The Winding Glass

Wild groundfish harvests surging, surpass farmed fish in 2012

Wild groundfish harvests to exceed all major farmed species in 2012 says Groundfish Forum

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton - Oct 14, 2011

It's time to change the narrative.

For years, environmentalists have been claiming that overfishing would lead to a disastrous collapse of groundfish species. This led to absurd claims, now thoroughly discredited, that if fisheries followed their current course, by 2048 commercial fish species would be extinct, and we would be eating jellyfish.

These outrageous claims led to research suggesting a different view: successful fishery management could in fact maintain healthy fish stocks and prevent overfishing.

At the recently concluded Groundfish Forum in Barcelona Spain, figures were placed on the table showing how dramatic a recovery has been made in global groundfish stocks.

In most cases, the wild stocks are improving because they are under effective fisheries management and enforcement. This is exactly the outcome predicted by scientists like Ray Hillborn of the University of Washington, who suggested that effective regulation and fish management practices were the key to sustainability, not a halt to fishing.

The second narrative that has gained credibility is that because of the collapse of wild fish stocks, farmed fish were essential to maintain supply. In 2009, total production of major farmed species: Salmon, Tilapia, Catfish/Pangasius, and trout exceeded the global catch of groundfish by around 350,000 tons, or 3% of total supply of all farmed species, and all groundfish.

Many assumed, since groundfish stocks had collapsed, that we had crossed a threshold and in the future, aquaculture fin fish would become more and more dominant over wild caught groundfish.

It is not happening. Over the past four years, the resurgence in wild fish stocks around the world has led to a dramatic reversal. In 2012, based on forecasts from the groundfish forum, global catches of groundfish will exceed all farmed fin fish by 475,000 tons, or 3.5% of the total combined tonnage.

The chart below illustrates the change in the relative harvests of wild groundfish and aquaculture species:



Chart: Wild capture Groundfish is growing faster than global aquaculture finfish. Source: SeafoodDatasearch and Groundfish Forum

In 2011 and again in 2012, global whitefish landings will exceed all aquaculture finfish production by a substantial margin.


Totals for individual species tell the same story. Alaska pollock is now more abundant than tilapia; and cod (Atlantic and Pacific) is almost as abundant as farmed salmon.

The table below illustrates the totals for individual species over the past four years.



Chart: Alaska pollock has overtaken tilapia in total supply, cod is nearly equal to the total global supply of farmed Atlantic salmon. Source SeafoodDatasearch and Groundfish Forum.

Some of the highlights of the 2012 forecasts include:

Atlantic Cod 1.1 million tons, based on increases in the Barents Sea, the EU, and Iceland.

Alaska Pollock: 2.995 million metric tons, up 23% since 2009. This forecast assumes no increase in Russian landings, despite the recent announcement that Russian quotas for pollock will increase 17% in 2012, so this forecast may be conservative.

In the hake and hoki complex, every fishing area is experiencing an increase. That includes US and Canadian whiting, Namibian and South African Hake, South American hakes, and New Zealand Hoki.

Meanwhile, Groundfish Forum estimates for farmed fish show some increases, but some declines as well.

For example, Tilapia production is expected to increase only 3%, mainly due to higher production in China. However, in recent years, weather issues have limited tilapia growth in China, and there are more recent reports of some tilapia farmers shifting to shrimp production as they see it as more profitable.

Pangasius / Catfish is expected to decline. The GF is forecasting a 4% decline in pangasius and catfish production, based largely on reductions from Vietnam. Problems have plagued Vietnamese producers of pangasius, and many farmers have not been able to get bank loans or credit. Most factories in Vietnam are short of raw materials. In 2009 the FAO estimate for Vietnam was 1.05 million tons, but totals have been declining, and in 2012, the Forum is projecting a harvest of around 850 thousand tons.

Atlantic Salmon: Production for salmon is ramping up as Chile is forecast to add 90,000 tons and Norway is forecast to add 70,000 tons. Total Atlantic salmon production is expected to increase 11% to 1.740 million tons.

Overall, this is an extremely positive forecast for fish supplies in 2012, and confirms our article of October 13, 2011 that highlighted the increase in quotas being announced in many areas around the world.



Table summarizing 2012 Forecasts from the Groundfish Forum. Source: Groundfish Forum.

No more should the industry allow a media narrative of declining groundfish and continuous overfishing to drive public debate. The wild capture industry is healthy, is looking at long term increases, and fish supplies will be higher as a result in 2012.

What about the future? Obviously this forecast shows that fish stocks are returning to levels that existed in the past. It does not mean that groundfish stocks will improve indefinitely. There is a carrying capacity for global whitefish stocks that is likely somewhat less than the 10 to 12 million tons that were harvested during the peak times in the 1980's. Nevertheless, prospects for global maximum sustainable yield for groundfish may in fact be realistic, and as fisheries reach this level there is likely room for a sustainable groundfish harvest at levels even higher than reported for 2012.

This article first appeared in Seafood News on Friday, Oct 14, 2011.  To get regular news stories from us, please subscribe using the subscribe tab, or sign up for our free news headlines.

Gloucester, New Bedford Mayors foolishly endorsing crazies in New England

 

Here is our editorial today, and a video.

Gloucester, New Bedford Mayors foolishly endorsing crazies in New England while the industry thrives SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton (Editorial Comment) - June 15, 2011
 
A sickness has descended on the political class in New England that has so tied themselves to a few fisheries malcontents that they have lost sight of how they might really support their industry.

We publish two stories today from the Gloucester times that in our view are examples of craziness run amok. The first is a conspiracy story by Richard Gaines that blames everything that has happened with fisheries in New England on a nefarious plot by EDF to take over NOAA.

The second is the gnashing of teeth that NOAA head Jane Lubchenco will not make another trip to New England for yet another congressional hearing on the same material that Locke, Lubchenco, Schwab, and other officials have talked to death: the abuses of fisheries law enforcement in New England.

There is an issue of law enforcement abuse in New England. It has led to a special investigators report, reassignment of personnel, and some rescinding of fines, and is the subject of continuing controversy. But some are using the anger over this issue to attack all fishery management in New England, when it is actually a success story.

Last year, these Mayors, Carolyn Kirk of Gloucester and Scott Lang of New Bedford and the handful of fisheries activists that are guiding them, adamantly proclaimed that the new catch share management system would be a disaster that would shut down the fishery in New England within months, leading to widespread job losses and unemployment.

They were wrong. The sector management plan succeeded in improving the economics of the fishery at a time when the alternative would have resulted in exactly the closures and devastation that had been feared.

Revenues for fish landings were up in New England in 2010, and landings were close to their levels of the prior year, while remaining under the required conservation limits for all species. Ports like Gloucester and New Bedford saw the biggest regional benefits, drawing more boats from other ports, and increasing the amount of fish handled through local services such as their auctions, ice houses etc.

Part of the success of the sector system with catch shares was the trading that allowed more fish to be caught, and that allowed those with the quotas to get revenues even when they could not fish themselves. Total groundfish landings in New England in 2010 were 43.6 million pounds, of which 97% was caught by vessels fishing under the catch share program.

Further, of the 42.3 million pounds landed by sectors, fully 38%, or 16 million pounds, was traded among sectors in 2010.

All sectors traded fish quotas, both in and out. This trading, only possible with a catch share system, provided the increase in efficiency that allowed the fleet to actually make more money in 2010.

One of the biggest lies about the sector system is that somehow quota leasing is the province of rapacious corporate interests, and does not represent income to fishing communities. In fact, all the leasing that took place in 2010 was from within one sector to another, meaning that only active harvesters were participating in the lease program. Secondly, since all sectors had both incoming and outgoing leases, all sectors both gained revenue from sale of leases, and spent money to acquire leases, as economists would expect to happen in an open market system.

One interesting thing is that there was a surge in lease activity in the last quarter, largely due to the fact that sectors realized they did not need to hold on to extra allocations of some species to protect themselves from reaching to their catch limits.

Back to the crazies. The Mayors of Gloucester and New Bedford actually have thriving fishing fleets, expanding stocks, and growing incomes. Yet they do face real threats.

These threats are not from EDF - which advocates market based solutions to conservation problems - but from those environmental groups that would tell the public not to eat fish because they are endangered. Food and Water Watch, endorsed by the Gloucester Times, is a prime example of such a group.

Just yesterday, in Tampa Bay, a writer claimed that populations of haddock and yellowtail flounder had declined so drastically that Floridians should stop eating them. This is just factually wrong. Yet this kind of lie is totally entrenched in the media. And no one from New England is challenging it.

The message our Mayors should be getting out is that the seafood industry in New England is thriving; stocks are rebuilding to historic levels, and seafood from New England should be on everyone's menu.

Instead, they are mired in this conspiracy web, largely driven now by shore captains and others retired from the fishing industry, and they are doing us all a disservice.

The U.S. has one of the best and most transparent fishery management systems in the world, and this system of regional councils has largely been responsible for the great resurgence in US fish stocks. This year, NOAA scientists were able to announce that overfishing has ended in the U.S. Few other countries in the world can make that claim.

Yet that claim is crucial to our ability to keep fishing, and to have consumers keep buying seafood. Not only can we assure them that our fish stocks are sustainable; we can also assure them they are supporting local business and regional economy when they buy New England fish such as cod, haddock and flounder.

The malcontents should work more through the council process. But this involves a give and take where political posturing is sometimes exposed for what it is. In other regions where local authorities are keenly interested in fishery management decisions, cities often have their own representatives at council meetings, or on the council.

Certainly New Bedford has held a council seat for as long as I can remember, and recently Laura Foley Ramsden, owner of one of New Bedford's premier fish plants, was just appointed to the council. I am sure she is a better spokesperson for the industry than Mayor Lang.

Although Gloucester doesn't have a seat on the council itself, it does have a fisheries commissioner, part of whose job it would appear would be to attend council meetings and speak on Gloucester's behalf.

We have a common task, which is to get people to eat more fish and help the New England seafood industry thrive. Unfortunately, the crazies who can't let go of great conspiracy theories are sucking the oxygen out of the room. They turn white into black, turn good money into disaster, and turn a good story into a tale of woe. It is time for the politicians to recognize this and let the crazies pursue their fantasies on their own.

John Sackton, Editor And Publisher
Seafood.com News
1-781-861-1441
Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com

Mercury scare stories may damage Americans' public health

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton - Recently there has been some discussion on the seafood list (for seafood technologists and professionals) about mercury in seafood.  We are reprinting this story from December, which discusses the issue in light of Consumers Union's December article on mercury in seafood.

Consumers Union has its facts wrong. In a new report, they again warn Americans not to eat canned tuna because it contains low levels of methyl mercury. Unlike hurting a particular manufacturer, in this case their widely disseminated report on canned tuna threatens to harm Americans' health.

How could they get things so wrong? First, they ignored the science and regulatory information available to them. Second, the accepted a discredited narrative about mercury in diets that has begun to be challenged by a number of scientists.

Third, they confused EPA and FDA threshold targets on mercury, and in the process, failed to give warnings where such warnings may in fact be important.

Consumers Union tested 42 samples from cans and pouches of tuna bought in the metro New York area.
They found that 100% of their samples were below the limit of mercury that the FDA considers acceptable in American diets, i.e. 1 part per million.

Mercury is a naturally occurring element, that has been present since the formation of life on Earth, and is primarily released into the atmosphere today through volcanic eruptions and coal burning powerplants.
Some of this mercury accumulates as methyl mercury in fish. The FDA has recommended that women and young children may eat up to 6 ounces of light tuna per week. Scientific panels advising the FDA are now suggesting that the FDA advice on mercury, particularly for pregnant women, must be updated because it is contributing to sub-optimal outcomes for children.

Here is what Consumers Union says:

Consumers Union's fish-safety experts continue to suggest a more cautious approach. Because of its potential effects on fetal development, Consumers Union advises pregnant women, as a precaution, to avoid eating tuna. Consumers Union further advises that children who weigh more than 45 pounds limit their intake to 12.5 ounces of light tuna or 4 ounces of white tuna per week; and children who weigh less than 45 pounds limit their intake to no more than 4 ounces of light tuna or 1.5 ounces of white tuna.
'Canned tuna, especially white, tends to be high in mercury, and younger women and children should limit how much they eat. As a precaution, pregnant women should avoid tuna entirely,' said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, director of technical policy, at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports.
This is simply regurgitation of old arguments that have become scientifically discredited.

The key to newer scientific understandings is that the way methyl mercury is harmful in the body is that it can replace the metabolic activity of selenium in cells, with deleterious effects. In order for this to happen, a diet must have an imbalance where selenium is restricted or absent, and methyl mercury is high. In the scientific literature, this condition was met in the mercury poisoning event in Minamta Japan, and in a contamination of wheat flour with Mercury in Iran, and in the Faroe Island population that consumed significant amounts of whale meat along with their fish diet.

But in other studies, such as the long term study in the Seychelles where women eat a hugely concentrated fish diet and have no negative outcomes at all, and in the UK, where longitudinal studies have shown that eating fish leads to higher IQ development in Children, the key factor has been that the intake of selenium from seafood was much higher than the intake of methyl mercury.
The chart below shows that yellowfin and skipjack tuna have some of the highest positive ratio's of selenium to mercury of any fish. Albacore tuna also scores high.

 

Data presented by Nick Ralston, Univ. of N. Dakota, at the Seafood and Health Conference, Melbourne, Australia 2010

Nick Ralston is one of the leading researchers in the world on the biological effects of selenium, and the interaction of selenium and mercury.

Chemically selenium is a million times more potent binding with mercury molecules than anything in the human body. When a diet is higher in selenium intake than in methyl mercury, the selenium appears to bind and neutralize the mercury. The only time when mercury is able to act as a toxin is when there is not enough selenium in the diet, and in this case, says Ralston, the metabolic pathway changes and the body attempts to use mercury molecules to compensate for its lack of selenium.

The fact is that Consumers Union has rehashed a study they did in 2006, and has not updated their approach with any of the current science.

Why does this matter?

The problem, from a public health perspective, is that American diets are woefully short of DHA and Omega-3 fatty acids, essential to brain and eye development. The reason is that over the past 50 or 60 years, the American diet has changed from a ratio of approximately 3 to 1 for Omega 6 vs. Omega 3 to about 25 to 1 Omega 6 vs. Omega 3. The Omega 6 in the diet comes from vegetable oils. Omega 6's also compete with Omega-3's in the body, and a imbalance in the diet has been clearly linked to increased heart disease and inflammation. Increasing the ratio of Omega 3 and DHA both leads to less heart disease, and better brain and eye development.

Because fish and seafood is one of the principal dietary sources of omega-3 and DHA, when women, especially pregnant women, are given false advice about mercury, the impact is to scare them away from eating fish. In most cases, this makes their diet worse, and according to some studies, leads to worse outcomes for their children who lack the eye development and brain development that children have from mothers with adequate intakes of Omega 3 and DHA.

Consumers Union is perpetuating a public health fraud on Americans, by focusing so narrowly on a toxicology that they do not understand.

There is no excuse to accept this report or allow it to stand unchallenged.

Consumer Reports' tests, conducted at an outside lab, found:

*Every sample contained measurable levels of mercury, ranging from 0.018 to 0.774 parts per million.
This means that every sample tested was below the FDA approved actionable limit.

*Samples of white tuna had 0.217 to 0.774 ppm of mercury and averaged 0.427 ppm. By eating 2.5 ounces (about half a can) of any of the tested samples, a woman of childbearing age would exceed the daily mercury intake that EPA considers safe.

The EPA estimate is based on different parameters than the FDA. The EPA is primarily concerned about intake from personally harvested fresh water fish. Because many fresh water fish do not have nearly the levels of selenium found in salt water fish, there is some concern among scientists that the exposure from low-selenium, high methyl mercury lake fish could be harmful. Consumers Union does not make nor understand this distinction.

Consumers Union makes some acknowledgment of the health benefits of seafood.

They say fish are rich in protein, vitamin D, and omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3s reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke and might also elevate mood and help prevent certain cancers, cognitive decline, and certain eye diseases. During pregnancy, omega-3s might help in developing the fetus's brain and visual system.

'Fortunately, it's easy to choose lower-mercury fish that are also rich in healthful omega-3 fatty acids,' Dr. Rangan said. 'That's especially important for women who are pregnant or might become pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children, because fetuses and youngsters are still developing their nervous systems and are therefore at particular risk from methylmercury's neurotoxic effects.'

Some popular seafood, including clams, Alaskan salmon, shrimp, and tilapia, contain relatively little mercury and are better choices. Other lower-mercury choices include: oysters, pollock, sardines, Pacific flounder and sole, herring, mullet, and scallops.

This advice would actually be more complete if it was changed to say that consumers should strive to choose fish where the ratio of selenium to mercury is high; and avoid fish where the ratio is lower than 1. Under this scenario, there is reason for caution about levels of consumption of certain sharks, but other than that, all women should be encouraged to be eating more seafood.

Research has shown that mercury warnings, and particularly discussions by doctors advising women to not eat seafood due to concerns about mercury, are actually harmful to public health.

Our history is replete with ideas about diet and health that at one time were widely accepted, but have subsequently been proven to be damaging, and in fact were having the opposite effect of what was intended.

The scientific community is beginning to understand that the warnings about mercury and seafood are in this category, and the sooner better understandings are communicated, public health will improve. Consumers Union, by ignoring this new science, has done a serious disservice to America.

 

John Sackton, Editor And Publisher Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441 Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com

Halibut cuts coming to Alaska

The following news story and video appeared in Seafood News on thursday, Dec 2nd.

 

 

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [Fish Radio with Laine Welch]  Halibut cuts for 2011 December 2, 2010 This is Fish Radio. I'm Laine Welch - Big cuts for next year's halibut catch. I'll tell you more after this. Did you know you can now follow Alaska's fishermen, scientists and sustainable fisheries projects on You Tube, Facebook and Twitter! Join the sea alliance today to learn about and support Alaska's coastal communities and wild fisheries. Just search for SeaAlliance - one word - on Facebook, You Tube or Twitter.  Find out who's catching all that seafood and their favorite recipes at a new micro site from the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute find it at www.wildalaskaflavor.com  Halibut catches for next year could be cut by 19 percent if managers accept the recommendations of fishery scientists.  On Monday the International Pacific Halibut Commission released preliminary numbers that show a Pacific coast wide catch of 41 million pounds.  Of that, 32.5 million pounds are set aside for Alaska fishermen, down from 40 million pounds this year.  It could be especially brutal for Southeast Alaska, Area 2C, which could take a huge 47 percent cut to just 2.33 million pounds.  The Central Gulf, Area 3A also could be slashed 28 percent to 14.36 million pounds.  The recommended catch for the Western Gulf, Area 3B, is 7.52 million pounds, down from about 10 million pounds this year.  Only smaller fisheries along the Aleutians and Bering Sea could see slight increases.  Scientists say halibut are recruiting into the various Pacific fisheries but they are growing very slowly.  The IPHC is also looking more closely at halibut bycatch. At its annual meeting last January the Commission reconvened a Halibut Bycatch Work Group that last met 20 years ago. The work group will examine how bycatch of halibut in other fisheries can best be accounted for in stock assessments and fisheries management. IPHC director, Bruce Leaman: 'And it was also coincident with the council and NMFS looking at restructuring the observer program to try and get some changes in estimation of bycatch both in fisheries that are not presently covered and in areas where increased coverage would be desirable such as the Gulf of Alaska In particular to look at what is present accounting for bycatch, is it adequate, and also to look at the targets established back in 1991 for the original bycatch work group'  The IPHC will make final decisions on 2011 halibut catches January 25-29 in Vancouver. Fish Radio is also brought to you by Ocean Beauty Seafoods, celebrating 100 years of partnership with Alaska's coastal communities. www.oceanbeauty.com In Kodiak, I'm Laine Welch.

 

Facts? What Facts? Attacks on seafood industry often at odds with science, and facts on the ground

the following editorial comment was published on our subscription site, www.seafoodnews.com, today. Along with our video commentary   SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton - Nov. 22. 2010 - The seafood industry is on the losing end of a battle to shape the general public's attitudes towards seafood.  Three different stories have highlighted recently how vulnerable and ill-prepared the industry is to defend itself factually. First, the NBC news report defaming aquaculture in South East Asia last week was effective because it fit into a widely held narrative. The proximate cause was the catfish industry's campaign to discredit imported seafood, but the reason it was effective has been the narrative built up in the minds of most reporters that aquaculture is somehow more destructive than land based agriculture. In fact, as the University of Washington's Ray Hilborn has shown, the opposite is true.  Today, we run a story from Canada on the dangers of farmed shrimp. What is remarkable is that the story starts with warnings to consumers that they should not eat shrimp because of antibiotics, but then goes on to quote both environmentalists and certifiers about how the situation with use of antibiotics in shrimp farms has gotten much better. Even Corey Peet, formerly with the Monterey Bay Aquarium and now with WWF in Thailand, says he has seen 'positive impacts on the shrimp farming community, where a slow but steady shift to reform harmful practices is under way.' But the idea that there are improvements, and that major sellers like Walmart, Darden, or Loblaws are taking steps to guarantee the purity of their farmed shrimp, does not fit the narrative of the media, so facts go out the window in the face of repetition of old slanders. Secondly, we were struck by a very eloquent statement today from a fishing industry representative in the UK about Marine Protected Areas. He says the local industry is being destroyed by an environmental juggernaut. The drive to create marine protected areas is being done without regard to scientific studies, any clear understanding of benefits or what is being protected, and no analysis at all of what happens to unprotected areas when fishing effort is displaced. In short, the facts are not even being laid on the table, but the ideological drive is so strong that the fishing industry is being steamrolled out of existence for no tangible reason. Finally, to understand just how irrelevant science and facts are to the narrative of overfishing, simply look at cod. The resurgence of global cod stocks is remarkable. It is happening in the Barents Sea, Alaska, and the Northwest Atlantic. On Friday, we reported that George Rose - one of the foremost authorities on cod in Newfoundland, said the Northern cod stock are at a turning point, having increased 10 fold to 100,000 tons in an area he studies. In short, cod, one of the most prolific and high value fish, has made a global environmental comeback, yet for most environmentalists, Atlantic cod remains on the 'red' list, for example from Monterey Bay, and is on the avoid list for Greenpeace, with campaigners actually picketing supermarkets daring to continue to sell cod.  This is not science. It is self-justifying belief. The narrative of overfishing cannot be abandoned by environmental groups because it then devalues their role as public defenders. But the science is showing more and more that good fisheries management is the critical factor in the environmental health of fish stocks. Where it is present, stocks recover and undergo their natural cycles, and can be abundantly harvested. Where it is absent, overfishing continues. If the environmental movement at large truly was science based, they would admit that good management was in fact the key goal to preserving fisheries sustainability, and controls were in fact improving dramatically in aquaculture production. On wild fisheries, this is the position that is in fact taken by the MSC, the ISSF and in some cases, by the WWF.  Unfortunately, however, this approach is drowned out by the media narrative that has been built by an 'environmental jugguernaut' that has said for years food is dangerous, fishing is unsustainable, and anything shown to the contrary is not to be believed. John Sackton, Editor And Publisher Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441  Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com

 

Reopening of Louisiana Shrimp season difficult in face of lower prices, market suspicion

The Louisiana shrimp season opened again today, but fishermen are facing lower prices and a market that is skittish about Gulf seafood.  In our video we support the idea of BP offering an incentive program to jump start the industry again.

Remembering Sen. Ted Stevens - the principal architect of today's US fishing industry

We have both an obituary and a video reflecting on Sen. Ted Stevens contribution to the U.S. Seafood industry.

Remembering Ted Stevens as the key fisheries architect of the modern era

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton - Aug 11, 2010 - Many in the seafood industry are in shock today at the news of the death of Alaska's Ted Stevens, the longest serving Republican Senator in history. Stevens was killed in a small plane crash, in which five passengers died and four survived, on their way up the Nushagak to a fishing lodge near Dillingham. As we report elsewhere, Stevens was one of the architects of Alaska statehood, and was involved in every aspect of the growth and development of Alaska. But most of the material written today in memory of Ted Stevens only mentions the fishing industry in passing. Yet his fishing legacy is probably the most lasting contribution he has made to public policy, and as a model for sustainable fishing on a large scale, it is influential around the world. Stevens himself would be amused to realize that his legacy of sustainable fishing is now widely praised by environmentalists, with whom he often clashed. Stevens first began serving as a Senator from Alaska in 1968, appointed by then Governor Wally Hickel. When the Magnuson Act, originally known as the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, established the 200 mile limit and the regional fisheries management councils, Stevens was still a relatively young Senator from Alaska. But in subsequent years, he made the act his own, and in various revisions it was renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Stevens rose to become head of the Senate Appropriations Committee, where he had major influence on any legislation impacting Alaska. In 1992, he was responsible for the creation of the Western Alaska Community Development corporations. This is one of the most successful fisheries allocation programs ever devised. The CDQ program directed NMFS to assign 10% of the quotas allocated in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands to a group of six corporations, representing native villages from the Aleutians to Bristol Bay to Norton Sound, and including the Islands of St. Paul and St. George. The groups were then to use the money from these fish resources to create jobs, income, and social services. Collectively, the CDQ groups have done a spectacular job. Parlaying their harvest rights into ownership of fisheries corporations, the CDQ groups now collectively have assets of over $600 million. Meanwhile, the incomes of the populations have improved dramatically, and poverty rates have fallen. At the same time, the CDQ groups are transforming Alaska's fisheries. Many of them are now owners of parts of the major pollock, cod and crab fleets, and they are the force behind some of the new investments in Bristol Bay, transforming salmon from a canned to a more valuable fillet product. Stevens loved Alaska and he loved business. As a result, he looked for business oriented solutions to problems. In this case, he strengthened Alaskan ownership, protected remote communities, and did so in a way that strengthened the business environment. One of the most intractable fisheries issues of the 1990's was the battle in the pollock industry between the offshore catcher processors and the shore based processing plants in Dutch Harbor and Akutan. As the pollock stock and markets boomed, the offshore sector was gaining an increased market share, and the onshore plants, with huge investments on the ground in Alaska, felt increasingly threatened. The issue was so heated that a fist fight broke out at one of the North Pacific Council meetings. Finally, Sen. Stevens stepped in and told the parties they had to work out a joint compromise, and he would get it through Congress. The result was a permanent inshore - offshore allocation, in which the inshore plants gained about 10% more pollock, and the American Fisheries Act, passed into law in 1998. The American Fisheries Act provided that US citizens had to own at least a 75% share of any vessel participating in US fisheries, bringing an end to the practice whereby American built keels were brought to Norway by foreign owners, rebuilt as catcher processors, and entered the pollock fishery. But even more importantly, the Act capped the quotas and fishing percentages of the pollock stocks, and allowed the participants to create co-ops whereby they allocated the total catch among themselves, both in the inshore, offshore, and mothership sectors. The result was ending a race for fish, and spectacularly increasing the value of the pollock fishery, so that it became the backbone of all Alaskan fisheries. Today, the pollock fishery, the largest fishery in the U. S. is globally recognized for an unparalleled record of conservation, effective management, efficiency, and great profitability. Stevens also shepherded though major amendments to the Magnuson Stevens Act, setting in place American standards for fisheries conservation. These included national standards that required stocks to be managed using the best available science, and supporting long term sustainable yield. Stevens also steered a great deal of money and effort into fisheries research and science. Jim Balsiger, head of NMFS Alaska region, wrote: 'This is an especially sad day for the Alaska Region of NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service, where we have worked in cooperation with former Senator Ted Stevens to make Alaska's fisheries among the best managed in the world. ' 'Senator Stevens was distinguished as a champion of sustainable ocean policy and influenced nearly every marine environmental and resource management law in the U. S. Senate over the past four decades. Alaska waters were often the test bed of revolutionary new ways of science-based fishery management and resource allocations that promoted safety and incentives for sustainability. ' 'Senator Stevens was a tireless advocate for U. S. fisheries and marine science. He was instrumental in promoting the new Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Juneau which replaced the aging Auke Bay Lab. This laboratory honors his legacy with the name, the Ted Stevens Marine Research Institute.' Stevens also was instrumental in efforts to market Alaska fish. Alaska is one of the most recognized brand names in the world when it comes to fish and seafood. This is in no small part due to the long term efforts of the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, an organization that is supported both by direct industry funds, and state and occasionally federal appropriations. The marketing done by ASMI helped revitalize the Alaska salmon industry, which was on the ropes in the early 1990's when farmed salmon exploded into the market. Today, Alaska's wild salmon is recognized as a premium, differentiated product, routinely getting higher prices than farmed salmon. Stevens also fought for equity for Alaskan salmon, making the point that if USDA was going to extend its 'organic' standard to fish, then there had to be a mechanism whereby the USDA would recognize the wild and natural nature of wild salmon, as well as a route whereby farmed salmon could be certified organic. The issue has not been resolved, but this was the kind of fight Ted Stevens loved. For the seafood industry, Stevens was the person in Washington who got things done, and who prevented diversions in terms of frivolous or burdensome rules. He never allowed Washington to lose sight of the fact that fishing was a vast economic enterprise, vital to the health of Alaska and many other parts of the country. Stevens finally was a victim of his own long 40 year career and as he put it, his willingness to trust people too much. He was burned by false accusations from Bill Allen, CEO of Alaska contractor Veco corp., which led to a federal prosecution and his loss in the 2008 election. Later, a judge ruled that this prosecution represented the most serious case of prosecutorial misconduct he had seen in 25 years on the bench, and an embarrassed Justice Department declined to pursue the case further. But the damage had been done, and Stevens' Senatorial career was over. Without Ted, the industry has lost much of its clout in Washington, and even though the Alaska and Washington Senate delegations often take a united stand on fisheries issues, the balance of power has shifted away from the business oriented legislators to more social and environmentally oriented legislators. Without Stevens to watch for ridiculous approaches to fisheries, there is an increased danger that legislation will weaken some of the strongest fisheries management systems in the world. Ted will be sorely missed, even out of office. His legacy to the seafood industry was a period of phenomenal success and growth for U. S. fisheries, and it is fair to say that without his efforts, the seafood industry in the U. S. would be vastly different, weaker, less conservation minded and less profitable, than it actually is today. John Sackton, Editor And Publisher Seafood.com News 1-781-861-1441  Email comments to jsackton@seafood.com

Comments on differences between New Bedford and Gloucester on Fisheries Management

FDA announces dispersants do not accumulate in Fish

Restoring Confidence in Gulf Seafood is the job of the entire U. S. industry

Restoring Confidence in Gulf Seafood is the job of the entire U. S. industry (editorial)

SEAFOOD.COM NEWS by John Sackton (Editorial Comment) - Aug 6, 2010 - There are two important developments for the seafood industry today regarding the Gulf. First, the FDA has released a detailed letter unequivocally stating that dispersants do not accumulate in fish and shellfish, and that they represent no long term threat to Gulf Seafood. Secondly, Harlon Pearce and the Louisiana Seafood Marketing Board are trying to get BP to help focus on reviving supplies of Gulf seafood, though an incentive program that would pay fishermen a 30% bonus over market price for the shrimp and fish they land. The FDA finding should be widely publicized to retailers and chefs. It is the first unequivocal scientific statement that Gulf seafood is safe that does not depend on government testing or monitoring. There is a dangerous momentum around the idea that somehow Gulf seafood is suspect. This not only damages Gulf producers, but it depresses the consumption of all seafood. The dilemma faced by Louisiana is nicely expressed in a Times - Picayune editorial. That is that first, they have suffered from a catastrophic event - the worst oil spill in U. S. history. Many businesses have had to shut down or lost income. But the second part of this dilemma is that in fact, Gulf seafood is safe. What has been available has never had any seafood safety issues. Now, as fisheries areas reopen under an NOAA-FDA protocol, the best thing that could happen for the Gulf is to ramp up supplies of fish and shrimp. Unfortunately, this is the slowest time of the year for fish harvesting. However, later this month and in the fall, the Louisiana white shrimp season will open, and volumes will pick up. This is where Harlon Pearce's initiative for an incentive program comes into play. Many fishermen are burned by their experience with BP and the fishing closures. They have made false starts - i. e. started fishing in one area, only to have to move due to closures. They have been forced into less familiar areas to find fish and shrimp, and the result is that they have become skeptical about being able to make money when the fishery opens again. In this context, an incentive program could help jump start the fishery - bringing in supply that otherwise will not be there. Some in the industry have objected. Won't a 30% incentive give Gulf producers an unfair marketing edge. Knowing that they will not have to pay the full cost of shrimp and finfish, will they be able to undercut competitors? This is a false argument. Market prices will be set by supply and demand, and we already know that there are consumer reactions to high shrimp prices. It is reasonable to expect further declines in shrimp prices as supplies become more plentiful. But the long term cloud hanging over the industry is consumer suspicion of Gulf seafood. An example was a sign at a seafood festival in Chicago last month saying 'OUR LOBSTER & SHRIMP ARE NOT FROM THE GULF COAST.' This type of response only fans consumer fears of seafood. One way to alleviate this is through increases in supply. As more Gulf seafood becomes available, more restaurants and retailers can make the case that, yes, this is a normal product, as safe as anything else available. Giant Eagle in Pittsburgh has just begun such a campaign, promoting its Wild American brown shrimp, caught off the coast of Texas. The more supplies are available, the more other sellers will market them with the message that Gulf seafood is safe. This is what the industry as a whole must support. That is why publicizing the FDA statement is important, and also why there should be broad support for the incentive program proposed by Harlon Pearce. Louisiana and Gulf seafood is an iconic part of the American seafood marketing and culinary universe, and all of us need it back at full strength as soon as possible.