Sea.

Read the full story at KNOM

NOAA Says Seafood for Reprocessing Exempt from Chinese Tariffs, but Rebate System May Impose Costs

June 28, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — NOAA has confirmed via email to people in the Alaska seafood industry that the 25% Chinese retaliatory tariff will not apply to re-processed products for export.

John Henderschedt, NMFS director of the Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection, wrote  “In consultation with Embassy Beijing, NOAA Fisheries has confirmed that the following products are not subject to the additional 25% tariff recently announced by the Chinese government:

-Imports of U.S. seafood that is processed in China for re-export and some fishmeal products.”

“Affected U.S. seafood exports arriving at Chinese ports on July 6 or later will be subject to the new tariff rate,” he said in an email dated Tuesday, June 26th.

There was some uncertainty following China’s June 15 announcement at the beginning of a long holiday weekend for the Dragon Boat Festival that prevented clarification until government offices re-opened last Tuesday, June 19th, according to Jim Gilmore, Director of Public Affairs for the At-Sea Processors Association.

“Really, no one knew at that time, so the news coverage was of an issue with a lot of confusion and not much time for the U.S. government to get clarification.  The holiday didn’t help matters, but it might also have been that the Chinese government language wasn’t clear.  Not sure what factors were all at play,” Gilmore said.

One unresolved issue is that China has two types of import exemptions for re-processing for export.  One involves no tariff, for products that are exempt, and the other collects the tariff, but then rebates the value back to the company when the product is exported.

One sentence in the Chinese announcement suggests that the 25% tariff will be applied to everything, but then rebated for products that are exported.  When asked about this, Henderschedt had no comment.

If this is the final interpretation, the tariffs will add significant costs for exporters, even though they will ultimately get the 25% tariff refunded.  For example, a Chinese plant that purchases 1000 tons of cod for re-processing and pays $3.6 million, would have to pay an additional $900,000 to bring the product into the country, but then get this money back when the product was exported.  This adds costs to the process, even if the tariffs are ultimately not applied.

Ultimately, the answer will come after July 6th, when importers of record have to deal with Chinese customs officers.

Jim Gilmore says not much of offshore Alaska’s pollock is re-processed.  His group, the At-Sea Processors Association,  represents the Bering Sea pollock factory trawlers. He said that’s more common with salmon and cod.

But shore plants, especially in the Gulf of Alaska, export a lot of H&G pollock for reprocessing.  In fact, Trident recently spent millions of dollars in the last several years to upgrade its plant in Kodiak to efficiently produce a frozen H&G product.

Also the Bering Sea Amendment 80 factory trawler flatfish fleet’s catch goes to China for reprocessing, especially yellowfin sole, according to Chris Woodley, executive director of the group’s trade association, the Groundfish Forum.

The vast majority of the U.S. exports of frozen seafood to China are reprocessed in China and then re-exported, Woodley said.  Such U.S. exports to China that are then re-exported from China are not subject to Chinese duties or the Value Added Tax (VAT).  However, U.S. seafood exports that are imported for consumption in China face high tariff rates.  For example, frozen flatfish species, and other Alaska seafood exports to China that are consumed in China currently face a duty of 10 percent and are also subject to a 13 percent  VAT.

The Dragon Boat Festival is held annually in honor of poet Qu Yuan, who drowned himself in a river in 278 BC, as a political protest. Villagers tried to save the beloved figure in their little boats, but when they couldn’t find him, they threw rice in the water in the hopes that the fish would eat the rice, and not the poet and activist, during the Warring States period of Chinese history.

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