Jes Hathaway is the editor in chief of National Fisherman magazine and NationalFisherman.com.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Tuesday, 30 June 2015
It’s the time of year when I want nothing more than to be on the water. And of course I say that as a non-fisherman. I’m just one of the many recreational users of our waterways. (Hence, my fair-weather friendship.)
I write often about conflicts among user groups, and naturally many fishing groups keep a hairy eyeball on the oil industry. The threat of oil spills, as we’ve seen most recently in California, is daunting for those who make their living harvesting the ocean’s creatures.
Mishaps, after all, are guaranteed. Humans make mistakes. So we must assume when we allow oil and gas exploration and drilling in a fishing rich area that there will be leaks and spills — ideally not catastrophic ones.
But if anyone can understand what it’s like to be maligned, it’s commercial fishermen. Fleets and individual boat owners all over the country have made great strides to improve their selectivity, fuel consumption, onboard safety, product quality and overall sustainability. And yet, there is plenty of negative press about how commercial fishing has depleted resources to the point of no return.
The solution, we chant on a seemingly endless loop, is gear and tech improvement. And I say that’s just the kind of commitment we’d like to see from the oil and gas sector.
Enter: sugar-based surfactant. According to Maritime Executive magazine, researchers at the City College of New York have developed a biodegradable agent that can clean up water-based light crude oil spills.
If you’ve followed the Deepwater Horizon spill coverage, you’re likely familiar with Corexit, the chemical surfactant that sank the gushing oil to the seabed. We will never know what the results would have been without Corexit. But we may also never know the damage these patches of oil have caused to marine ecosystems, as much of the coagulated oil remains on the sea floor.
A biodegradable surfactant could be the first step in harmonious coexistence for the oil and fishing industries, not only in politics but in practice.
Caption: Navy boats anchored along the shoreline during the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill clean-up efforts in Alaska’s Prince William Sound.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Monday, 22 June 2015
These days, most emergency management rulings come in the form of a fishery closure. This week, however, Alaska salmon managers have declared an early opening of the setnet fishery on Cook Inlet’s Kasilof River — for the third time in three years as sockeye swarm the area, reaching escapement goals early.
The Department of Fish and Game counts the salmon heading upstream. Once they reach an optimum threshold for spawning (escapement), managers open the fishery to some mix of commercial, subsistence and recreational fishing. The risk of holding off opening the fishery is that too many fish spawning can lead to boom and bust cycles of fish. Managers count the fish to try to minimize fluctuations in biomass.
But this opening is not without controversy. For decades, anti-setnet activists have been targeting local setnetters, claiming that their bycatch of king salmon — a prize sport fish — is too high to justify the use of setnets for sockeye. Recently, the Alaska Fisheries Conservation Alliance submitted 43,000 signatures to bring a setnet ban to the state ballot in an effort to eliminate setnetting in urban areas. It could be on ballots as early as August 2016.
However, Area Management Biologist Pat Shields tells the Peninsula Clarion the king salmon running with the sockeye at this stage are not the same salmon that would be returning the the Kenai River, where recreational king salmon fishing has been closed.
He also noted that managers are careful to balance the commercial fishery’s needs with the needs of competing interests.
“We could have fished (Sunday),” he told the Clarion. “We have the escapement right now to fish (Sunday). We’re aware of king salmon concerns, so we’re delaying that by a day. If we didn’t have any concerns for king salmon ... we probably would fish all of the hours that we could.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Tuesday, 02 June 2015
The ongoing battle over Marine Stewardship Council certification of Alaska salmon erupted anew with a letter from Rob Zuanich on behalf of the Alaska Salmon Processors Association to Stefanie Moreland, representing the major processors — Trident, Peter Pan, Icicle, Ocean Beauty, North Pacific and Leader Creek.
The ASPA is a group of smaller processors who account for about 15 percent of Alaska’s salmon harvest. The major processors make up the rest. In 2012, the big processors acted together in deciding to take a leap away from MSC and strike out on their own. Now they want back in, but according to the letter, the effort is too little too late.
When the big processors decided to move away from MSC, one of the reasons was because the expense of keeping the ecolabel was burdensome and at the time perceived as potentially unnecessary for the seafood powerhouse that is Alaska salmon. After all, the relationship started when MSC asked the big Alaska processors to carry the ecolabel to help MSC gain international recognition. And that it did.
As such, it seems reasonable that the state of Alaska might have the notion that it is big enough to compete with MSC. Alaska salmon is a pristine brand recognized the world over that could seemingly rely on its history and products to make inroads into European markets where MSC has had a stranglehold on access.
It’s understandable that at that point the small processors may have felt left behind in the wake of major international business decisions. The string of organizations potentially taking over for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game as MSC client for the salmon fishery resulted in the loss of critical time to complete the assessment for 2013. The smaller processors lost a summer season with MSC because of the political battle they fought against the major processors who were pushing for all Alaska salmon to forge ahead without MSC. And in retrospect, it’s clear that the ASPA members made the right move for their businesses to keep their label with MSC.
Now that the major processors want back in, the ASPA has their chance to wield a little power, and that they have by putting off allowing the major processors to join their client group until after the summer (read: money-making) season is over, as Zuanich explained in his letter.
The letter also claims the big salmon processors stepped away from MSC and urged other associations to stand down as its client. The motive being that if all Alaska salmon withdrew from the European marketplace, perhaps the market itself would accept the group’s choice of the Food and Agriculture Organization’s Responsible Fisheries Management label to fill the void of wild salmon.
But the bottom line is the bottom line: The big companies have the capital to withstand a few iffy seasons while establishing a new ecolabel; the small ones may not. The big companies simply can’t expect the small processors to manage the risk in the same way. So could they have done something to sweeten the pot for the small companies? Perhaps. Would that have been a good business move? In retrospect, perhaps. At the time, I doubt that seemed like an sensible option.
Now MSC is entering the fray in an attempt to mediate and bring the major processors onboard for the season.
In the world of Alaska salmon politics, it doesn’t get better than a ringside seat at this fight.
This intricate dance illustrates that while Alaska is a seafood giant renowned for its salmon industry, there are many political factors at play within that single fishery.
If nothing else, it has gotten salmon fishermen charged up for a season that is predicted to break records, and with the prospect of a stronghold in MSC-dominated European markets, all the more reason to be (tentatively) excited about boat prices and Christmas bonuses.
If you’re planning on a winter trip to Hawaii or Arizona, I recommend you book your tickets now. I suspect most Alaska Air flights to sunny winter havens will be sold out by the end of summer.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Tuesday, 26 May 2015
I admit I had the wind knocked out of my sails late last week when I read that President Obama has opted to dismiss out of hand Alaska Rep. Don Young’s Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization draft, reportedly based on the advice of his staff.
After the industry mustered support for the bill that could possibly be a Hail Mary pass for the Northeast groundfish fleet, I was excited to see it get widespread support (though Senate approval was uncertain), because that means more people understand the inordinate amount of pain under which New England fishing ports and fleets are operating right now (not to mention the forecast for harbors all along the Eastern Seaboard).
According the White House statement, the objection is to “arbitrary and unnecessary requirements that would harm the environment and the economy.” The problem is that as management now stands, arbitrary and unnecessary requirements are harming the economy and the industry, and quite possibly the environment, too.
What all those opposed to Young’s bill say is that there’s already flexibility in the Magnuson Act. And yet, the powers that be in the Northeast refuse to use that flexibility, and there is no way to hold them accountable for that choice.
So our fleets are caught in the middle, and those who wield the power to change the future have nothing to lose from the collapse of our infrastructure.
The fishermen stand to lose everything. And the public stands to lose access to healthy, local fish when the small-boat fleet gives out after a 95 percent cut in quota.
It looks more and more like we will have to lose it to know the value of what we’ve lost. And then what?
What we will get if we keep tightening the vise on our small-boat fleet is the little guys selling out the the big guys and total ownership of the resource by a handful of large corporations. If what we want is to establish and maintain sustainability in fisheries, it seems to me that the last thing we want to do is put the entirety of the ownership of fisheries in the hands of powerful corporations who have the legal prowess to write their own rules.
If you agree, please contact your representatives and tell them you want to help save small-boat fleets across the country by passing H.R. 1335.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Tuesday, 19 May 2015
There are no guarantees in life. Even if you despise the green movement for some reasons, you may find yourself working with environmentalists to protect your own backyard.
Such is the case with some of the opponents of Pebble Mine.
A Wall Street Journal article last week was yet another attempt to damn the process at EPA by clutching pearls at the idea that an environmental activist was involved in fighting Pebble Mine at the early stages.
“Where is the transparency?” the mine’s defenders ask, and rightly so. While I admit that this is not a shocking development, it presents evidence contrary to EPA’s claim that they were merely responding to the requests of Native tribes and local fishermen.
I’ve talked to people in those groups, and I can say without a shred of doubt that they want to keep Pebble Mine far away from their livelihood and source of subsistence for all the right reasons (that is, not political ones).
But if EPA has been lacking transparency, they ought to have their feet held to the fire on this point. What they should not be demonized for is the claim that the mine owners were overlooked and ignored when EPA came knocking.
The pro-Pebble people would have us believe EPA shut them down before they had the chance to file a plan. And yet, they spent more than a decade pouring resources into the idea of building this mine at the headwaters of Bristol Bay. What were they doing for those 10 years? Research, development, marketing. All without a plan? Does that seem like the kind of business blunder a multibillion-dollar mining company would make?
You can only legitimately complain so long that EPA blocked you before you could file a plan before you actually file a plan. We are going on the second decade. How long does it take?
So go for it, Pebble. File your plan. Have your say.
Or is it possible that the bigger priority is to prolong the legal fight until the whole region is so bankrupt they won’t be able to fight anymore?
Maybe sometimes environmental activists are the bad guys, the ill-informed. (See: Oceana’s fleet of interns crafting off-base PR at an alarming rate.) And maybe sometimes the international mining companies who have no stake in the local culture, longevity of the region’s most significant source of employment and subsistence are actually rapacious industrialists.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Tuesday, 12 May 2015
I will admit, my first instinct when writing about Oceana’s latest press release was to crack wise about how Kate Mara knows the dangers of drift gillnets because a frightening experience with an entanglement led to her tragic haircut.
But that ’do wasn’t the first thing I noticed in the email. I skimmed right past the celebrity eye candy and noticed that the release contains numerous errors, as most of us have come to expect from Oceana.
It’s interesting to me that a group can spend so much time courting celebrities to be the face of their cause and not even bother to google whether it’s legal to use gillnets in Washington and Oregon.* They say, “Washington State prohibits drift gillnets and Oregon does not allow fishermen in the state to use them.” (You can also watch Mara's video on YouTube.)
For more on the drift gillnet fisheries in these states, check out our Cover Story excerpt “Up and down in Puget Sound” by Matt Marinkovich, who gillnets for chum — or keta — salmon in Washington. See also the Yearbook section in our April 2013 issue. Columbia River (Oregon) gillnetter Larry Telen graces the cover.
While it’s true that Oregon’s former Gov. John Kitzhaber (who resigned amid scandal recently) made an effort to restrict gillnets on the Columbia River, his alternative of allowing commercial seining isn’t panning out quite as planned.
The reason being that gillnets can indeed be a highly selective gear type if used properly (the right size mesh, appropriate length and depth of the net, timing of the fishery, and even adding lights or pingers to the nets to deter bycatch).
What I have learned from reading Oceana’s marketing materials is that there’s almost always a better solution to the problems they claim to want to resolve.
Just today I read a great story about Massachusetts’ South Shore lobstermen solving their own whale entanglement woes with more than 1,000 personal hours of research and development. Ask a fisherman to help you solve a problem, and in most cases, you’ll get a pretty useful solution that saves jobs, reduces bycatch and keeps fresh fish on your plate.
National Fisherman has long celebrated fishermen who devote their own free time to these kinds of projects. Their friendly faces and calloused hands carry considerably more substance than a celebrity with a glamour shot and an empty cause.
*For the record, I googled Ms. Mara. I recognized her from "Brokeback Mountain," but I haven't had the opportunity to binge on the Netflix series "House of Cards." Suffice it to say her IMDB entry is far more impressive than her ability to choose a cause.Add a comment Add a comment
Written by Jes Hathaway
Tuesday, 28 April 2015
It reads like a practical joke: Weed of Stonington faces pot charges. (Traps, that is.)
But behind the amusing headline lies one of the pitfalls of a fiercely independent fleet of fishermen: they do what they want.
Benjamin Weed of Stonington, Maine, is being charged with fishing untagged lobster traps and for setting more than he was allotted in certain fishing zones. But there’s more to this story than the government coming down hard on another hard-working fisherman (a rather disturbing trend, but that’s a topic for another day).
The Maine lobster fleet has for years been enjoying flush landings and more recently a price jump that led to record landings value last year just shy of $457 million, and 2015 is looking up from there with a late start to coincide with the tourist season.
At the same time, the number of V-notched egg-bearing lobsters (reproducing females marked so they can consistently be thrown back whether or not they are bearing eggs at the time they are caught) is on the decline from 76 percent in 2000 to 63 percent in 2014, according to the Maine Department of Marine Resources. The last time the landings increased significantly, the percentage of V-notched egg-bearers held steady between 70 and 80 percent. So the decline is worrisome. And to some, it’s suspicious. Are more Maine lobstermen slacking off on V-notching because they think the fishery is invulnerable and no longer requires strict adherence to that rule, or is some other factor at play?
Of course, lobstermen have a reputation for being suspicious of each other, even — and maybe especially — of their own neighbors. Despite their fierce independence, most of Maine's lobstermen work hard to maintain a sustainable fishery and want to know that their neighbors are doing the same. If there's a chance they're not, they are sure to be the subject of some scuttlebutt. Before the story broke, the rumor had it that Weed was fishing thousands of unmarked traps.
Rumors aside, he’s likely to be held up as an example to the rest of the fleet. Weed risks losing his fishing license for a year, which is a steep price to pay when the gettin’ is just gettin’ good.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Thursday, 23 April 2015
Catch share programs have been heralded in all corners of the country, first by NGOs and second by some of the fleet owners, fishermen and processors to whom they have brought success.
The counterbalance to those claims of success are of course the thousands of voices of fishermen and many more thousands of supporting small businesses put out of work as a result of catch share programs. But even worse, at least one catch share program was implemented with such haste that it may actually be damaging the ecosystem it was prescribed to save.
Enter: New England groundfish. In a press release yesterday, Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance Community Organizer Brett Tolley stated, “In the five years since the catch share policy was implemented in New England, fishing rights have dramatically consolidated, community based fishermen have less access to fishing quota, and pressure on inshore fishing areas has increased.”
“For many fishermen, this means a loss of our livelihood and culture. It means a break in a family tradition. And perhaps more importantly, it means future generations in these fishing families will have no access to using and stewarding the fish stocks and marine ecosystems that have sustained them for so long,” said fisherman Tim Rider of Saco, Maine.
If an entire region of the country is struggling after going far above and beyond to protect their resource, then we have to consider that what we’re doing to manage the resource is not effective.
No single management system will have a 100 percent success rate. Of course we should strive for that. But regardless of what happens to the New England codfish, we can say without a doubt that we did everything we could to protect that species and bring it back to no avail.
What we don’t know is what’s hurting us.
What we do know, we’re not acting on, and that’s hurting us, too.
Flexibility in Magnuson is the only way to give some New England and Southern fisheries a whisper of hope. The fishermen in these regions need legislation to push their councils to take a holistic look at fishing communities and ecosystems. How can we refuse to offer a helping hand to fellow fishermen?
They don’t want help in the form of disaster money or handouts in the form of buybacks or buyouts. What they want is to be given a chance to try something new with their fishery.
In the meantime, we should be putting more effort into gear innovations and data on these fisheries and more money into marketing underutilized species like dogfish. Instead we keep leaning harder and harder on the fishermen to maintain an ineffective status quo.
As Tolley points out, stewards of the resource have made appeals and suggestions to improve the New England program. But the council has turned a blind eye to the system’s flaws, which they promised at the outset to fix because they recognized five years ago that the program was shoved through in haste and was likely to be a disaster in the making.
We still have a disaster. We still have a broken system. The question is how long we will still have a fishery?
Written by Jes Hathaway
Thursday, 16 April 2015
How does a company based in Hiram, Ohio, come to be a leader in marine technology? In the case of Duramax Marine, it all started in the late 1800s with maple syrup buckets. Tapping trees was and still is big business in Amish country. When the industry moved to metal buckets with lids, they needed rubber seals, which led to bearings, and the rest was history.
I’m down in New Orleans this week for the WorkBoat Maintenance and Repair show. Compared to Maine late winter/early mud season, the spring weather down here feels a might steamy. So I grabbed a chance to catch up with Mike Schonauer from Duramax to see a demonstration on their DuraCooler SuprStak keel cooler.
About a year ago, the company invested in a full-scale water tunnel to test water flow and maximize cooling efficiency. The research from that investment led to the addition of flow diverter scoops which draws water in through the cooler. While Duramax is not officially releasing their numbers while the patent is pending, they will claim a double digit increase in efficiency.
But increasing the flow through the TurboTunnel is a delicate endeavor. Too much flow, and you run into a corrosion problem. The SuprStak is designed for optimized flow that meets Tier III and IV requirements. Check it out at www.duramaxmarine.com.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Thursday, 02 April 2015
A year and a half ago, the Alaska pollock industry was unpleasantly surprised when the Marine Stewardship Council announced it would extend its blue label to Russian Sea of Okhotsk pollock. Russian-trawled Theragra chalcogramma is the same species as Bering Sea walleye pollock fished by Alaska trawlers.
Alaskans were not up in arms simply because they compete in the marketplace with their Russian counterparts. The shock came because the Alaskan fishery has been banking on its own MSC certification as well as its widespread reputation for a safe working environment, one the Russian fleet does not share.
Industry leaders across the globe began again to ask the question, “How do we define sustainable?” Does it not include safe working conditions for seafood harvesters? Does it not encompass a right to fair labor practices?
I woke up early this morning to the AP alert that 132 people were on the Russian Dalniy Vostok freezer trawler when it went down in a matter of minutes overnight. At press time, 54 people had died and 15 were unaccounted for.
Immediately, the questions began running through my mind: Was the boat well-maintained? Did it have safety gear? How many of the workers understood the language spoken onboard? Were they all there of their own free will?
On that boat were 78 Russians. The 54 remaining crew included foreign nationals from Myanmar, Vanuatu, Ukraine and Latvia.
Even if the foreigners were there voluntarily, imagine being on a sinking boat with alarms blaring as announcements come over the loudspeaker but you don’t understand what’s being said because it’s all in Russian, a language you don’t know.
So what can we take away from this? The same lesson we’ve carried since the first big story of slave labor on Thai shrimp farms broke in 2013: By relying on seafood labels that focus on stock abundance, gear impacts and habitat but not on the working conditions of those fisheries, we are being kinder to the fish we eat than we are to the people who bring that fish to our plates.
It seems unwieldy to attempt to certify the harvesting practices of foreign products (seafood and otherwise) to verify that they are simultaneously and reliably good for us, good for the environment and good for the people who harvest them.
I’m not asking MSC to create a human rights component for its label, nor has the organization shown an interest in incorporating this element. What we can do is use the information the federal government already has to source products from countries that have clean human rights records. That puts China, Russia and Thailand on the Red List, blue sticker or no.
Their leaders will respond to marketplace demands. After all, slave labor is a response to the demand for cheap goods. We don’t need a middle man to raise these issues. We know what they are and how to act. Let’s make a change by hitting them where it counts: their GDP.
When you buy seafood, ask where it comes from. Retailers are required to provide this information. Make use of it. Buy American. Buy wild. Eat well.
Page 5 of 38
The Northeast Trawl Advisory Panel working group is scheduled to meet Aug. 2 in Boston to discuss using commercial fishing vessels to supplement current stock assessment surveys conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center.Read more...
Pat Fiorelli, the long-serving public affairs officer for the New England Fishery Management Council, will step down at the end of July.Read more...