For Healthy, Sustainable Fish: Buy American

Frank Ragusa, left, distribution manager for Ocean Beauty Seafoods, and former Seattle Mariners MLB baseball player Jay Bunher, center, look on as Robert Spaulding, executive chef at Elliott's Oyster House, cuts a filet of Copper River Salmon from Alaska. (Credit: AP/Ted S. Warren

Fish on Fridays by Michael Conathan

Last night, President Barack Obama delivered an address to Congress laying out his plan for job creation in America. In the most recent version of this column, I did the same, at least for the fishing industry. Though admittedly my work lacked some of the pomp and circumstance of a joint address to Congress, it suggests one key to fishing jobs is greater investment in fisheries science, which would reduce the uncertainty forcing regulators to keep catch limits low, thereby allowing fishermen to catch more fish. That’s a classic supply-side solution. But there’s another side to that equation as well: greater demand.

American consumers are comfortable enough with the concept of supply and demand that Big Oil’s backers can use it as false logic to make a case for increased offshore oil and gas drilling. If we produce more oil, the argument goes, we will increase supply, and prices will come down. Never mind that oil is an internationally traded commodity, the price of which is heavily influenced by financial speculators and an international cartel over which American consumers have exactly zero influence. Also never mind that the nonpartisan Energy Information Association has declared unequivocally that increasing drilling will have no impact on gasoline prices.

Fair play in that it’s tough to know which is harder to understand: macroeconomics or ecosystem-based management and fisheries sustainability. Theories of how to get our country’s financial house in order and how to buy a guilt-free filet may occur on slightly different levels, but at their core, they are equally complex.

Fortunately, when it comes to fish, there’s a simple answer that will help spur the economy and lead to more sustainable dining. It’ll be better for your health, too. Put down your seafood wallet card for a minute and pay attention. Here it comes, in two words. Ready?

BUY AMERICAN.

The simple fact is, despite the seemingly endless barrage of doom-and-gloom stories about the future of fisheries, the United States leads the world in ending overfishing and managing our resource sustainably. This year, a regulation took effect that will ensure every fish sold by a U.S. commercial fisherman is managed with scientifically justified catch limits. In layman’s terms, this means overfishing is now illegal.

Read the rest of the story here.

NOAA Fisheries Releases 2010 Fisheries of the U.S. Report

Today, NOAA Fisheries released its Fisheries of the United States 2010 report.

Fisheries of the U.S. is an annual snapshot of the landings and value of U.S. fisheries. This year it contains some good news – landings were up and the value of those landings was up. U.S. commercial fishermen landed 8.2 billion pounds of seafood valued at $4.5 billion in 2010, an increase of 200 million pounds over 2009 and an increase in value of more than $600 million from 2009.

Today’s report also highlights the top U.S. ports including our leader for the 22nd consecutive year, the Alaska port of Dutch Harbor-Unalaska.  And, for the 11th consecutive year, New Bedford, Mass., had the highest valued catch, due in large part to the sea scallop fishery.

Another aspect of the report is seafood consumption. In 2010, the average American ate 15.8 pounds of fish and shellfish, a slight decline from the 2009 figure of 16 pounds.  On a global scale, the U.S. continues to be third-ranked for consuming fish and shellfish, behind China and Japan.  Imported seafood continues to increase to help fill consumer demand – about 86 percent of the seafood consumed in the U.S. was imported from overseas.

As Eric Schwaab, NOAA Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, said in our announcement today:

These increases in fish landings and value are good news for our nation’s fishermen and for fishing communities, where jobs depend on healthy fish stocks. We know fishermen are making sacrifices now to rebuild fish populations, and these efforts, combined with good science and management, support sustainable jobs for Americans.

Read the full report online.

Protections already strong for forage fish

D.B. Pleschner , executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association, had the following piece run in the Monterey County Herald on Saturday…

By D.B. PLESCHNER

Guest commentary

Posted: 08/27/2011

If you didn’t know better, you might think that forage fish, like sardines and squid, are on the brink of destruction in California.

That’s what some activists imply. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

California’s coastal pelagic “forage” fisheries are the most protected in the world, with one of the lowest harvest rates.

In addition to strict fishing quotas, the Marine Life Protection Act has implemented no-take reserves, including many near bird rookeries and haul out sites to protect forage for marine life.

But activists are pushing even more restrictions in the form of Assembly Bill 1299.

California already provides a science-based process to manage forage species. The federal Pacific Fishery Management Council is also developing a California Current Ecosystem Management Plan, covering the entire West Coast, not just California waters. Further, the federal Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan that governs these fish adopted an ecosystem-based management policy more than a decade ago.

To initiate new legislation like AB 1299 as if no regulation exists is fiscally irresponsible and disrespectful of California’s management history.

The National Marine Fisheries Service voiced concern about the bill’s redundancy and overlap with federal management, pointing out that it could actually impede ecosystem-based management.

AB 1299 won’t protect forage species because virtually all range far beyond California state waters, which only extend three miles from shore.

But the bill does jeopardize the future of California’s historic wetfish fisheries, the backbone of California’s fishing economy. AB 1299 restrictsCalifornia fishermen unfairly, because virtually all the forage species listed are actively managed or monitored by the federal government and most species are harvested along the entire West Coast.

In this economic crisis, why would California squander millions of dollars — and sacrifice thousands of jobs — on an unfunded mandate that duplicates existing laws?

Apparently this doesn’t matter to activists, whose rhetoric claims that overfishing is occurring in California now and a change is needed.

AB 1299 proponents have made many false claims about forage species. For example, they referenced a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration evaluation of the California Current Ecosystem, predicting a downward trend for some marine life, including squid, but failed to explain that this report was simply a draft. The evaluation excluded southern California waters, where 80 percent of the squid harvest occurs. A record spawning event also occurred in 2010.

Consider sardines. After their decline in the 1940s, fishery managers instituted an ecosystem-based management plan that accounts for forage needs before setting harvest quotas, and reduces quotas in concert with natural declines in the resource. The harvest quota for the West Coast plummeted 74 percent from 2007 to 2011.

But activists embellished an NOAA graph to “prove” their claim that the current sardine population decline was due to overfishing. The marine scientist who developed the graph pointed out their error, stating, “You can rest assured that the U.S. has not exceeded the overfishing limit based on the rules in place today.”

In fact, the majority of California’s fishing community — municipalities, harbor districts, recreational and commercial fishing groups, seafood companies and knowledgeable fishery scientists — oppose AB 1299, seeing it as a disingenuous attempt to curtail sustainable fisheries unnecessarily.

D.B. Pleschner is executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association, a nonprofit designed to promote sustainable wetfish resources. This commentary reflects his opinion. Opposing views are invited to respond to mheditor@montereyherald.com.

Fish on Fridays: The Newest Redlist Species: Commercial Fishermen

By Michael Conathan

Sustainability is the ultimate buzzword in fisheries and it’s led to the ubiquitous red-yellow-green list as one of the most popular means of trying to present consumers with a simple yet comprehensive way of determining whether or not they should order a certain kind of fish. Yet on the wallet cards that attempt to provide an accurate breakdown, there’s one species that’s never talked about: commercial fishermen.

There’s no question that the number of jobs available in many fisheries declined in recent years, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts that this will continue. But unlike other industries in which job loss is driven by economic decline or market contraction, in fisheries, productivity is limited by just one thing: fish. Not enough fish means not enough fishing.

And anything that causes a decline in jobs is ripe for political pressure to end the slide at any cost, particularly in a down economy. Yet here’s the fundamental problem: There’s not a single politician in the world—not a president or prime minister or poobah—who can regulate, dictate, or legislate more fish into existence.

This hasn’t stopped some politicians, though, from pointing fingers in an attempt to score points with their constituents, who understandably blame low catch levels on the regulators who set the limits on how much fish can be harvested. These same regulators are under a legal mandate to set catches at or below levels recommended by scientists based on the best information they can gather.

Complicating matters is that at the same time these strict catch-limit policies have taken effect, a new management system touted mainly by environmental groups has gained quite a bit of traction with federal regulators. Catch shares is an overarching term for a management system that, in one form or another, divides up the total amount of fish available for harvest in a given year and allocates it to permit holders annually, usually on the basis of their historical landings. Fishermen can then either fish their allocation, or lease or sell it to their colleagues. Think of it as a cap-and-trade system for fish. A Fish on Fridays column from April has more on the details of catch shares.

Read the rest here.

Scientist calls to end rule of NOAA

By Richard Gaines

Staff Writer

Ed Zieralski: Conservation, not preservation, should be priority for new commission

Those familiar with the Blue Ribbon Task Force and its roll in the controversial Marine Life Protection Act know how that group’s actions are being challenged in court by fishing groups.

That’s why the announcement of the California Fish and Wildlife Strategic Vision Blue Ribbon Citizen Commission sets off alarms for most everyone who hunts and fishes.

The group is a result of legislation calling for the formation of the commission that will take a look at the state Department of Fish and Game and the Fish and Game Commission.

There’s an executive committee that includes heads of departments, like the DFG, and that group will make final decisions. Under them is the Blue Ribbon Citizen Commission that includes some former state legislators and representatives who are “strategic problem solvers with expertise in policy, management and fiscal issues.”

Under them is the Stakeholder Advisory Group, and those members, 52 in all from 130 applicants, must be approved by the executive committee.

The first meeting of the Blue Ribbon Citizen Commission is Aug. 18. The stakeholders — fishing and hunting representatives among them — meet Aug. 19. Both meetings are in Sacramento but will be available on theInternet.

Read the rest from the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Surprising squid encounter in La Jolla delights photographer

Jon Schwartz of Carlsbad comes across a large shoal of squid swimming near his kayak off the La Jolla coast. Photos by Jon Schwartz/ www.bluewaterjon.com

By Steven Mihailovich

Jon Schwartz has been photographing marine life for the past four years and he’s good at it. Good enough for 15 magazines such as Field & Stream, Sport Fishing and Marlin to grace their covers with his photos. Schwartz said he travels far and wide to get his shots of exotic fish, such as marlin in pristine tropical waters, to destinations like Hawaii, Mexico and the Caribbean islands among others, where he has landed in pursuit of his prized subjects.

However, when Schwartz and fishing buddy Josh Pruitt launched their kayaks in the predawn hours of June 20, none of his many expeditions across the globe prepared him for what he found just one mile off the coast of La Jolla: a large shoal of squid swimming near the surface by his kayak.

“The squid encounter was super special,” Schwartz said of the experience. “It’s expensive to go to the places I go to get the pictures I get. With this, I didn’t have to get on a plane and bring my gear. It was completely unexpected and I was back at my house in half an hour.”

That day, the pair had kayaked for hours and Pruitt hooked a 40-pound white sea bass while Schwartz snapped photos of it. At about noon, they chanced upon the shoal of red squid just underneath them, which Schwartz estimates to have been about 20 feet by 30 feet, or the size of two SUVs.

Read the rest of the story here.

Long-time local fishing family hopes to memorialize those lost at sea

Elizabeth Pennisi-Nozicka and Jiri Nozicka in front of the San Giovanni on Monterey’s Wharf #2. The wooden trawler has been in the Pennisi family for more than 50 years.

By Joel Ede

Having stuffed the hold of his 50-foot trawler, Relentless, with Dover sole, David “Rowdy” Pennisi, 43, and crew member Michael Odom headed to San Francisco in the early hours of June 21, 2004 to offload their catch. But, like hundreds of other Central Coast fishermen, they never made it back to port.

The Pennisi family has been a cornerstone of the Monterey fishing industry since the early 1900s, and the tragic story of Captain Rowdy and the Relentless has since become local lore. Rowdy’s sister, Elizabeth Pennisi-Nozicka, says since her brother’s accident, memorializing the lost fishermen of the Central Coast has weighed heavily on her heart. Monterey is one of the only major fishing ports on the West Coast without a dedicated memorial to commercial fishermen.

Heading up People United for American Commercial Fisheries, Pennisi-Nozicka and her husband, Jiri Nozicka, are reaching out to the community with high hopes that this year’s Third Annual Fisherman’s Days will raise enough money to construct a permanent memorial.

Technological advances like the Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon and on-the-hour transponder transmissions, which relay ship speeds and locations to the National Marine Fisheries Service, are designed to make life safer for fishermen.

But navigating the Central Coast is just as dangerous today as it was 100 years ago – maybe even more so, says Nozicka, a fisherman on the Pennisi family’s wooden trawler, San Giovanni.

Read the rest here.

San Diego Union Tribune-Letter: Foraging for responsible bills

San Diego Union-Tribune

Letters to the Editor

July 29, 2011

If you didn’t know, you might think that forage fish like sardines and squid are on the brink of destruction in California. That’s what some activists and the Union-Tribune story on Assembly Bill 1299 imply (“Thinking small for a sea change,” July 18). However, these claims are incorrect.

California’s forage fisheries are among the best protected in the world, with one of the lowest harvest rates. Yet this state would squander millions of tax dollars – and thousands of jobs – to duplicate existing laws. Why?

To initiate new legislation like AB 1299 as if no current regulation exists is fiscally irresponsible and disrespectful of California’s management history.

Moreover, virtually all of these species range far beyond California state waters and wouldn’t be helped by this bill.

The anti-fishing activists pushing this legislation misrepresented the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s research. For example, they cited an incomplete ecosystem assessment to prove their overfishing hype, but failed to say it excluded Southern California waters, where 80 percent of California’s squid harvest occurs. AB 1299 is simply a disingenuous attempt to curtail sustainable fisheries.

 — Diane Pleschner-Steele, California Wetfish Producers Association

FORUM: Anti-fishing proposal would shipwreck balanced marine management

By D.B. Pleschner

North County Times

If you didn’t know better, you might think that forage fish like sardines and squid are on the brink of destruction in California.

That’s what some activists imply. However, nothing could be further from the truth.

California’s coastal pelagic “forage” fisheries are the most protected in the world, with one of the lowest harvest rates.

In addition to strict fishing quotas, the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), has implemented no-take reserves, including many near bird rookeries and haul-out sites to protect forage for marine life.

But activists are pushing even more restrictions in the form of Assembly Bill 1299.

California already provides a science-based process to manage forage species. The federal Pacific Fishery Management Council is also developing a California Current Ecosystem Management Plan, covering the entire West Coast, not just California state waters. Further, the federal Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan that governs these fish adopted an ecosystem-based management policy more than a decade ago.

To initiate new legislation like AB 1299 as if no regulation exists is fiscally irresponsible and disrespectful of California’s management history.

The National Marine Fisheries Service voiced concern about the bill’s redundancy and overlap with federal management, pointing out that it could actually impede ecosystem-based management.

AB 1299 won’t protect forage species because virtually all range far beyond California state waters, which only extend three miles from shore.

But the bill does jeopardize the future of California’s historic wetfish fisheries, the backbone of California’s fishing economy. AB 1299 restricts California fishermen unfairly, because virtually all the forage species listed are actively managed or monitored by the federal government and most species are harvested along the entire West Coast.

In this economic crisis, why would California squander millions of dollars —- and sacrifice thousands of jobs —- on an unfunded mandate that duplicates existing laws?

Apparently this doesn’t matter to activists, whose rhetoric claims that overfishing is occurring in California now and a change is needed.

AB 1299 proponents have made many false claims about forage species. For example, they referenced a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration evaluation of the California Current Ecosystem, predicting a downward trend for some marine life, including squid, but failed to explain that this report was simply a draft. The evaluation excluded southern Californiawaters, where 80 percent of the squid harvest occurs. A record spawning event also occurred in 2010.

And consider sardines. After their decline in the 1940s, fishery managers instituted an ecosystem-based management plan that accounts for forage needs before setting harvest quotas, and reduces quotas in concert with natural declines in the resource. The harvest quota for the West Coast plummeted 74 percent from 2007 to 2011.

But activists embellished a NOAA graph to “prove” their claim that the current sardine population decline was due to overfishing. The marine scientist who developed the graph pointed out their error, stating, “You can rest assured that the U.S. has not exceeded the overfishing limit based on the rules in place today.”

In fact, the majority of California’s fishing community —- municipalities, harbor districts, recreational and commercial fishing groups, seafood companies and knowledgeable fishery scientists —- oppose AB 1299, seeing it as a disingenuous attempt to curtail sustainable fisheries unnecessarily.

D.B. Pleschner is executive director of the California Wetfish Producers Association, a nonprofit designed to promote sustainable wetfish resources.