Saving Seafood

Massachusetts: Elizabeth Warren packs a town hall meeting, sits with Markey, Keating over fishing

May 14, 2018 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., came to the city Saturday to hear the concerns of fishermen who wanted a faster resolution to the Carlos Rafael problems that have closed two fishing sectors, maybe throwing fishermen permanently out of their jobs.

These cases of licensing and ownership, and repayment of overfishing, “need to be resolved as quickly as possible,” Warren said later.

Warren also heard from Mayor Jon Mitchell and fishing representatives who contend that the wind energy companies that are the finalists for an exclusive contract are not listening to the concerns of the fishing industry, mainly scallopers.

Warren along with U.S. Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating, D-Mass., listened about these matters in a meeting at the Wharfinger Building on City Pier 3, organized by Bob Vanasse of the industry lobby Saving Seafood.

They parted ways when Warren and her campaign staff went to the Greater New Bedford Regional Vocational Technical High School to conduct a town hall style meeting.

The event had an atmosphere much like a campaign rally, with Warren on stage answering questions from attendees who signed up in a lottery.

She touched on a dozen topics, taking her talk where the questions went, on everything from her late mother, poverty, and U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who rejects a bill that would insulate special prosecutor Robert Mueller from being removed from office by President Donald Trump.

She also condemned the recent trillion-dollar tax cut while Medicaid recipients are threatened by cuts and 90 percent of Americans claim zero percent in the rise of the economy in the past several decades.

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times 

 

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy Asks for More Time to Analyze Offshore Wind Impacts on Commercial Fishermen

May 10, 2018 — WASHINGTON — New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy is asking the federal government for more time to analyze the potential impacts of offshore wind development, specifically on the state’s important commercial fishing industry.

In a letter last week to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Gov. Murphy wrote that the 45 days allotted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for comments on wind development in the New York Bight “is simply not enough time” for New Jersey to conduct the extensive outreach to fishermen it needs. Citing the year of stakeholder outreach conducted by New York, Gov. Murphy requested a 180-day extension of the public comment period.

“New Jersey and its fishing industry need ample time to collect and provide to BOEM more detailed information to enable BOEM to do a responsible job during the next stage of its wind energy leasing process,” Gov. Murphy wrote.

Gov. Murphy called input from New Jersey fishermen “particularly critical” because the state’s main fishing grounds are in areas that New York has submitted to BOEM for potential wind energy development, including two vital areas that are closest to New Jersey’s coast.

“While New Jersey believes that wind energy and the fishing industry can coexist productively, it is critical that potential conflicts from these multiple uses be identified and planned for early in the process,” Gov. Murphy wrote.

According to the letter, New Jersey is “only now beginning [its] review and stakeholder process,” in contrast to New York, which has had four years to conduct studies of offshore wind areas. It pointed out that New York did not effectively engage with New Jersey fishermen or other stakeholders as part of this process.

Gov. Murphy was also critical of BOEM’s own lack of engagement with New Jersey’s fishing industry, stating that they have “not yet been meaningfully involved in the process.” He pointed to two letters from New Jersey to BOEM late last year, which highlighted the lack of stakeholder outreach and requested meetings between fishermen and BOEM before moving forward with a public comment period.

However, BOEM scheduled just one fisheries-based meeting on the New York Bight in one location after its call for comments.

“This minimal level of outreach and limited time frame for response from New Jersey’s stakeholders are simply not adequate or equitable,” Gov. Murphy wrote.

Gov. Murphy’s letter is the latest effort to ensure that the concerns of fishing communities are properly considered in the development of offshore energy projects. In April, members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities wrote to Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, expressing their concerns over several proposed offshore projects and calling for more robust stakeholder engagement.

 

U.S. Shark Fin Ban “Will Not Work,” Would Likely Hurt Shark Conservation Efforts, Expert Tells Rep. Doug Lamborn

May 2, 2018 — WASHINGTON — In response to a question from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), shark expert Dr. Robert Hueter wrote that a U.S. ban on the trade of shark fins would not work and would potentially lead to more unsustainable or finned shark fins in the global market.

Dr. Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, previously testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans on April 17 in favor of a sustainable shark trade bill and against a fin ban. His most recent comments came in response to a follow-up question from Rep. Lamborn about the message a fin ban would send to other nations.

“U.S. fishers do not fin their sharks,” Dr. Hueter wrote. “So the consequences of this action will be to punish the fishers doing it right—U.S. shark fisheries—and reward the foreign fisheries doing it wrong. That is a terrible message to send the world.”

John Polston, a fisherman and representative of the Sustainable Shark Alliance, also testified in April in support of the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act and in opposition to the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act. The Sustainable Shark Alliance is a member of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities.

The full text of Rep. Lamborn’s question and Dr. Hueter’s response is reproduced below:

Question from Rep. Doug Lamborn for Dr. Robert Hueter, Director of the Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory

  • Supporters of H.R. 1456 have argued that such a ban on shark fin sales would send a message to other countries. What message do you think this ban would send?

RESPONSE FROM DR. HUETER [emphasis added by Saving Seafood]:

The supporters of H.R. 1456 are hoping the message the U.S. will send to other nations with a domestic fin ban is that shark fins should no longer be tolerated as a consumable product.  This U.S. leadership, they hope, would end the global fin market, eliminate all shark finning, and recover shark populations worldwide.  Analogies are made to past U.S. leadership in the elephant ivory trade and in commercial whaling.  But as explained in Dr. David Shiffman’s and my 2017 peer-reviewed paper in the journal Marine Policy, this approach is flawed and will not work, for several reasons.  Unlike in the case of elephant ivory where the U.S. was the world’s major consumer, we are only a 1% player in the world shark fin market, and thus our withdrawal from that market will not have the same type of direct effect on world trade of fins as happened with the ivory trade.  In fact, it’s reasonable to conclude that the small market share of shark fins that U.S. fishers currently supply will be taken up by nations fishing sharks unsustainably, probably even finning the sharks.  Recall that U.S. fishers do not fin their sharks—that is, they do not remove the fins and discard the rest of the animals at sea, because American fishers are required to land all their sharks with the fins still “naturally attached” (with the exception of the northeast dogfish fishery, which is allowed to remove the fins at sea to begin processing the meat and fins on the fishing boat).  So the consequences of this action will be to punish the fishers doing it right—U.S. shark fisheries—and reward the foreign fisheries doing it wrong.  That is a terrible message to send the world.

Furthermore, our position at the international negotiating table where shark conservation issues are discussed will be compromised if we withdraw from the fin market.  The message we will be carrying to that forum is, no matter what other nations do to create sustainability in their shark fisheries, it will never be enough to allow them to harvest the fins, in our view.  This loss of leverage will backfire for U.S. attempts to advance shark conservation around the world.  In addition, consider today’s realities with elephants and whales: elephants are still being poached as the ivory trade has been driven underground, meaning we can no longer track this commodity through world trade routes, and elephants are still declining.  And whales are still being hunted commercially by those nations who do not share our preservationist beliefs about marine mammals.  Along these lines, a domestic fin ban also sends a message to Asian cultures that even if they are using the entire shark, even if the sharks are not being finned and the level of fishing for them is sustainable, their use of fins to make soup is unethical.  This creates a clash of cultural values, both internationally and domestically, and our moral position will be difficult to defend.

Finally, by focusing our legislative efforts solely on the fin trade in the U.S., we send a message to American citizens that we are solving the worldwide problem in shark depletion by banning the fins here. Conservation groups then declare victory to their supporters, Congress moves on to other issues, and the U.S. public thinks the problem has been solved.  Nothing could be further from the truth, as sharks will continue to be caught by other nations for their meat and fins and suffer unsustainable levels of bycatch mortality in foreign fisheries.  This is where H.R. 5248 represents an evolution of thinking in how to address the issue, by not simply focusing on the fins and also including the rays, which are in as serious trouble as the sharks worldwide.

Therefore, in my view the message we will be sending the world if we implement a nationwide, domestic ban of the shark fin trade is this:  The U.S. does not believe in sustainable fishing for sharks, we do not subscribe to the full use doctrine for marine resources as laid out by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, we condemn Asian cultures for their consumption of shark fins even from sustainable shark fisheries, and we are okay with damaging our own domestic fisheries to construct a purely symbolic but misguided and ineffective message for shark conservation.   

 

Massachusetts Business Leaders Call for Wind Development that Works with Fishing Industry

April 30, 2018 — A group of leading Massachusetts executives have endorsed a call from Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities to ensure that the commercial fishing industry is protected in any offshore wind power development. The group, a standing committee of the New Bedford Economic Development Council’s (NBEDC) know as the “Regeneration Project,” made the recommendations as part of an April 19 letter to Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker to ensure on the ongoing offshore wind solicitation process.

The Regeneration Project is a coalition of New Bedford-area business and community leaders with c-level experience in industry, finance, communications, and public affairs whose goal is to “articulate a strategy for the city’s economic regeneration.” In the letter, the Council touts New Bedford as a liaison to the region’s important commercial fishing industry, and positions the city as a future hub of offshore wind development.

The NBEDC emphasizes the need for the Commonwealth to work closely and cooperatively with the commercial fishing industry to avoid negative impacts from offshore wind projects. The letter states that offshore wind must be “developed in such a way that it ‘fits in'” with commercial fisheries, and must not “exacerbate unintended consequences of negative impacts to commercial fishing and ongoing maritime trades.”

To avoid these impacts, the letter asks that initial wind development be limited to 400mw, to allow for study of its impact on other ocean users. The NBEDC further recommends that the Port of New Bedford serve as the main facilitator between offshore wind and commercial fishing interests.

The letter also highlights New Bedford’s previous experience with wind energy, and the city’s plans to be become “the central cluster of offshore wind for the east coast.” According to the NBEDC, the city “includes all major facets of the industry such as port services, construction training, research, engineering and manufacturing.”

Read the letter here

 

Massachusetts: Fishing industry reps express offshore wind resistance

April 11, 2018 — Fishing industry representatives from all along the East Coast sent an urgent missive to Governor Charlie Baker on Monday, asking him to delay this month’s selection of the company that will construct the nation’s first industrial-scale offshore wind project off the coast of Massachusetts.

The National Coalition of Fishing Communities (NCFC) cites three key concerns: the project size, the lack of study on potential impacts, and a lack of communication with the fishing industry from potential developers.

Three companies have bid to construct wind farms in the ocean south of Martha’s Vineyard, as part of a roughly 1,600-megawatt procurement mandated by a 2016 energy diversification law.

One of the companies, Vineyard Wind, has proposed projects capable of generating 400 megawatts or 800 megawatts. Vineyard Wind is a partnership between Vineyard Power, Denmark-based Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners and Avangrid Renewables.

There are two other companies in the running: Deepwater Wind, which built America’s first offshore wind farm near Block Island, R.I., and Bay State Wind, a partnership between Denmark-based Ørsted and Eversource.

Read the full story at the Martha’s Vineyard Times

 

Massachusetts: Gov. Baker vows to hear voice of fishermen regarding offshore wind

April 11, 2018 — NEW BEDFORD, Mass. — Gov. Charlie Baker sat about 1,000 feet from the city’s waterfront as he discussed various aspects of the state with The Standard-Times on Tuesday. The proximity to the most valuable port in the United States wasn’t lost on him.

“I do not want (the fishing industry’s) voice to get lost, period,” Baker said. “And it won’t be.”

Through the National Coalition for Fishing Communities, scores of fishermen and organizations sent a letter to Baker on Monday to emphasize their concerns regarding the implementation of offshore wind facilities in areas where they make a living.

“Based on the past several months of interaction with the offshore wind industry, we do not have confidence that our interests are being adequately taken into account, nor will be in the future,” the letter said.

The letter also calls for the New Bedford Port Authority to take on the role of a central facilitator in discussion between the industries.

“I’m happy to have them as part of the mix, but there are a lot of people at the state and federal level who have an oar in this water as well, but, yeah, happy to have them as part of the mix,” Baker said.

The letter addressed to Baker outlined three aspects of concern held by the fishing industry: the project side and number of turbines; a lack of plan/process to study impacts; and no coordination or communication among projects.

Read the full industry letter here

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

 

Massachusetts: Fishing groups back New Bedford as wind liaison

April 10, 2018 — BOSTON — Fishing officials are calling for the New Bedford Port Authority to be the “central facilitator” for discussions between the offshore wind industry and fishermen.

Monday’s letter to Gov. Charlie Baker was sent by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities, a project of Saving Seafood, a group that New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell previously said was created by industry players in his city.

New Bedford is both the nation’s top fishing port as measured by the value of catch, mostly owing to the scallop fishery, and offshore wind developers have agreed to use the Whaling City’s harbor facilities as a staging area, so it is on its way to becoming an offshore wind hub, as well.

In the letter, officials also urged him to make the state’s first offshore windfarm “as modest in size and scope as possible” so that its effects can be studied and called for a possible delay in the selection of offshore wind partners.

“Three separate, developer-led outreach efforts have been launched, and all are stumbling to produce meaningful dialogue or move us closer to real solutions in areas ranging from navigation, access, cable routes, radar interference, and gear loss,” the coalition wrote. “Equally troubling, it has become clear that offshore wind developers are unwilling or unable to coordinate their interactions with commercial fishermen to tackle issues that cut across multiple project areas.”

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

 

Pic of author in front of ship fuels fish oil photo flap

March 26, 2018 — REEDVILLE, Va. — A group that works with commercial fishermen is questioning why an author posed for a picture while sitting on a jet ski near a vessel in the Chesapeake Bay, rather than ask to come on board.

Paul Greenberg has written a new book, “The Omega Principle,” about omega-3 fatty acids. He tweeted the picture Friday in front of a vessel used by Omega Protein, the Atlantic’s largest menhaden harvester. Menhaden are small fish used for omega-3 fish oil supplements.

D.C.-based group Saving Seafood works with Omega and other harvesters on government and public relations. It says there was no reason for Greenberg to “endanger himself or the crew.”

Read the full story at the San Francisco Chronicle

 

Seafood group wants next Magnuson-Stevens Act to do away with “overfishing”

February 16, 2018 — A consortium of groups with ties to the seafood industry is calling for the U.S. Congress to pass a Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization bill that gives the Regional Fishery Management Councils greater flexibility to achieve their objectives, but they also looking for federal officials to change how a couple of items are termed.

Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities is asking Congress to do away with the term “overfishing,” claiming it’s not accurate to base a stock’s condition on just its fishing mortality. In its place, the 24-member group wants to new MSA law to call fishstocks “depleted.” They made their recommendation in a letter to U.S. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska).

“The term ‘overfished’ is perceived negatively and can unfairly implicate the industry for stock conditions resulting from other factors,” the group wrote.

Gib Brogan, a campaign manager with Oceana, said the effort behind depleted is an attempt by commercial fishing interests to escape a “negative perception and culpability for the state” of stocks.

“Modern fisheries science already accounts for the ‘other factors’ that may decrease the abundance of fish in the oceans,” Brogan said.  “When these ‘other factors’ have been accounted for in the underlying science, fishing remains as the source of mortality and it is entirely appropriate to keep the focus on fishing by using ‘overfished.’  If these other factors are not being appropriately considered, that should be resolved through the assessment for affected fish stocks, not a blanket change in terminology.”

Along with several other commercial fishing groups, the coalition is also calling for the new act to do away with the 10-year rebuilding requirement and giving the regional councils more flexibility in determining the timeframe needed to bolster stocks. The group also suggests moving from “possible” to “practicable” when it comes to those rebuilding periods.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

 

Commercial Fishermen Across the Country Support Barry Myers to Lead NOAA

Fishermen Praise AccuWeather CEO for “Proven Record of Success”

December 13, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

Representatives of 71 commercial fishing companies and organizations and 31 fishing vessels from around the country have signed a letter urging the Senate to confirm Barry Myers’ appointment to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The letter of support, produced by Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities, was delivered late last month to members of the Senate Commerce Committee and Senators representing the states of the letter’s signers.

Mr. Myers currently serves as chief executive officer of the weather forecasting company AccuWeather. He was nominated to serve as the next NOAA Administrator and Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere by President Donald Trump on October 11, and participated in a Senate confirmation hearing November 29.

“As CEO of AccuWeather, Mr. Myers has a proven record of success, working alongside scientists,” the fishing groups wrote. They praised his work as a fellow at the American Meteorological Society and a recipient of the prestigious AMS Leadership Award. They also complimented Mr. Myers for his service on an environmental working group of NOAA’s Science Advisory Board, under presidents from both parties.

The letter points out that, despite employing some of the nation’s best scientists, NOAA has been “plagued with ongoing mismanagement,” including abuse of power and misuse of funds at NOAA’s Office of Law Enforcement; accuracy and credibility issues with NOAA’s collection and use of fisheries data; and long-running budget and hiring issues at the National Weather Service.

In light of these many issues, the fishing groups wrote, “While science remains one of the most vital elements of NOAA, new leadership with strong proven managerial experience is needed to right the ship after years of mismanagement.”

The groups also cited two experts in the field who have called for improved management at NOAA. David Titley, former NOAA COO under President Obama and a professor of meteorology at Penn State, said, “I think Barry would bring very practical, pragmatic expertise and management acumen to NOAA.” Cliff Mass, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, said, “No NOAA Administrator has been willing to make the substantial, but necessary, changes,” and speculated that someone from the private sector might bring a “fresh approach.”

The letter was signed by fishing groups representing 15 coastal states: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington.