Jes Hathaway is the editor in chief of National Fisherman magazine and NationalFisherman.com.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Tuesday, 15 July 2014
Yesterday the Seattle Times published an opinion piece by Bruce Babbitt, former secretary of the Interior, in which Babbitt denounces the supporters of Pebble Mine, a project proposed for Alaska’s Bristol Bay.
“The question of whether to build a massive copper mine in the heart of the planet’s largest wild sockeye salmon fishery has a simple answer: no,” Babbit writes. “Pebble is the wrong mine in absolutely the wrong place.”
This week, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is likely to thumb its nose at the widespread support of Bristol Bay’s fishermen, who fear the long-term effects of toxic mining waste at the headwaters of their historic fishery.
While thousands of Bristol Bay fishermen are taking advantage of a banner fishing year and the opportunity to supply the world with half its wild salmon, the House committee’s Water Resources Subcommittee today held an oversight hearing on EPA’s 404(c) authority with no witnesses from Bristol Bay. EPA has declared Pebble a risk too great under the Clean Water Act.
Whatever you think of the EPA in general, if you’re a fisherman or enjoy eating wild fish, you most certainly should care about clean water. And for that matter, you should be concerned about these attempts at undermining federal oversight of clean water and fisheries.
Last week I wrote about Louisiana’s senators attempting to push through two bills that would strip the Gulf of Mexico management council of its authority to oversee red snapper quota, all because sport fishermen believe they are getting a raw deal and despite the fact that the council has gone above and beyond to address their concerns.
Our federal management system is far from perfect, but we risk losing all the ground we’ve recovered on our middling reputation with the public (read: seafood buyers) if we keep stripping away the government’s ability to ensure that our fleets have quota to fish and clean waters in which to catch our food.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Thursday, 10 July 2014
When Gulf of Mexico red snapper was determined to be a fishery in precipitous decline, the public and federal attitude was that the commercial fishermen needed to fix it or lose everything. So they did — with an individual fishing quota program. And it really was just that: Some fishermen fixed it and some lost everything, as IFQs tend to go.
Years later, the fishery is recovering, much to the joy of commercial fishermen who sacrificed years of fishing low quotas with the promise that as the biomass recovered, their quotas, too, would increase.
Now two pieces of legislation threaten to change all of that.
This week, Louisiana’s senators Mary Landrieu (D) and David Vitter (R) are making a strong push for a drastic and disastrous change to the federal fishery management system.
At the behest of frustrated sportfishing groups — the most vocal of which is the Coastal Conservation Association — many of the gulf states’ political leaders support handing control of the federally managed red snapper fishery to the states to manage individually.
Vitter’s move is an amendment to a bill designed to renew hunting and fishing programs; Landrieu is seizing the opportunity to present the change in a bill of her own. Both senators claim the 9-day 2014 sportfishing season for snapper was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen a fishery brought to its knees as a result of complicated and possibly draconian federal measures. It is, however, an unprecedented move on behalf of only one slice of the fishing stakeholders. Commercial fishermen would undoubtedly be left with the fuzzy end of the lollipop if this change takes place.
And this is after the gulf council surrendered to the CCA’s demands and voted to support significant changes in the way snapper quotas are allocated to the recreational sector. Instead of the longstanding and simplistic baseline of 49/51 for sport/commercial fleets, a preferred alternative would set a benchmark at 9.12 million pounds. Any quota above that benchmark would be allocated 75/25 for sport and commercial fishermen.
How is this fair to the commercial fishermen who worked so hard and sacrificed so much to bring the fishery back? What did the sport sector do to deserve such a windfall?
The message our politicians are sending is that when sportfishing is on the brink, the power dynamic shifts so that states opt to take control of federal fisheries. But when commercial fishing is threatened, it’s up to the fishermen to figure it out or go the way of the dodo bird.
This is quite possibly one of the worst end-runs around the fishery management system we have seen. But it’s not just a problem for the commercial guys. As long as the commercial sector gets handed the short straw quotawise, the dock price for snapper is likely to stay high and we’ll most likely continue to see seafood fraud on menus at restaurants whose purveyors can’t afford to source the premium fish.
In the end, the public will pay. They just might not see it right away.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Thursday, 03 July 2014
Anyone who fears the fishing industry is losing most of its youthful energy with an aging fleet of captains and crews certainly has reasons to worry. But for each of those reasons, I can think of quite a few young and enthusiastic fishermen and industry advocates who are going all out to make sure the industry is accessible and sustainable for their generation and many to come.
One of those stand-outs is Brett Veerhusen, who has been a drift-gillnet skipper in Bristol Bay and advocate for his fishery in the fight against Pebble Mine. Veerhusen recently helped launch the Seafood Harvesters of America. (See my story on this new advocacy group in the Around the Coasts section of our August issue and more on the role of young people in the industry in Senior Editor Linc Bedrosian’s Mixed Catch “Shrimping fits him to a Lil T” and Associate Editor Melissa Wood’s Coastlines “The fight for the future.”)
If you follow federal fish politics, you are well aware that many valiant efforts have been made toward national fishing advocacy groups. One of the things that makes this group different is that it’s based in Washington, D.C., and aims to springboard from the success Veerhusen and his colleagues at Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay had on Capitol Hill getting congressional support for EPA’s watershed assessment to help prevent the construction of Pebble Mine at the headwaters of Bristol Bay.
The Seafood Harvesters of America comprises more than a dozen commercial fishing associations from around the country and seeks to find and call federal attention to common ground for national issues that affect all U.S. commercial fishermen.
“Everything before has been done from a regional standpoint, a regional voice,” says Veerhusen, the association’s executive director. “We need a national voice.”
Chris Brown, the harvesters’ president and president of the Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association, kicked off the announcement of the new group with a splash by serving on the Future of American Fisheries panel with NMFS director Eileen Sobeck during Capitol Hill Ocean Week in June. I hope Veerhusen and his board of veteran fishermen can keep our fishing industry at the table in federal discussions that affect fishermen from coast to coast. Their collaboration represents the best this industry has to offer in experience, national representation and youthful energy. I have no doubt we’ll hear more from them and from Veerhusen in the years to come.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Thursday, 26 June 2014
Last week I read an opinion piece in Forbes about the blogger known as the Food Babe (Quackmail: Why You Shouldn't Fall For The Internet's Newest Fool, The Food Babe). Reportedly, the health-food advocate and activist also known as Vani Hari sent Anheuser-Busch InBev scrambling with a demand that the company publish the ingredients for its beer.
Once upon a time, I appreciated the Food Babe’s advocacy for transparency in food production. After all, I like to know what’s in my food. Unfortunately, like many efforts that begin altruistically and with a clear and admirable vision, it seems Hari’s alter ego might have taken a turn toward sensationalism to raise awareness (read: money) for her cause.
What happens next is that the cause gets lost in the noise. Food Babe’s drumbeat to the release of the ingredient list was clearly intended to scare her audience into action. They use plane deicer! Did you know that? What she (and legitimate journalists) failed to report is that propylene glycol is used not to give the beer its je ne sais quoi. It’s used to cool the product and is listed with the ingredients because the law requires manufacturers to list all products used throughout the production process. But it gets even better: Did the Food Babe’s vegan and strict vegetarian followers know that Anheuser uses fish bladders in their beer?! Who would do such a thing? Well the answer is: the Founding Fathers.
According to Forbes contributor Trevor Butterworth, dried fish bladders, called isinglass, have been used to filter beer, wine and liquor for centuries. So the fact that beer makers use isinglass is not news to anyone who knows something about the beer-making industry, it’s certainly not exclusive to big manufacturers and it’s not a process invented to speed product to modern beer drinkers. What has changed in this case is not our beer consumption but our cultural consumption. A single blogger who has developed a good following can create sensationalist news about harmless business practices by renaming a process or product in order to scare consumers.
The real danger, Butterworth says, is when news outlets take the activists’ word for it and don’t get the inside scoop on what they’re reporting. Once you have the complicity of a press corps that is too busy feeding the 24-hour cycle to investigate their stories, then you have easy access to the public. Before you know it, you’ve created the next big Internet rumor. All those reporters had to do was call someone in the industry and ask them about the ingredients listed.
Seafood industry folks should not be surprised by this story. It happens in this business seemingly every day. Big environmental groups that started with a beautiful vision of a healthier, safer planet often get caught up in the never-ending drive for fundraising that requires sensational news to spur their audience to action (whether that be signing petitions, checks or both).
The fishing industry has proved an easy target for these groups, largely because it’s misunderstood or simply unknown to the majority of the American population. We eat seafood, but what we know about it is limited by what we see in the case or on the menu.
But what’s more devastating is when sensationalism gets such a broad audience that it begins to affect policy. That’s what’s happening with (among many other things) the expansion of marine protected areas.
Last week President Obama proposed an expansion of the central Pacific protected area that would create the world’s largest marine sanctuary and double the global area of ocean that is protected. The administration also finalized a rule allowing the public to nominate new marine sanctuaries off of our coasts and in the Great Lakes. His proposal was lauded by people in and out of the know. For those who don’t know much about fishing, it sounds like a no-brainer: The ocean is a big place. Why not earmark just these small parts of it to protect habitat and maintain abundance in the ocean? It’s less than 2 percent of the ocean, after all. And if you call it a sanctuary, well then, who could object without looking like a raving lunatic?
The problem is that while the ocean is a vast place, there are only so many productive fishing spots. You can’t just drop your gear at any random spot in the ocean and pull up a good commercial catch. There’s a reason fishermen haul all the way off to Georges Bank to bring back your supper. They don’t all just love steaming offshore at $4 to $5 a gallon for diesel. They go because that’s where the fish are. There’s also a reason that people in the industry take handed down knowledge and experience very seriously. People who forage the wild will tell you they have their secret spots that are always productive, or tells for locations that ought to be productive. And of course, they take what they need and leave some to keep the spot viable.
This is also how we can and do manage our commercial fisheries. Sure, closing certain areas is part of that process, but we don’t need to close them indefinitely. If we decide to close off all productive habitat to fishing, then soon there will be no more places to go fishing. That is, unless you want to fish recreationally, which is naturally exempted from the area that George W. Bush created and Obama proposes to expand.
But that’s a story for another day.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Wednesday, 18 June 2014
This week the Conservation Law Foundation’s Peter Shelley published a vitriolic response to the midwater trawl fleet’s herring quota overrun in Northeast Area 1B earlier this month, calling it the pathological behavior of bad fishermen.
Shelley accuses the fleet of blatant — and apparently compulsive — disregard for the rules, saying that "this was inexcusable and intolerable behavior for a modern fishing fleet." The only problem is, it appears they followed the rules. NMFS claims that agency staff simply couldn’t keep up with the daily landings in order to call the closure before the quota was overshot. Well if the professional fish counters can’t keep up, then how do we expect the fishermen themselves to do a better job at it?
No one is arguing that it's a good idea or a sign of effective management to exceed any quota by 60 percent. So what should the solution be? Shelley contends it’s up to the fleet to somehow conjure data on everyone else’s catches so they can tally and self-monitor.
I’m not sure what fishery management fantasy he is imagining, but I’m quite sure few conservationists would approve of self-monitored fisheries. The fact is, the managers are the people who keep track of the quotas as compared with the landings. They are the people who let the fleet know it’s time to stop fishing. That is their job.
Until then, fishermen will fish.
It could be that the managers are having a hard time tallying daily numbers on the herring fleet. The fleet is quite small, but the numbers are big. The solution to that problem, however, is not to blame the fishermen for the flaws of the management system. Rather, we should look to find solutions that help the managers keep a count on the landings so we can avoid this happening again.
You can call the fishermen bad names and throw up your hands if it suits you. But it doesn’t do much toward creating solutions to the problem. If anything, it creates more of a divide where we need to build bridges.
Photo: Herring caught and counted as part of a management trawl survey; NOAAAdd a comment Add a comment
Written by Jes Hathaway
Wednesday, 11 June 2014
This week the FDA and EPA released a joint revised recommendation on the amount of seafood pregnant and breastfeeding women should consume weekly. Since 2004, federal officials have recommended a weekly maximum amount of two servings (8 ounces) of low-mercury seafood for pregnant and breastfeeding women, as well as for children.
The new recommendation advises these people to eat a minimum of two weekly servings and a maximum of 12 ounces (about three servings). That’s a pretty narrow window that unfortunately will likely still serve to scare people away from seafood, when the effort is to reverse that trend.
“For years many women have limited or avoided eating fish during pregnancy or feeding fish to their young children,” said Stephen Ostroff, the FDA’s acting chief scientist. Officials believe this is because they were warning women to limit consumption. As long as they’re recommending a maximum, many moms will simply continue to avoid it just to be safe.
The problem is that in this case, playing it safe means offering less (or none) of some of the best food to your family. My question is, what is the real risk of pregnant women eating more than 12 ounces of low-mercury seafood every week? Is it worse than the risks to pregnant women who are eating more than 12 ounces of feedlot beef, pork or chicken?
This subject is near and dear to my heart as a mother and a mom-to-be. When I was pregnant with my 4-year-old, I craved tuna, and I ate it in all forms: canned albacore, canned chunk light, lightly seared sushi grade yellowfin, or grilled to a perfect medium if I didn’t know the source as well.
People often ask me if I was worried about the mercury. My answer is no. The reason is that even though I craved tuna and ate it once or twice a week, I also ate a lot of other proteins, including a variety of seafood — salmon, shrimp, lobster, hake, scallops and haddock are the top few that come to mind. (And though I am biased, I’m pretty sure my boy is perfect and one of the smartest preschoolers I know. And to this day, he plows through salmon, cod, calimari, tuna salad, steamed clams, you name it.)
Consumer advocacy groups are criticizing the government for not being specific enough about what kinds of fish specifically people should be eating. The avoid list amounts to the four species highest in methylmercury: Gulf of Mexico tilefish, king mackerel, swordfish and shark. After all, the purpose of the revision is to be *less* specific. I applaud the government on its step back from policing seafood consumption. We have become too reliant on lists and strict guidelines rather than using our own local markets and common sense to eat what’s available seasonally and locally. The difference between seafood and other forms of protein is that the options are so varied by region and even state to state that a recommendation for everyone to eat specific types of fish would be ludicrous.
Pregnant women are not that different than the rest of us. Yes, we have a few more rules to follow, and a short list of foods to avoid, again, just in case. But fish should never be one of them, nor should it be for the population at large. We should all be eating a variety of local (American if that’s the closest you can get), wild seafood. We should all be just as worried (if not more so) about what’s in our pork sausage (likely produced by a Chinese conglomerate) as the level of mercury in the fish we’re eating. But where do you find federal guidelines for consumption of chicken, beef and pork, and when was the last time you saw a headline about it?
I suppose the first step is to encourage Americans to eat more home-cooked meals, less processed and less fast food. Sure, we all need shortcuts from time to time. But if we rely on them a little less, then we might find that we’re healthier, happier and have more energy to complete the never-ending to-do lists of modern living.
Next, we should spread the word to our fellow citizens about what’s available locally and in season. The chances are, you won’t find it at Walmart or Super Target. But do you really want to buy your food from the same place that sells televisions and tires? It’s time to re-expand our horizons. Get out of the big-box and big-brother mindset, and discover what’s available from your community. Support what you love about the place where you’ve chosen to raise your children, for the health of your community as well as the health of your family.
Photo: Paella offers a delicious variety of seafood in a one-dish meal; SandsteinAdd a comment Add a comment
Written by Jes Hathaway
Thursday, 05 June 2014
I met Eric and Amber Petersen from Muskegon, Mich., at the 2010 NF Profitable Harvest conference, and I’ve been in touch with them ever since. I loved their family fishing story so much that I asked freelance writer Dan Denov to go out with the Petersen brothers on their Lake Michigan whitefish trap net boats. (Click here to read that cover story from March 2012.)
Back then, Amber was scratching it out at the local farmers market, selling whitefish and slowly expanding her roster to include other local and wild fish. In the last four years, Amber has created a rapidly expanding local business with a new storefront in Muskegon, where she sells wild fish from all over the country, as well as smoked and prepared fish dips and sausages.
I jumped at the chance to meet up with her last September to see her new store and processing facility, as well as the dock from which the family has been launching commercial fishing boats since 1927. (Read the full story on page 21 of our July issue, or check out my slideshow of the ship-to-shore business.)
When I got talking to the rest of the NF staff about small-scale and local marketing efforts, the idea for our July issue special section began to grow. While the stories we have to share (starting on page 20) are just a small sampling of seafood marketing efforts across the country, they are representative of the range — family businesses, gear-type associations, state and national seafood promotion boards, small businesses that focus strictly on sourcing and selling local and wild seafood, and even an app that helps locals connect with fishermen and their catch.
The fact is, fishermen and seafood enthusiasts from coast to coast are plugging away at fresh ideas that might improve public access to wild American fish. Our federal government is supposed to be setting aside funds for grants toward exactly these kinds of businesses, but most of that money instead goes toward fishery assessments and research.
The Saltonstall-Kennedy Act of 1939 and its 1954 revisions (read about them in a story from the May 1954 issue of Maine Coast Fisherman) earmarked federal funds for seafood marketing grants. The National Seafood Marketing Coalition is working toward federal legislation that will reclaim a portion of those grant dollars. I hope they can pave the way for ventures like those featured in our July issue to get grants that will help them launch marketing efforts to put more local seafood onto American plates.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Thursday, 29 May 2014
My husband and I have been talking seafood nearly nonstop for two days now. The main topic is Maine lobster (tis the season for out-of-town guests), but for some reason we keep coming back to Gulf of Mexico shrimp.
Lucky for us, the gulf spring brown shrimp season opened in Louisiana’s inshore waters on Monday. Shrimpers are raring to go after a delay, resulting from a longer, colder winter than usual. But some fishermen have had their enthusiasm cut short already. The state’s enforcement arm of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries has cited eight shrimpers for trawling in one of the small closed areas.
Of course it’s possible the shrimpers didn’t realize they were trawling in a closed area, given how small it is (it’s the pink square west of the Mississippi River on the map — download your own copy here). “That’s one of those ambiguous things," says fisheries activist Margaret Bryan Curole in Galliano, La. "Where exactly is the closed area? Just like the way they enforce the inshore/offshore line.”
It's also possible they knew exactly what they were doing. (Several calls to the department were not returned in time to post this story.) “That’s one of the spots where there’s always been shrimp, and right now there’s hardly any shrimp anywhere,” says Curole. “And that’s the way it’s been since the spill.”
The problem is that in the end, this incident only serves to scare the public about the safety of Gulf of Mexico shrimp, when the reality is, it’s far better than the nearly entirely untested — and popular alternative — Asian imports.
A better course of action — and use of taxpayer dollars — might be to increase and improve testing for shrimp as it comes to the docks (or even as it's hauled aboard), rather than paying enforcement officers to patrol a tiny area of the bay.
The delay of the season opener has guaranteed good prices for shrimpers. So let’s hope this is a small blip in an otherwise productive season.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Thursday, 22 May 2014
On Sunday, May 17, Irish farmer John Grant was out tending his sheep near Tullagh Beach, when he heard a cry for help. What he saw half a mile out to sea was the waving arm of a fisherman clinging to a lobster pot. His boat had capsized while he was tending his traps.
Grant contacted his mother, who alerted a local radio station. Soon another local fishing boat was rescuing the lobsterman, who had been in the water for more than an hour. A local volunteer lifeboat crew transferred him and carried him ashore. The fisherman was soon released from the hospital. A member of his rescue team says part of the reason the lobsterman is alive is that he was wearing a life jacket.
Just today, the crew of a Scottish fishing boat the Sylvia Bowers found a 75-year-old fisherman and his 35-year-old grandson 46 miles off the Scottish coast after two days adrift in their 16-foot lobster boat, just hours after the search was called off. The pair had tried their best to navigate and conserve fuel in thick fog, but were lost when their compass stopped working.
Last Thursday, May 15, the U.S. Coast Guard coordinated an operation during which the crew of a Spanish longliner rescued three French sailors about 1,200 miles off of Cape Cod. (Watch the video below.)
Now there’s an ongoing U.S. Coast Guard search for British sailors whose boat began taking on water about 620 miles off of Cape Cod last Thursday. The sailors are reported missing, but their families say they were well prepared for an emergency and are very likely to have climbed aboard a life raft. A Maersk containership spotted an upturned hull that is believed to be that of the Cheeki Rafiki, and the captain of a private catamaran taking part in the search has reported spotting more debris. Meanwhile, a Royal Air Force Hercules plane is conducting a search from the air.
These at-sea searches and rescues show how vast and unforgiving the oceans are, and yet how closely interconnected are all those who ply the seas — and even those who work near the water.
Without the help of good Samaritans, many more lives would be lost to the sea.
We hope for the safe recovery of the missing sailors and are thankful to those who extend a hand to help their fellow mariners.
Written by Jes Hathaway
Thursday, 15 May 2014
Alaska’s salmon season officially opened at 7 a.m. today with wet nets in the Copper River region.
For many Alaskans, salmon is the mother species. This one fish provides for the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people who work the salmon season on tenders, in canneries, and as captains and crew. Appropriately enough, the news magazine show “60 Minutes” aired a piece on the threats of farmed salmon to wild salmon populations on Mother’s Day, Sunday, May 11.
It opens with correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta traveling to a salmon farm north of Vancouver, British Columbia, with Marine Harvest’s Ian Roberts. Roberts deflects the question of whether open-ocean salmon farms are damaging their natural environment by claiming salmon farming is nearly altruistic in nature because it reduces pressure on wild stocks.
The problem with this argument is it simply doesn’t hold water. Fish farms do nothing to relieve pressure on wild salmon stocks so long as the wild stocks are well-managed. When we manage our fisheries for sustainability rather than to meet market demand, then the amount of fish on the market is fixed year by year based on — in the case of salmon — escapement goals. It is not based on the demand for fish as a protein.
If anything, one could argue that salmon farms merely hide behind the problem while actually making it worse. What of the pressure fish farms put on the wild fish they use for feed? Are those species as well managed as wild American salmon? Certainly the business of fish farming — as a private industry rather than a public resource — is more dependent on the ups and downs of the market. So how does their need for fish-based feed affect wild populations of fish globally?
Is that a moot question simply because farming is perceived as the way of the future?
“We farm everything we eat,” Roberts says on the show. “All our vegetables are farmed. All our meats are farmed."
As activist Alexandra Morton points out, these are not farms, they are feedlots. The damage fallow farms leave behind can take many years for nature to correct. And what of the risk of disease and escapement? Morton has found evidence of infectious salmon anemia among wild populations. That disease, she says, existed in Chile’s farmed salmon industry for 10 years before it exploded and did colossal damage to the populations of farmed fish. But there was no wild population at risk in Chile like there is here and in Canada.
While the rest of the food movement is urging safer practices for food sources and farming — away from feedlots and industrial agriculture — the fishing industry is being persistently edged out of the public’s right to access the last vestiges of truly wild protein.
“The ocean is the last place where we hunted and gathered,” says Roberts. Note his use of the past tense.
Shouldn’t the solution be to take a closer look at the way we eat what we eat and go from there, rather than assuming we will continue to consume in the same way and simply must manufacture the food differently?
“The problem is there is 7 billion of us now on this planet,” says Roberts. “And the oceans can't give us any more fish. We owe it to our oceans to make sure that we're providing an alternate to just capturing the last wild fish.”
Indeed. We also owe it to ourselves to make sure we’re not poisoning the last wild fish.
Page 7 of 37
NOAA recently published a proposed rule that would implement a traceability plan to help combat IUU fishing. The program would seek to trace the origins of imported seafood by setting up reporting and filing procedures for products entering the U.S.
The traceability program would collect data on harvest, landing, and chain of custody of fish and fish products that have been identified as particularly vulnerable to IUU fishing and fraud.Read more...
The following was released by the Maine Department of Marine Resources on Jan. 22:
The Maine Department of Marine Resources announced an emergency regulation that will support the continued rebuilding effort in Maine’s scallop fishery. The rule, effective January 23, 2016, will close the Muscle Ridge Area near South Thomaston and the Western Penobscot Bay Area.Read more...