Who Fishes Matters

2012-02-23T15:00:00.000-05:00

By Marine Biologist Bob Steneck, guest blogger
University of Maine
School of Marine Sciences

Note: This letter was addressed to New England fisheries

decision-makers regarding Amendment 18 to the groundfish plan.

We encourage everyone to join Bob by submitting your own

comments in support of fleet diversity. Click here to learn how.

Dear New England Fisheries Management Council,

I am a professor in the University of Maine's School of Marine Sciences who has worked with numerous fisheries for nearly 30 years. I am very concerned about Amendment 18 because the no-action alternative will contribute to the loss of fleet diversity which is, in my opinion, one of the gravest problems facing the New England fleet and its fisheries.

When I served on the Fisheries Task Force that recommended Catch Shares, my primary concern was that it could result in consolidation (see more on consolidation). With consolidation, smaller owner operators are squeezed out. This segment of the fleet is most attuned to changes in fish stocks and has the capacity to fish most adaptively and sustainably.

Please do what you can to preserve fleet diversity. I think as part of that there should be quota accumulation limits. I think for the health of the fishing community and the community of fishes, you should work to prevent a heavy concentration of fishing effort around inshore areas. Where possible foster owner-operators and independently
owned business. It will also give new entrants into the fishery a chance of surviving.

Along with keeping the offshore boats offshore, it is a good idea to establish quota set-aside programs to reward sectors that meet specific benchmarks that promote fleet diversity. Fishermen should not be allowed to lease 100% of their quota. Leasing and permit trading should be constrained so the smaller fishing operators are not forced out. These actions are necessary because, in my opinion, the small boat subset of fisheries stakeholders is our best chance for improving and sustaining our inshore groundfish stocks.

Sincerely,
Bob Steneck

NOTE FROM NAMA:
Thank you Bob for sharing your comments. We encourage everyone who, like Bob, supports fleet diversity to submit your own comments as part of a public comment period that ends March 1. Click HERE for help on e-mailing comments. Every comment counts!

A Recipe for Fleet Diversity

2012-02-22T20:45:00.001-05:00

By Executive Chef Teddy Diggs, guest blogger
Home Port Restaurant

Note: This letter was addressed to New England fisheries decision-makers

regarding Amendment 18 to the groundfish plan. We encourage everyone to join Teddy

by submitting your own comments in support of fleet diversity. Click here to learn how.

To the New England Fisheries Management Council,

Locally-caught seafood impacts my personal and professional life. I am writing to oppose the Council taking no action on Amendment 18 and encourage Council members to explore a variety of alternatives that can protect our regions diverse fleet as well as our marine ecology.

I am the executive chef at the Home Port restaurant in Menemsha on Martha's Vineyard. Through care, ability and hard work we are lucky enough to run a business that we believe should be the standard for how to operate a restaurant. Sustainability has become a tired buzz word that pertains to too many schools of thought. It is my view that sustainability extends well beyond the number of fish removed from the ocean. It includes how the fish are removed, who removes it, how the fish gets to consumers, and how well it feeds people, which ultimately is the purpose of fishing. To my point, sustainable fishing includes the fishermen and their communities. Purchasing locally-caught fish not only sustains a way of life but also helps to support (read: sustain) a particular family or community.

We, as chefs, should look at our ocean the same way. Purchasing sustainable sea life should extend to the benefit of fishermen and our harbor communities. With that sense we should buy sustainably, but with a deeper thought in mind. Are we purchasing, serving and eating sea life that is restorative in nature? Meaning how and where was my fish caught? For the every day consumer this is difficult. That is why we choose to serve specific species on our menu at the Home Port. We encourage our customers to ask the questions, where and how was my food caught, and why did you choose this particular fish over another one.

It has become a passion of mine to study fish populations and their resources in hope that my daughters' generation may see a resurgence of many fish species that are no longer available in the waters off Martha's Vineyard and elsewhere in the world.

Trends begin to influence the public. If a restaurant can make it a standard in their operation to support the local community, both with food and finance, and also support the re-growth of our damaged ocean ecosystem, we all would benefit. The word movement can be defined as "a series of actions taking place over a period of time working to foster a new standard." What we strive to do at the Home Port restaurant should be thought of as an effort that may enable growth and prosperity for the ocean and our community.

However, in order for us to achieve this standard we need regional policies that support a thriving diverse fleet where the people and method at which they harvest fish is factored into policy decisions and fleet diversity is protected.

Please do what you can to preserve fleet diversity. The Council should explore every option possible. This includes: supporting owner-operators, quota set-aside programs, limiting quota accumulation, preventing heavy concentration of fishing effort around inshore areas, considering new entrants, and leasing constraints that prevent smaller business operations from being forced out.

Thank you,
Teddy Diggs

NOTE FROM NAMA:
Thank you Teddy for sharing your comments and thank you to the Home Port restaurant for supporting locally caught seafood and blazing a trail for others to follow. We encourage everyone who, like Teddy, cares about locally caught seafood to submit your own comments as part of a public comment period that ends March 1. Take a look at this page for guidelines. Every comment counts!

Why I'm Fasting

2012-02-21T12:02:00.002-05:00

By Niaz Dorry
NAMA's Coordinating Director

Last time I fasted for a political reason was in 1992. I was living in Chester, West Virginia; working with community advocates fighting the WTI Incinerator, the world’s largest toxic waste incinerator across the river in East Liverpool, Ohio. For 44 days the work, not food, is what fed my body. I know the experience was spiritually and physically significant for all 25 of us who took part. Personally, I was humbled by the experience and knowing so many of my heroes had endured much more grueling fasts and hunger strikes to bring an end to injustices around the world.

Twenty years later, I find myself moved to fast again. This time in support of the Fast for Fair Food campaign in solidarity with the Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW), a community-based organization of mainly Latino, Mayan Indian and Haitian immigrants working in low-wage jobs throughout the state of Florida. The fast is to start on March 5, 2012.

Since 1993, the CIW has led an inspiring effort to end the injustices facing farmworkers working in grueling conditions, often literally as slaves, so we can have our favorite land based foods. Inadequate pay, living arrangements, and protections from the elements have made an already backbreaking work unbearable. CIW has successfully negotiated contracts with major food retailers and restaurants such as Taco Bell, McDonald’s, Burger King, Bon Appétit Management, Sodexo and even Amtrak that would commit them to only buy from farms who are paying their workers a fairer wage and providing them with humane working conditions. Most recently, after much negotiation, Trader Joe’s stepped up to the plate.

What does all this have to do with fisheries and fishermen? Our food system includes what we get from the ocean. Not only do we eat from the ocean directly, but we also eat marine animals indirectly when they are applied as fertilizer on our farms, fed to our farm animals as part of their feed or taken as supplements to our diets.

But whether we are paying fishermen a fair price, working conditions for fishworkers around the globe or whether the system that manages our food from the ocean from dock to plate is a fair one isn’t part of the conversation around sustainable, fair, safe and sovereign food system. Those responsible for managing our fisheries don’t take whether fishing is being done for the greater benefit to our food system in consideration. Department of Commerce praises those who catch the most amounts of fish with their annual reports naming the top 3 ports, but fails to address the fact that fair pay for smaller catches is probably better for the ocean.

So I’m fasting for the fish and the fishermen who bring our marine based foods to our plate. I know by continuing to make the connections and building solidarity with farmworkers and farmers we can make sure the community based fleet is paid a fair wage, is doing honorable work that saves our ocean, puts food on our table and sustains our coastal communities.

If you can, I hope you will consider joining me in this fast for a fair and just food system that includes our SEAfood.

You can show your support for community based fishing by taking part in a public process currently underway to amend fisheries policies. Public comments on the fleet diversity amendment 18 are due March 1st, and every comment counts. Please visit this link for more information.

The CODsolidation Emergency

2012-02-07T23:26:00.001-05:00

By fisherman Michael Pratt, guest blogger

My name is Michael Pratt. I am a hook-fisherman from Green Harbor, MA. I would like to share a few major concerns that I have relating to how Catch Shares have already caused both harm to our local marine areas and an excessive amount of fleet consolidation.

Small inshore fishermen, like myself, are facing new problems since New England's Catch Share program began. One of the problems we face are the large 100 ft. plus boats working day and night in spots once made up of small day draggers in the 30-50 ft. range.

This problem allows boats that have historically fished other areas, and in some cases exploited those areas, to just lease their way into the Gulf of Maine and continue their unsustainable fishing practices. Click to read more about leasing

The area I have historically fished around Stellwagen Bank is now experiencing what I believe to be at least double the fishing effort that it can withstand.

Map by NOAA and Office of National Marine Sanctuaries

Without some immediate emergency intervention from National Marine Fisheries, it may be too late.

Even as we sit here today, a basically uncontrolled, unsustainable fishery is taking place on a resource that local fishermen have worked in vain for over a decade to restore.

One example of how consolidation is affecting this area are the fleet of large offshore boats who are allowed to come in and harvest so much of the local resource resulting in many small boat fishermen unable to catch their quota and instead opt to lease it out. Most of this quota then gets leased to the bigger boats. Click to read more about consolidation in the groundfish fishery

This strategy of attack and exploit the resource - and then buy out the struggling day boat, is quickly paving the road to a big boat only fishery.

The Massachusetts South Shore and especially Sector 10, due to such low quota allocations, cannot survive the effects of consolidation much longer.

One idea the Council needs to consider is dividing the Gulf of Maine cod population into eastern and western areas. This would effectively put big boat effort back where it belongs while allowing for a sustainable inshore fishery to continue on for small boat businesses.

To compliment this I believe it would be necessary to implement a baseline leasing restriction on Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank cod only. Such restrictions would prevent large vessels from buying up small vessels' quota and vice-versa, resulting in a diversified fleet.

This would also help eliminate the problems of the new fleet of small boats leasing their way into the Gulf of Maine fishery by trading quota with larger vessels.

With these restrictions in place, much of the burden soon to be caused from the new cod stock assessment could be lightened. Another benefit of these requirements would include helping new entrants in the small boat fishery by allowing for more affordable quota.

Currently, small boats relying on cod, cannot afford to purchase quota due to the fact that larger vessels landing several valuable species will pay a premium to ensure they have enough cod quota to harvest their other species.

This community has suffered and is suffering the most under current fisheries management plans. Any further consolidation will certainly be the end.

NOTE FROM NAMA:
Fisherman Michael Pratt wrote the above piece as part of his testimony to the New England Fisheries Management Council for the Amendment 18 Scoping hearings. Ten scoping hearings took place around New England to gather public input on the proposed Amendment 18 which aims to deal with fleet diversity and concentration of quota ownership. Click to watch Michael's testimony. Also see fisherman Ron Borjeson and fisherman Alex Friedman offered similar testimony during two other A18 Scoping hearings.

At NAMA we are working to ensure the ecological and social concerns of fishermen like Michael are addressed. We believe that if we care about the marine ecosystem, our coastal communities, and quality locally-caught food from the ocean, than Who Fishes Matters. Join us by taking any one of the following actions:

Buy seafood that is as local to you as possible.

Join the Fish Locally Collaborative

Sign the Pledge.

Like us on Facebook.

Seeing the Larger Picture for Food Justice

2011-12-07T11:30:00.017-05:00

By Brett Tolley, NAMA's Community Organizer.

My trip to California took an unexpected turn on day-three of the Community Food Security Conference when I got robbed at gunpoint. It was a normal quiet Monday night. I was leaving the subway around 10pm when a young man in a mask rode by on his bike, stopped in my path, and stuck a gun to my chest. And since my background is in community organizing/fishing and not street combat I didn't put up a fight. Like my mom says, "we're fishers, not fighters". Of course it was no laughing matter. He took everything I had. But he also taught me a few things.

The first thing he taught me was not to walk alone at night down dark unknown streets. The other lesson relates to a bigger picture of our food justice work at NAMA. But at the risk of jumping ahead too fast, let me start by explaining why I was in California in the first place.

I was in Oakland to participate in the US Food Sovereignty Alliance's inaugural Assembly and take part in the Community Food Security Coalition's annual conference. As in the past few years, National Family Farm Coalition worked with us to put a panel together discussing a topic that is relevant to both fishermen and farmers. This year we discussed the role of co-operatives.

Ben Burkett (right), Mississippi Association of Cooperatives and
the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, applauds as fisher
Mike Hudson (left) and farmer Joel Greeno shake hands in solidarity.

The Assembly was inspiring. Along with other food advocates, farmers, and community activists from around the world, we identified some common ground in our collective work on food sovereignty. It was no surprise to hear from farmers in places like Brazil, Mexico, and Iowa that they share many of the same struggles as New England fishermen. Issues including the corporate concentration of wealth and power, the degradation of our natural resources, and the exploitation of workers. Check out more on Food Sovereignty by reading our guest blogger piece titled "Fish Sovereignty" by Tristen Quinn-Thibodeau of WhyHunger.

Our friends at La Via Campesina have created a list of seven principals that guide the Food Sovereignty movement. My experience in Oakland makes me focus on principal number six:

I couldn't help but make the connection between my masked teacher - the gunman - and the conditions that led him to rob me that night.

There seems to be a connection between our food system, poverty, and violence. In fact, I would suggest poverty is itself a form of violence, especially when it can be prevented. In its mission statement the US Food Sovereignty Alliance specifically includes "working to end poverty". At first glance this may seem like a large departure away from food justice, but it's not.

The right to healthy food and a just food system is about much more than just our food. It involves complex uses of the land, sea, and natural resources. It involves the people who harvest, raise, catch, and even eat our food. It involves the communities who help move the food to our stores, into our kitchens, and onto our plates. And it involves the health of every single person along that food chain because we depend on food for nutrition. Issues such as poverty and social injustice undermine this entire system.

That is why at NAMA we believe that connecting our local fishermen to the larger picture of food justice is critically important. Food overlaps so many of our social, economic, and environmental struggles and without paying attention to each piece we risk jeopardizing them all. For example, we can't displace our small-scale family fishermen only to be replaced by the larger-scale industrial model in the name of marine conservation. Click here to watch a fisherman's video testimony. We know all too well that doing so will not save the ocean, as getting rid of family farmers didn't save our land based environment. In fact, it increased ecological problems on land.

Since that night in Oakland I've had endless questions and imaginary scenarios run through my head. Ultimately I will never know what led that man to rob me. But what I do know is that a broken food system is directly linked to poverty, which is directly linked to desperation and crime. Even if the young man is caught the conditions that foster violence still exist both on our land and on our seas. So until we address the underlying conditions then we can't expect this type of violelnce to stop.

Along with our US Food Sovereignty Alliance partners we at NAMA are working to address those underlying conditions. And we invite you to do what you can by taking any one of the following actions:

Buy seafood that is as local to you as possible.

Join the Fish Locally Collaborative.

Sign the Pledge.

Like us on Facebook.

Occupy the Ocean?

2011-11-28T13:09:00.002-05:00

By Niaz Dorry
NAMA's Coordinating Director

Is it time to Occupy the Ocean? Or at least take it back?

Even before Stephen Colbert suggested recently on his show to occupy the ocean because someone is testing lipsticks on dolphins, we thought the Occupy movement needs to include what’s happening on the water. Sorry Stephen, we call Trademark on this one!

So what is happening on the water? According to a recent report by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Association (NOAA)"In 2010, 20% of vessels accounted for about 80% of the gross nominal revenues from groundfish sales." Hmm… this sounds awfully like the rest of our economic structure the Occupy movement is bringing to our attention. Management policies implemented last year were designed to consolidate the fishing industry. This means making sure fewer boats get to catch whatever amount of fish scientists consider to be safe to catch.

In response, fishermen have begun to speak up against the rapid consolidation happening in the New England fisheries and calling for fleet diversity while tensions on the water have increased. Some fishermen report being taunted on the water because of their position. This reminds me a lot of all the stories about farmers getting harassed because they didn’t want to sell their land to the developers or agribusiness. Well, now it’s happening on the water.

On land, things are also tense.

In recent weeks a few letters have been circulated by fishermen on different ends of the discussion. Some are asking for support for the Fleet Diversity Amendment 18 and some are using the word "stability" as an excuse to maintain status quo.

Unfortunately, this status quo is bringing with it some unwelcome ecological consequences. Because the new regulations got rid of some of the input controls associated with fishing, boats who have not fished in near shore waters have been migrating inshore. Why wouldn't they? There is no longer any reason for them to travel offshore. This new migration of what was traditionally an offshore fleet is causing too much fish to be caught in nearshore waters too quickly. Inshore fishermen have been telling us over the past year that they are seeing signs of decline in the cod stocks, for example. Which is shame because over the past 15 years the cod has been coming back because of their sacrifices. So seeing it go away because of errors in management is heart breaking.

So why would anyone oppose fixing errors we know are having negative impact on the fish stocks and will destabilize the fleet economically down the line? This isn't just rhetoric. We have watched how consolidation and elimination of input controls have undermined the stability of so many industries. That's what the Occupy movement is bringing to our attention.

On the fisheries front, I hear the arguments as Alan Greenspan was making when he thought he knew what would fix our financial system: fewer, more efficient players that have ownership over the market and will take care of things. They’ll be easier to manage and ultimately the strong will survive and weak will either have to sell out to the highest bidder or amass capital at any cost to scale up their operations.

If you haven’t done so yet, I encourage you to watch this video, if not the whole thing at least the very beginning and then from 1:45 to about 2:10 where Alan Greenpsan talks about how wrong his assumptions were. That’s where we are headed when it comes to fisheries and why we need fleet diversity.

What’s worse, and once again mimics all that’s been happening with the rest of our economic structure, some who favor consolidation of the fishing industry instead of fleet diversity are actually asking for removal of yet more protections already in place – such as opening up certain areas that have been closed to fishing for the sake of the fish - to make it easier and more efficient for them to operate. Keep in mind it's these closed areas that have helped bring back the fish like cod. To remove them now will be a mistake and a slap in the face of the fishermen who gave up their traditional fishing grounds years ago because they knew it was the right thing to do.

We have an opportunity to do something about all this. The New England Fishery Management Council has voted to move forward with the Fleet Diversity Amendment 18. This amendment has the support of a lot of fishermen as well as local food advocates and fishing communities. Over the next few months, a public hearing process around this amendment will begin. I hope all of you who have been paying attention to what consolidation and concentration of power has done to the rest of our economic and food system pay attention to this process and participate. Without your voices we will end up adding another industry to the long list that currently include the financial, auto, health care, food and housing.

We can change the course. We need to empower the community based fishermen who can fish with the smallest ecological footprint yet have the broadest economic and social benefit. To do that we need to make sure the Fleet Diversity Amendment 18 corrects the errors that currently exist in fisheries management here in New England. And hopefully this work will provide other regions who are exploring Catch Shares to make sure the same mistakes are avoided from the get-go.

Consider the Fleet Diversity Amendment 18 your vehicle for Occupying the Ocean... or taking it back.

Fish Sovereignty

2011-10-11T10:42:00.004-04:00

By guest blogger Tristan Quinn-Thibodeau

Outreach and Partnerships Coordinator
Global Movements Program, WhyHunger

Community-based fishermen are facing tough times as access to fish is being consolidated into the hands of a few. We know small-scale community-based fishing favors jobs, stability and ecological protections necessary for a healthy society. As NAMA says, “Who fishes matters.”

The growing “food sovereignty” movement is all about making common sense decisions for the betterment of communities as a whole, based in the local food system – and fish is food. This movement isn’t treating food as only a moral issue but also as a practical issue. We have to make sure our communities are strong with reliable work and sustainable social bonds, and food is absolutely essential for this. It is not by chance that our country is so divided politically at the same time as small-scale farming, fishing, and food retail are being taken over by impersonal big business.

What’s Happening?

Big business is gaining more ground than ever before, and they are expanding all over the world. Large, factory farm dairy “co-ops” have controlled prices and driven independent, small-scale dairy farmers into bankruptcy, causing many to sell their farms and cows. The industrial, “factory fishing” model is forcing fishermen off their boats so fishing rights can be bought and sold to the highest bidder. Farm workers are treated worse and worse, denied legal protections and endure slave conditions in the fields of the United States. One positive development in creating jobs and healthy communities are urban farms and gardens in places like in Detroit, but whenever real estate developers want the valuable land in which these gardens are rooted, the gardeners almost always lose. Unfortunately, political leaders we rely on to look out for the health of our communities are abandoning their jobs. Not only are they often corrupted by money, but they are weaker than ever and can’t seem to defend us, even if they want to.

Who are our allies?

The local food movement has been growing, but it does not embrace all of the people essential for strong communities that produce and provide food. A group of people in the United States has been joining the global food sovereignty movement. Dairy farmers in Wisconsin, farm workers from Florida and urban growers from New York are joining the movement to ensure all communities have access to healthy, local food and the necessary tools to provide that food.

Watch a short video about the seven principles of food sovereignty by Farm Together Now. Imagine fishermen, fishing, fishing rights and seafood in place of farmers, farming, land rights and land based foods as you listen.

What is food sovereignty? Food sovereignty is the right of people to decide for themselves how to take care of their food—how to grow or harvest it, how to prepare it, and how to distribute it. Food sovereignty means farmers and fishermen can create local markets, have access to land and sea and participate in democratic regulatory processes. And the rest of the community has access to that local healthy food, creating a society that looks out and supports each other. Corporations and governments are violating our rights when they interfere with a people’s ability to take care of each other and have a solid economy built around food.

The only solution is to build a movement.

With a movement, different sectors cannot be played against each other for small benefits. With a movement, we share supporters and allies, building our numbers. With a movement, the actions we take help everyone involved in their everyday lives. Wins are not abstract or long-term, but should be apparent in our everyday lives. But building a movement like this is not easy.

The obstacle to building a movement is our separation.

One of the problems is that people who produce food are separated geographically and culturally. Farmers in rural areas don’t meet urban community gardeners. Some farmers employ farmworkers and can’t afford to pay them well because farmers themselves are under pressure. Fishermen living in coastal towns and cities might never meet farmworkers, much less identify with them. But the connections are there waiting to be uncovered and no one in the food system can change their conditions if they work in isolation. A hierarchy, with some on the top and some on the bottom, is always a threat—act out and you could be sent back down to the bottom.

Listen to Winona LaDuke on rediscovering Food Sovereignty and the spiritual movement around taking back our food

The US Food Sovereignty Alliance is overcoming this obstacle through a series of dialogues and consultations.

The US Food Sovereignty Alliance is new, but the people who are in it are not. We have young blood, but we also have veteran minds. We are organizing a series of conference calls for each group of the food system (fishermen, farmers, urban gardeners, and farmworkers) to decide how to pitch their own interests to the other groups. We need some common ground, and we need to find common interests. We want to move forward on work that affects everyone.

The US Food Sovereignty Alliance (USFSA) works to end poverty, rebuild local food economies, and assert democratic control and access over the food system. It is a US-based alliance of food justice, anti-hunger, labor, environmental, faith-based, and food producer groups that upholds the right to food as a basic human right and works to connect our local and national struggles to the international movement for food sovereignty.

NAMA's note: We are a proud member of the National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC). We had the option of joining other family farm organizations but joining NFFC was important as their work is driven by the principles of food sovereignty. NFFC has been an important link for us connecting fishermen and fishing community advocates to farmers, farm advocates, food system advocates and the broader food sovereignty movement. We look forward to continuing our work with NFFC toward fruitful changes to how our ocean and land are managed and the health of the food systems into which the fruit of the labors of fishermen and farmers enters.

Tuna Fishing: the good, the bad, and the lucky

2011-10-02T15:34:00.006-04:00

By Brett Tolley, NAMA's Community Organizer

120 miles offshore is a long way for a 45 ft. commercial fishing boat. We headed east out of the small Chatham, MA fish pier at 3pm and arrived to the eastern George's Bank fishing grounds at 5am, a 14-hour trek! My father took the first two-hour watch, then my cousin, and then me. Upon arrival it was pitch black, the water was covered with a thick wet fog, and I was already exhausted.

During the 14-hour ride we had one thing on our mind, tuna fish. At 5am we jumped on deck and started prepping the rod and reels that would hopefully deliver us an early tuna. Rod preparation includes a few things: cleaning off the leader (the final stretch of line attached to the hook) to remove excess dirt, using a black marker to cover any exposed metallic pieces on the hook and leader that might deter a hungry tuna, and sowing the hook inside the mouth of the bate, which in our case was a tasty mackerel.

To attract the tuna fish we chop up frozen herring, called 'chum', and toss it overboard in light dosages. Chumming creates an attractive oily layer on the ocean surface, called a 'slick', which diffuses around the bate dangling down anywhere from 10-25 fathoms deep (60-150 ft).

Tuna tend to feed most during the morning day-break and the evening twilight. Most fishermen hope to catch one during each of these periods but if you are doing well you can get two. And in the most fortunate of times you can land three, which under federal regulations is the maximum amount per vessel per trip. We always hope for three.

My first morning was unfortunately slow and there were no bites. I was beginning to feel my father and cousin's doubt creep in, thinking I should have stayed at the pier. Perhaps I had brought bad luck to the boat. After chumming for about 30 minutes it was time to move on to another location. A bit discouraged and disappointed, we decided to reel in the rods, my father on one, my cousin on another, and myself on the third. As I reeled gingerly, I felt a gentle tug on the line. I figured it was a snag in the twine and didn't think twice. But after two more tiny pulls my cousin looks over and yells, "We're on!!"

In the blink of an eye my cousin jumped in between myself and the pole and started reeling furiously. I quickly learned that landing a tuna takes tremendous skill and effort. Mostly because there are a hundred things that can go wrong, the worst being a line that snaps. The trick to avoid this is to minimize any slack in the line. When the tuna swims toward the boat you reel like a madman, which was exactly my cousin's technique. Two hours later after a long battle, letting the tuna swim out and back in again, skillfully navigating the boat to set up the most strategic positions, we had the tuna on deck! It turned out what I thought was a snag in the line was in fact a 600 lb. blue fin tuna fish.

After the tuna was dressed (bled, removed the head and guts, and cleaned the insides) and was on ice we moved to the next spot. My father and cousin made clear that I was not a bad luck omen after all. A nice relief! In fact they had me touching each rod every 10 minutes or so believing my luck would hook us another big tuna. Although I didn't instigate another bite, we did get our three tuna for that trip. Luck, it seemed, had little to do with it as my father has been commercially fishing for over 40 years.

TUNA and the DISPLACEMENT OF FAMILY FISHERMEN

New England small-scale fishermen like my father have traditionally relied on groundfish (cod, haddock, pollock, flounder, etc.) as their primary catch. However, with recent trends in fleet consolidation many family fishermen are being squeezed out of the groundfish fishery. The squeeze, in spite of reducing the number of fishermen, does not reduce the effort or the amount of fish being caught. Instead it merely replaces fishermen like my father with larger-scale industrial operations. And in turn, just like a family evicted from a gentrifying neighborhood, small-scale fishermen move on to another fishery, in this case tuna.

What does displacing the small-scale fishermen do to a fishery? To the ecosystem? Communities? Our local source of seafood? These questions are critical to our work around fleet diversity and the Who Fishes Matters Campaign. Check in again soon to learn about a recent Fisheries Council vote to move fleet diversity policy forward. In the meantime, here's a link showing all the support we got!

As I watched my father smile at the site of three tuna on the boat's deck, knowing what great care and pride he takes in all his fishing efforts, I wondered if the person replacing him in the groundfishery will have that same ethic. I wondered if my cousin will have the chance to fish in the groundfishery just as his father, grandfather, and great grandfather did. Or will he be replaced by an industrial, vertically integrated fishing corporation?

As I'm sitting here at the pilots seat after our two-day trip I'm feeling proud of my family's tradition, exhausted from the long couple of days, and frustrated at the displacement of our small-scale fishermen. And now we have a 14-hour drive ahead! I'm hoping to bring more luck tomorrow.

More Reasons to Know Who’s Catching Your Fish

2011-09-20T12:50:00.002-04:00

By guest blogger Joanna Shaw Flamm of Nona Brooklyn

Chalk up another piece of supporting evidence for the “know your farmer/purveyor/fisherman” argument. The Environmental Justice Foundation recently posted a video focusing on how catches from “pirate fishermen” are finding their way into legit fish markets. Pirate fishing outfits follow no regulations or laws, regularly damage fishing grounds by using brutally out-of-date practices, and devastate small fishing communities by wiping out their fish populations overnight.
Summary:

Over a billion dollars in fish caught by pirates operating in African waters alone enters world seafood markets each year.
The number of pirate fishing vessels globally is estimated to number in the thousands.
On favored practice among pirates? Obtain one fishing license for one vessel, then paint the name of that vessel on multiple other vessels, give them all copies of the same license, and send them out to fish.
Due to the labrynthine nature of global seafood markets, and the complete lack of concern about traceability, it’s easy for pirate catches to enter the market and once there, impossible to tell them apart from from legitimate catches.

But what really sucks is that pirates are only one of many problems with the shadowy world of the global seafood trade: A few months ago, The New York Times reported on the disturbing prevalence of ‘fish fraud.’ Using new devices that make it easy to identify a species of fish through on-the-spot DNA analysis, The non-profit group Oceana found that 20-25% of fish sold at retail or served in restaurants was not what it claimed to be!

Even assuming your fish is caught the right way, and it is what the person you’re buying it from says it is, choosing what fish to eat can be as complicated as quantum mechanics. Who caught it? How was it caught? When was it caught? In the dominant commodity-style seafood marketplace, such questions are usually unanswerable by the time the fish reaches the consumer (which is often a matter of weeks after it’s been caught.)

And which fish are ok to eat? Which aren’t? Guides to sustainable fish have been accused of over-simplifying the issues. By color-coding fish species to indicate whether or not they’re ok to eat, they gloss over the fact that in well-managed fisheries, when caught the right way, it may be entirely ok to fish and eat species that are in decline on other parts of the globe.

And what about farmed fish? How does the large-scale farming of fish affect the quality and nutritional content of the fish? How does it affect the environment, and the ecosystems surrounding them?

So what is a seafood lover to do? Pay attention. Try to understand the environmental and health impacts of the fish you choose to eat. Find sources you know and trust. Ask questions to understand who caught your fish, where it was caught, and how it was caught. And buy fresh, locally-caught stuff whenever you can find it. It tastes better.

Cayden Lovejoy of Blue Moon Fish at Grand Army Plaza Greenmarket. Blue Moon catches their own fish, and sells whole fish and fillets, as well as local shellfish and their own smoked and pickled fish. Photo © Valery Rizzo - all rights reserved

Happily, many of our Greenmarkets host local Long Island fishermen selling their catch directly to the public each week. Blue Moon Fish of Mattituck is at the Grand Army Plaza market every Saturday; American Seafood of Hampton Bays is at the Borough Hall and Bay Ridge markets on Saturdays, and at the Windsor Terrace market on Wednesdays; Pura Vida Fisheries, also of Hampton Bays, is at the Fort Greene and Greenpoint/McCarren Park markets on Saturdays; Seatuck Fish Company is at the Carroll Gardens market on Sundays, and Gills Seafood is at the Cortelyou market on Sundays.

You can also find wild Alaskan sockeye salmon through Iliamna Fish Company‘s annual CSA. The salmon is caught by Christopher Nicolson, a Greenpointer, and his family each summer. Members pick up their flash-frozen share of the catch each September, at the close of the fishing season.
Clinton Hill-based Sea to Table has been sourcing sustainably-caught fish directly from small-scale fishermen working the waters of the Caribbean, the Gulf of Mexico, the Carolinas, the Northeast, and Alaska. They primarily sell to chefs, but if you (or you and a group of friends), can handle their multi-pound minimum orders, you can have fresh fish delivered from the dock to your door overnight.
Heritage Foods also has a rotating selection of sustainbly caught fish which they source directly from the people who catch it.

Who else has good fish out there in Brooklyn? The kind of fish that can be traced back to who actually caught it, how it was caught, and when it was caught? Tell us in the comments!

Community Weighs In and Fleet Diversity Moves Forward

2011-08-18T10:53:00.001-04:00

By Brett Tolley, NAMA's Community Organizer.

At last week's Groundfish Committee* meeting we got a BIG VOTE to move the Fleet Diversity policy forward! For any football fans out there, we advanced the ball 10 years closer to the end zone. First down!

The vote approved the Fleet Diversity scoping document despite a few members of the Council and public who stood actively opposed. Council members tried excuses like - there is no current problem. Folks in the audience called Fleet Diversity a waste of time.

Click here to listen to the audio recording from the meeting.

But speaking in support of fleet diversity and accumulation limit measures were a majority of committee members, nearly 200 pledge signers, and a growing public support who believe that Fleet Diversity is NOT a waste of time.

We also had fishermen text messaging into the committee meeting, some from their boats. As part of our Organizing strategy we sent live up-date text messages from the Committee meeting out to 10 fishermen around New England. They texted back and we read their reactions into the mic. TEXTIMONY!

"Fleet diversity should have been addressed before the Amendment 16 was approved. The time is right to now approve the scoping document and move the fleet diversity discussion forward."
- Steve Welch, Commercial Fisherman, South Shore MA

"As we speak aggressive consolidation is occurring. Move the scoping prcoess forward and address fleet diversity."
- Chuck Etzel, Commercial Fisherman, Montauk NY

To view NAMA's comments to the committee click here.

The scoping process will allow the public and fishing communtities to guide our managers on these issues moving forward. Click here to read more about the scoping process and Amendment 18 to the Groundfish plan.

Huge thanks to everyone who signed the pledge, wrote letters to the editors, passed the word, and gave us the push we needed. We're going to be asking for your support again come September, so please be ready. Our next step is to advance the scoping document at the full Council meeting in September and begin the formal scoping process.

Who fishes matters!

*The Groundfish Committee is part of the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC). The Council is one of eight regional Councils established by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (since renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Act) The NEFMC manages fishery resources within the federal 200-mile limit off the coasts of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Click here to read more.

Emerging science workshop challenges fish paradigms

2011-08-18T09:45:00.003-04:00

by Sean Sullivan NAMA Marketing, Development and Outreach Associate

Everyone knows that salmon are born in rivers, spend their adult lives in the ocean and return to the very same rivers in which they were born to spawn. Until recently most people thought that anadromous Salmon were exceptional among fishes in their loyalty to spawning grounds. It is commonly thought that most marine fish were broadcast spawners and did not exhibit natal homing (returning to spawn where they were born). It was assumed that spawning areas attracted aggregations of a genetically diverse group of fish from regional stocks that found the areas suitable.

It turns out that many if not most fish that live their whole life in the sea are more like salmon than we ever thought. In fact, we are just learning that many fish return to the location where they were born (or nearby that location) to spawn. Cod, for example, return to spawn year after year in the exact same piece of desirable real estate where they were born. It may be a notable bank or simply a small pebbly plateau that is somehow just the ‘right spot.’ This is just one of bits the emerging scientific knowledge that was reported recently at a workshop on Reconciling Spatial Scales and Stock Structures for Fisheries Science and Management.

The implications of this emerging scientific consensus are fairly drastic if you are a fisherman, fisheries manager, fisheries scientist, or, as in the case of us at NAMA, advocates for community based fishermen. Not surprisingly, fishermen whose scale of operation best matches the scales of fish distributions in the ecosystems where they choose to fish are more likely to be successful stewards of their ecosystems and their fisheries more diverse and sustainable over the long haul. The conference produced a slew of other earth shaking ideas and notions, but before we get to those, lets walk down the path of understanding the example above --our beloved codfish.

One of the great mysteries scientists, fishermen and others have been struggling to understand is how in some areas such as in the Western Gulf of Maine, overfished cod have rebounded, while in the Eastern Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank, they are still struggling or absent. It turns out part of the problem is that it has always been thought that breeding fish would over time re-stock the ocean just through the magic of winds and currents moving those very young cod around and mixed populations converging on suitable spawning sites. So if we weren’t managing with cod’s homing tendencies in mind we were missing the boat – pun sort of intended.

But if cod are like salmon, and humans put up a barrier - in the case of salmon say a dam, in the case of cod say a net - that prevents them from returning to their natal spawning grounds, an entire genetic population of fish may disappear. A river or other spawning habitat may be repaired and regenerate, but it is thought that the timeframes for nature to re-stock a river may be in the hundreds if not thousands of years. If a cod breeding ground, say in the Eastern Gulf of Maine, is wiped out by overfishing or habitat changes, there are no more fish that have that specific genetic code linked to them returning to that specific location. A distinct fish population suffering such a fate is GONE for good.

Cod population crashes are well documented in many North Atlantic fisheries, as in the North Sea and of course here in Northwest Atlantic region, including Canadian waters, Georges and Grand Banks, and of course in the Gulf of Maine. A recent sentinel fishery (a fishery designed specifically to gauge fish populations) in the Eastern Gulf of Maine conducted in conjunction with our friends at the Penobscot East Resource Center, has shown that there are more halibut in the Eastern Gulf of Maine than there are cod, and even the numbers of halibut are extremely low. And with little to no fishing pressure these formerly abundant fish are still not returning.

Why they are not returning could in fact be the result of fishing pressure and/or environmental changes resulting in the disappearance of a sub-stock (or distinct population). In addition to overfishing the population in question and/or overfishing their food fish, toxic pollution, climate change, excess fertilization and a variety of changes in the food web can lead to collapses in fish populations. So somehow the breeding cod for that area were wiped out and couldn’t replenish themselves; and because of that, there are no adult cod in those areas. Quite literally, the Eastern Gulf of Maine used to be one of the most productive fishing areas, equal to Stellwagen Bank, Georges Bank and other well known historical fisheries. Today there is no commercial fishery for cod there at all.

Complicated interdependencies between species may also result in dramatic changes in fisheries. Again in this case we will use cod as an example, and that species dependence on specific prey. For example, cod in parts of Canada fed primarily on capelin, a small fish related to herring. The capelin provided the nutritional basis for cod to spawn successfully. If there are no capelin, cod will feed on shrimp. However, if they are feeding on shrimp, they are less successful and in some cases will not spawn at all. A similar disappearance of river herring from cod spawning grounds in Eastern Gulf of Maine may similarly be linked to the disappearance or non-recovery of sub-populations of cod there. And we should not forget that fishermen are also interwoven into these interdependencies. We cannot forget the human element in the marine ecosystem.

I am not a scientist, and I am sure there are nuances I may not be getting right. But, the example of cod and other species returning to their natal spawning grounds is a "spatial" issue as well a biological one. The behavior argues that the animals are related more closely to a particular spot in the ocean than was previously thought. Fisheries managers largely manage fish as though they are a single uniform stock that doesn’t have strong preferences for where they live, breed or eat as long as fundamental needs are met. We now know that is not true. Management will have to change to acknowledge and accommodate this "spatial" relationship.

These emerging scientific ideas are forcing a new understanding that requires fisheries managers to expand their age old practice of looking at the ocean only temporally (fluctuations over time) to include spatial needs in a much more detailed way if they want to be successful at managing the ocean. While it was acknowledged at this workshop that spatial considerations would be key in the transition from single species management to ecosystem based fisheries management the path to get there was not laid out and is clearly the next step that must be taken.

The Fish Pages - Weekly Wrap Up

2011-08-14T12:53:00.002-04:00

by Sean Sullivan Marketing, Outreach and Development Associate

Back in the day fishmongers used newspaper to wrap up fish for customers. Newspaper was used because not only is it plentiful, but it is relatively free of bacteria and absorbs oils and smells. In the tradition of Friday fish and fish being wrapped in newspaper, I am going to begin a weekly wrap up of the world according to NAMA. Hopefully you'll find what's inside tasty and deliciously healthy.

The first news item comes from yesterday's New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) meeting of the Groundfish Comittee. Some good news comes out of the meeting as the council voted to approve the scoping document about fleet diversity for Amendment 18 to the Magnusen-Stevens Fisheries Act....I am sure that paragraph just put at least a few of you to sleep. So let's repeat that in plain english....

The people who make the fish rules agreed to begin the process of making formal rules to protect a diverse fleet. Its a really important first step in having our Who Fishes Matters campaign achieve it's objectives.

We are constantly seeking ways to make sure fishermen's voices get heard at the council. At the latest meeting Brett Tolley used text messages to provide fishermen out on the water with live updates on the debate on Amendment 18. When he got up to testify he was able to convey their feedback in essentially real time. If they cannot come to the meeting we'll bring the meeting to them!

We also had a thrilling Seafood Throwdown at the Cape Ann Farmer's Market featuring celebrity judge Christian Collins from TV's Master Chef program (click on this link to see Christian on local TV as he gives NAMA a big shout-out) . The secret seafood was skate! Skate is a wonderful fish. It is considered a healthy stock, and is one of those "underutilized*" species. You can read all about the Throwdown here.

Next up we'll be hosting a Seafood Throwdown on Martha's Vineyard at the West Tisbury Farmers Market tomorrow morning. Stop by if you are on island. Things kick off at 9:30AM!

Among the interesting items that swept across my desk this week like a summer thundershower are the news that there will be a new CSF on Nantucket. Details to come on that one. And there is growing momentum in Southern Maine to develop a CSF. Get in touch with us for details or if you would like to be involved.

In Rhode Island there are some really cool things going on using technology to direct market seafood. The farm to market connection has shown that people care about where there food comes from. I think we'll see pretty soon that some fishermen will be able to challenge the current seafood paradigm by using technology to escape the "at the hands of the processors" situation they are currently in. The more the market diversifies, the more fishermen will be rewarded for fishing sustainably, and the easier it will be for consumers to put their food dollars where their values lie.

In other notes, the Cape Ann Fresh Catch CSF is now taking orders for Fall shares with deliveries to 20 Boston Metro area stops including new stops in Somerville and Needham.

*The term "underutilized" and "trash fish" are sometimes synonymous with "by-catch" but almost always refer to a species that has low or no commercial value. The reason for this can be because there is no market for the fish or the value of the fish is very low. I have a philosophical problem with the idea that anything that swims in the ocean is trash. In fact historically, bluefin tuna and lobsters were considered trash fish. And "underutilized" is a similarly human centric term that implies that species exist for our purposes only. However the term(s) seem to be gaining traction as a way to highlight that there are more things in the ocean than cod and haddock, which is something we like to promote. If you read Audubon magazine there will be an article in the September issue about "trash fish" that will also talk about CSF's.

Fleet Diversity Amendment Looks to Advance - We Need Your Support

2011-08-04T12:44:00.027-04:00

By Brett Tolley, NAMA's community organizer

They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistake over and over again and expecting different results. So imagine our frustration when fisheries policies aim to consolidate the fishing fleet into one that consists only of large or industrial scale operations. Did we not learn anything from agriculture or the banking and financial institutions? Or housing? Do we have to repeat the same mistake on the water? (Read fishermen's testimony on consolidation)

Aside from repeating past mistakes, this approach fails to recognize the ocean is made of many different ecosystems that if we are to fish them, we need to make sure we are fishing them at the right scale so not to compromise their unique characteristics. (View a position paper signed onto by scientists from throughout New England)

That’s in part why we have taken the issue of fleet diversity so seriously. In New England not only are the small and mid-scale fishermen the cornerstones of the fishing industry they are critical to ensuring the scale of fishing operations here are diverse enough to not undermine the health of the marine ecosystem. It’s worth noting, that it just happens that the small and medium scale fishing operations also happen to provide more jobs, have less impact to the ecosystem, and ensure a more local and secure source of seafood.

Right now small and mid-scale fishermen face a dramatic consolidation squeeze and for many family fishermen (including crew!), access to fishing rights is now unaffordable and these fishermen are facing the same decision family farmers did a few decades ago: do you scale up or sell out? Selling out is slowly becoming the option of choice with small and medium scale operations as it is becoming more attractive to lease their quota out than actually fish. And according to a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) report the groundfish fleet lost 458 crew positions in the last year.

Hear Fisherman BG Brown discuss his personal experience

Recognizing some of these issues, the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC) voted in June to proceed with an Amendment to address fleet diversity and excessive consolidation in the Groundfish fleet.

NAMA weighed in, urging NEFMC to take action, with a PETITION signed widely by fishermen, food activists, restaurant owners, fish market owners, environmental advocates and community members. Folks agree that fleet consolidation is squeezing out family fishermen only to be replaced by larger industrial-scale fisheries. They also agree this flies in the face of managers’ own goals and objectives, which include protecting fleet diversity and preventing excessive consolidation.

In order to lesson the squeeze and level the playing field we are calling on managers to prioritize THREE things: 1) foster a fishery that is affordable to independent fishermen, 2) enable a fishery where active fishing is more attractive than leasing and 3) incentivize a fishery that is more diverse.

Read fishing family member Monique Coombs' Letter to the Editor of the Portland Herald Press.

And click here to read fisherman Brian Pearce's most recent letter to the NEFMC.

The Council’s motion to advance fleet diversity protections is a critical step forward but we need more support. We anticipate strong resistance from those who stand to benefit from a highly consolidated fleet where family fishermen are left in the wake. Recently a lawsuit led by the cities of Gloucester and New Bedford, calling attention to the consolidation issue and challenging the legality of the new management system, failed after a judge’s ruling in early July. (Read more here)

We’re calling on folks who believe that Who Fishes Matters to join us, heed the advice of New England’s family fishermen, and hold our fishery decision makers accountable to their own standards, goals and objectives. Advancing the fleet diversity amendment gives us the opportunity to level the playing field, prevent a homogenous fleet that isn’t sensitive to the scales of the marine environment and secure a future for small and mid-scale family fishermen.

PLEASE CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS:

Sign our pledge.

Like us on Facebook.
Join the Fish Locally Collaborative.
Create a video testimony.
Buy seafood that is as local to you as possible.

Counting on Living Fish

2011-08-01T04:34:00.001-04:00

by Boyce Thorne-Miller NAMA's Science and Policy Coordinator

Fish swim, unseen.
The fisherman senses
they are present.

We are entering a moment of transition as Ecosystem Based Management has become part of our nation’s Ocean Policy and Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM)*, following the lead of the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, is becoming the key component of a regional vision for the future of New England fisheries management.

Times of transition offer opportunities for creativity, and that is just what we should expect from our fisheries managers and our fishermen.

Ecosystem Based Management is a sterile term that can be defined many ways. I prefer to think that we are about to move from dead fish management to living fish management. I welcome that change! I am convinced it will be far more successful in recovering and maintaining diverse fish populations and in nurturing the ecosystems that support them. And I believe many of our New England community fishermen are capable of playing a key role in providing essential scientific information that will be required to make this management work.

Biologists and ecologists in the past were natural scientists who spent much of their lives in the field, and through experience and knowledge the best of them learned to enter a wilderness environment and integrate a vast amount of information perceived through their six senses. Living ecosystems and wildlife provide far more complex and important information than a collection of dead animals can give us. But you have to know how to read living systems.

The old time biologists were able to interpret a great deal of the character and biological interactions of the living ecosystem simply through keen observation and knowing how to integrate and interpret that information. Now those same kinds of scientists spend much of their time reading instruments and interpreting data through computer models. But where does their data come from – all too often from dead fish. Models enable a new ability to predict a variety of outcomes under different possible conditions, but often the full complexity of an ecosystem is sacrificed in order to make the models manageable.

A cadre of fishermen, with on-board instruments, keen senses and understanding of the environment in which they work each day, have taken over the role of field naturalists in the marine realm. They possess real-time information about the living ecosystem. Science makes a grave mistake if it chooses to rely exclusively or primarily on the information provided by dead fish and ignore what is known about the living fish that remain. The numerical data about catches that must be reported to fisheries managers is important, but so is information about how living populations of fisheries and their support species are behaving and moving.

Nevertheless, it is important that such information be reported in consistent format that makes it useful in ecological models and stock assessments. Fishermen should work with scientists to design a useful system. And scientists need to find a way of using that information effectively in their models – even non-numerical data, such as fish behavior and food-web observations. As the new management models tackle the difficulties of incorporating social science information to incorporate humans as part of the ecosystem, they are also obliged to better incorporate information about living species networks. It’s time to move beyond counting dead fish one species at a time.

The ability of the best naturalists, be they PhD biologists or fishermen-scientists, to integrate information and understand the whole that is more than the sum of the observed parts is unique to the human brain. So far computers cannot accomplish that without detailed instructions and the right kind of data. Intuition is a valuable tool that is only available to human observers. Fishermen who can do this well are themselves scientists, and their information is critical to the success of new living fish management.

Data can and should be collected and used at different scales, from smaller local scales that detect critical habitat areas and spawning populations to larger regional scales that integrate regional stocks and larger ecological processes affecting them. A variety of tools can be employed – from satellites and models run on computers, to sampling tools on large research boats, to diverse fishing gear and daily observations from fishermen on small vessels, to catch reports and observers reports required under fisheries management. Data and observations from government scientists, academic scientists, social scientists, and fishermen-scientists alike will be needed to make this new management work. And that means the toxic mistrust among these groups of professionals must end and a mutual willingness to improve techniques and coordinate information must begin.

A new era of close cooperation and mutual respect between government, academia, and fishermen is the creative catalyst that is needed for the new management to work. Just such a spirit of cooperation and the sharing of power that comes from the sharing of information was described at length in a discussion of the California spiny lobster fishery as their research program, CALoster got underway a couple of years ago.

The integration of different types of knowledge and different scales of key biological information will enable holistic pictures of fisheries ecosystems essential to successful fisheries management. How to make this happen and what new management structures should look like are topics for future blogs as we travel with fishermen and fisheries managers down the road of EBFM – or living fish management.

*For details and emerging plans, check out some of these links:
http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/ecosys/ecology/Overview/
www.nefmc.org/tech/.../pikitch%20et%20al%20%202004.pdf

www.nefmc.org/.../Sanchirico%20et%20al%20Ecol%20Econ%20Jan08.pdf
www.nefmc.org/tech/.../8.Fogarty_NEFMC%20S&S%20Aug%2026.pdf

Seafood Throwdown Kick Off - Brooklyn Style

2011-07-19T11:41:00.020-04:00

By Brett Tolley, NAMA's community organizer

Two local chefs. One mystery fish. A spot light on local fishermen and locally-caught seafood. By the end of the day only one winner emerged, but for our 2011 kick-off Seafood Throwdown it was a win-win-win for all involved.

Kicking it off Brooklyn style - check out our Seafood Throwdown video post.

GrowNYC/Greenmarket invited us back for our second annual Seafood Throwdown, this year to be held at the Grand Army Plaza in Brooklyn. Local fisherman Alex Villani was on site and capturing the crowds curiosity and appreciation with stories about locally-caught seafood. The fish of the day was Bonito!

Seafood Throwdowns, in a nutshell, are educational and community driven events to engage the larger community in issues affecting our ocean, fishing communities and fisheries. They help us promote the ecological and economic importance of locally-caught seafood and build a broader base of support for efforts to transform fisheries and ocean policy. Read more here. And not to mention, they produce some darn-tasty food!

Under the hot Brooklyn sun the event had a great turnout and was certainly a true collaborative effort. The two local restaurants, iCi and Thistle Hill Tavern, battled for the most creative and delicious dish. Judging the event was Edible Manhattan and Edible Brooklyn's deputy editor and James Beard award-winning writer, Rachel Wharton, Blue Moon Fish's Alex Villani, and GrowNYC's David Hurd, director of the Office of Recycling Outreach and Education. Matt Timms, famously known for his rollicking Takedown series was our Emcee, giving the play-by-play for all the action.

Check out more pics from the day.

After all was said and done iCi Restaurant nudged out a one point victory over Thistle Hill Tavern. Congrats to their head chef Nate Courtland! And congrats to Thistle Hill Tavern's head chef Rebecca Weitzman, because really it was an extremely close call. Both dishes were superb!

Hope to see you at our next Seafood Throwdown. To check when a Seafood Throwdown might be coming to a neighborhood near you please see our events page.

Introduction

2011-07-07T12:23:00.001-04:00

By Cary White, NAMA's Outreach and Policy Intern

When I told one of my professors at school that I would be spending the summer doing advocacy for New England’s small-scale fishing fleet, he said, “Wow, so you’re actually doing something interesting over your break.” That’s when I began to think, yea, I guess I did sort of luck into this internship. While the rest of my friends are home waiting tables or doing busy work at some big, impersonal firm, I have attended a Fisheries Council meeting, fished out of Portland with Maine’s only commercial jig fisherman, and worked at the heart of one of the most important social events in the history of New England’s coastal communities.

My path to NAMA began in mid-November while I was participating in the Williams-Mystic maritime studies semester program. For a final project, all of the students were required to write a research paper on some marine policy issue. Being a little naïve at the time, I decided to write about Amendment 16 (The policy that set up sector management in New England). Little did I know the scope of what I was getting myself into. Having not grown up near the coast, I was surprised to discover the range of emotions and viewpoints concerning what seemed like a simple management strategy on paper. Luckily, I stumbled across the NAMA website and gave their Community Organizer Brett Tolley a call. Brett was very helpful and opened up sides of the issue that many of my other sources were ignoring and helped me grasp the source of the fishermen’s outrage. I soon found that the fisheries debate had much to do with my own political inclinations.

When I tell people that I’m working in fisheries, most people assume that I must be interested in biology or marine sciences. However, what always drew me to fisheries was in fact the social side of things. The commercial fishing profession is very unique in today’s world. Almost everyone today chooses or is pushed into making a living by selling their time to someone else. What most people fail to fully appreciate though is that for the majority of human history, this was not the case. In fact, up until about 150 years ago in America, it was considered embarrassing to have another human being be in charge of your own labor. With the demise of our country’s farms, the small boat owner-operator fisherman has become America’s closest thing to a “traditional” worker; that is, he is able to decide when, where, and for how long he works as well as choosing to whom he markets his product without having these decisions dictated by someone up the management chain. This is not to idealize the conditions of the small-boat fisherman—it is difficult, dangerous, and uncertain work—but rather to point out that, in a perfect world, he or she can lay claim to a certain degree of freedom that most other working men and women can’t. I believe that it is important for us as a society to keep alive and to take seriously these alternative structures of labor so that we have a better frame of reference when faced with choices that will impact our world.

As I’ve been with NAMA for a few weeks now, I have also begun to think more and more about the possibilities of area—or ecosystem-based—management. While almost everyone seems to have a hard time pinning down just exactly area management would look like, everyone seems to agree on its benefits. Area management aims to cut the management units up in to more bite-sized pieces and thus provide a much more holistic idea of the relationships in a marine ecosystem and better inform quota levels and fishing rights. If we read between the lines, the drive towards area management has shown us above all that science needs local knowledge. I firmly believe that while scientific studies are often useful and insightful in their own right, they can just as often turn our attention away from the statistically improbable events that might be happening before our eyes. When I went groundfishing with Ed Snell out of Portland, I caught a small glimpse just how it might feel for a fisherman who has used up his cod quota, but who still knows that the cod population is booming below his boat. Almost no one is better equipped to judge the heath of the marine environment than the fisherman himself.

Just the other day, Brett and I were talking to a couple fishermen down at the Gloucester piers and one of them remarked, “We’re the last hunter-gatherers.” I think this is almost dead on. Fishermen fill a vital role in providing food for the rest of us while ensuring the future sustainability of that food source. However, I don’t think that they need to be the last. Down the road, I believe that a successful area management program can set an example of a new way for us all to think about our relationship to the natural world; a frame of mind that is far less destructive of the natural world while simultaneously providing a more relevant and fulfilling experience for those humans who interact with it. It will provide channels for fishermen to become better conservationists and for scientists to have better access to local knowledge.

So that’s my spiel. I’ll be working with Niaz in Gloucester this summer so if anyone is in the Cape Ann area and wants to say hi, I’d be more than happy to meet you. I’m definitely an outsider to the fisheries world, so I’m grateful for any insight on navigating it.

Glad to be onboard

-Cary

Another seafood guide lets down consumers, and some really bad advice follows...

2011-07-06T09:09:00.001-04:00

by Sean Sullivan, NAMA's Marketing, Outreach and Development Associate

Sorry I just can't let this one go. I was reading up on yet another seafood guide, thinking perhaps this time someone actually got it right. In this case it is National Geographic's Seafood Decision Guide. Just the fact that it involved the word "decision" gave me cause for optimism. Finally, I thought a guide that focuses on making a decision, balancing tradeoffs, adding nuance to a complicated issue rather than dumbing it down.

Well, I should have known better. If anything this guide simplifies the rankings from Blue Ocean Institute and others into three simple metrics - Sustainability, Toxicity and Omega 3. No offense to you if those are the ways you chose your seafood, but get ready to enjoy many nights of herring on the plate.

Another example of how these guides let people down is the venerable Codfish, which scores among the lowest of all fishes in the guide. Yet locally our population of cod are doing quite well. Several fishermen recently told me that he no longer has to think to catch fish, just drops his net and hauls it back an hour later then heads home with a full boat of fish. In the world of wine it is not hard to accept that wine made from one vineyard can be world class, while another vineyard a few miles away produces swill. Why is that concept so hard for people to relate to the ocean and fish poplutions? People are not that dumb!

In any case, you the reader of a NAMA blog already know better than to go by a guide that treats you like a moron. However if you really want to be treated like a moron, you'll read this article on the benefits of frozen seafood I found on the NatGeo Guide page.

The premise alone had me giggling:

Eating frozen seafood used to seem like a punishment. But with today's technology, the fish you pull from your freezer is delicious, nutritious, more economical, and often better for the environment—and fishermen—than fresh-caught seafood.

First of all, almost all frozen on board operations are factory ships with huge nets, large amounts of by-catch fishing in less regulated fisheries. The economic, social and environmental footprint of these ships dwarfs the impact of a small day boat dragger - even if they are fishing for Cod! I'm not even going to get into the idea that frozen seafood could even come close to fresh seafood in terms of taste. There is a reason fresh seafood is prized by ALL of the best chefs.

Next they tell us:

• Reduce your environmental impact. Fresh fish has to be shipped by air to reach most consumers; frozen can be freighted by ship, rail, or truck with significantly lower environmental impact.

Um, wrong again. Frozen seafood if anything encourages imported seafood - witness the tidal wave of farmed frozen shrimp. Imported seafood travels a long way to get to the consumer, and freezing costs money and fuel. If you want to reduce your environmental impact buy local.

• Keep fishermen safer. Without the urgent pressure to deliver fresh fish immediately, fishermen can have a safer time line in which to bring their catch from sea to table. They also can choose to fish only in the best conditions.

This is so preposterous as to be libelous. I can guarantee whoever wrote this has never talked to an actual fisherman. Frozen seafood is largely from less regulated fisheries on factory ships (or in mangrove swamps converted to fish farms) with little or no safety regulations. Factory ships watch the bottom line and improve it by skimping on safety. Factory ships do not "watch the weather". That would be our venerable day-boat small scale, low impact, high quality product delivering community based fisherman that watches the weather.

• Reduce waste in processing. By freezing fish at sea, fishermen can use economies of scale to consolidate processing, adding value with volume to the total utilization of the fish.

Well to be fair to the author, this is a really good point, I think. By consolidating just like the family farms a decade ago and the mom and pop shops of the last decade under the onslaught of corporate greed, economies of scale can be achieved. So, enjoy your frozen seafood from the big box store that was brought to you on the backs of a depleted ocean by giant factory ships and underpaid workers.

Actually, I have no idea what that last sentence means: value with volume to the total utilization? Whenever I hear someone talk like that I know they either have no idea what they are talking about or are a shyster selling something too good to be true. In this case it appears to be both.

Positive Vibrations

2011-06-27T18:36:00.002-04:00

By Niaz Dorry, NAMA's Coordinating Director

I had the pleasure of taking part in the annual conference of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies – or BALLE – in Bellingham, Washington last week. Aside from being inspired by the work BALLE networks are doing, I was deeply touched by how our work was received by the conference attendees. As soon as I sat down from giving my plenary talk titled "Who Fishes Matters" exploring opportunities for creating local living marine economies, the person next to me leaned over and said, “you just changed my mind.” Wow. It could have ended there and I would have been happy. But it didn’t end there. The BALLE community’s recognition that who fishes indeed matters has been heartwarming.

With each kind word I felt the circle of support expand. It was palpable. It’ll take dozens of blog entries to cover all the memorable interactions, but I felt one in particular was worth noting here because of its connection to the fishing community where I live.

Peter Warshall

It was a conversation with Peter Warshall of Dreaming New Mexico. Turns out Peter was a good friend of the poet Charles Olson and visited him in Gloucester on numerous occasions. A native of Massachusetts, Olson spent much of his time in Gloucester and even devoted much of his poetry – including "Maximus of Gloucester," a series of poems – to America’s oldest settled fishing port. Peter said after hearing about our work all he could think of was “Charles would have loved this work.” It would be an understatement to say that I was humbled by Peter’s comments not only because of who Peter is and the work he does to transform "policies, habits and consumption so they reflect the ecological and local realities of watersheds, foodsheds and energysheds,” but also who Olson was.

Peter’s feedback left me in high spirits and I left the conference feeling energized. But it wasn’t just the response to our work that left me feeling we can change the world, it was the entire spirit of those present. There was not only a sense that “we can do this” but proof that we are already on the way and our community is rapidly expanding.

A memorable meal at Jeremy's

As I envisioned this broader community, I couldn’t help think about the phrase “community supported fishery” or CSF. It’s no secret that we have been big supporters of the creation of CSFs for variety of reasons. I’m sure if you are engrossed in the operations of a CSF it’s easy to get caught up in the seafood selling elements of the program. But it’s the community building element of the model that has captured my imagination and that of those I’ve visited on this coast to coast trip, who include Bellingham’s Jeremy Brown and Anne Mosness, two people who have fished in the Pacific Northwest for decades. Anne’s family for generations. You haven't tasted seafood till you've had Anne's smoked salmon (complete with freshly foraged wild mushrooms) and Jeremy's canned tuna!

Anne's wild salmon and mushrooms

Community building is NAMA’s main motivation behind CSFs. Sure… the model ensures fishermen get paid a fair price for catching less fish and consumers get a handle on their source of marine based foods. But we at NAMA are focused on long-term social change on the water to benefit our communities, the environment and our economies. We can’t realize these changes if the fishermen who can do the most ecological good and who are most affected by myopic, micromanagement currently common practice in the fisheries world are not socially empowered and economically supported. Such social and economic isolation keeps them from taking their proper seat at the table where issues pertinent to their lives and livelihoods are being debated.

It’s the social element that hurts ecologically minded, community-based fishermen most. Many of them feel totally alone. I can’t tell you how often I hear small-scale fishermen say, “no one cares about us.” CSFs are putting them in touch with those who care. Seafood Throwdowns are showing them first hand the love their communities have for them in a fun, creative, interactive way.

That’s why something Naz Sanfilippo, a Gloucester fisherman, said echoes in my head all the time. He said, “in these dark times of fisheries management, the CSF is a beacon of hope.” Charles Olson would have probably loved hearing that from Naz.

This beacon of hope is now brighter from the additional light of the BALLE community. I know I can already see a brighter path.

Numbers Don't Add Up

2011-06-17T16:11:00.003-04:00

By Brett Tolley, NAMA's community organizer

I recently had an interesting conversation with a Maine fisherman.

The New England groundfish fishery is becoming increasingly unaffordable to smaller-scale family fishermen. Most agree. Getting to the heart of why and what that shift implies is less agreeable.

Here’s just one concrete example of what unaffordability looks like from the captain's seat of a Gulf of Maine small-scale fisherman.

Paul (fake name) owns and operates his own 40 ft. boat. He’s been fishing for 20 years and strongly believes in ecological stewardship. His current permit allows him to catch about ¼ of what he needs to make a year’s salary. In the new sector management system permits are tied to quota, or a percentage of the total allowable catch. The quota can be bought, sold, and traded. For Paul, in order to compensate for his small quota percentage he needs to lease from other boats.

When Paul enters the leasing market he is competing with companies five times his size and boats that can harvest five times his capacity. Already he is at a disadvantage. But it doesn’t stop there. Larger-scale boats can also target fish when the market price is highest and thus they drive up the leasing costs.

Here’s the example: Paul relies on white hake for his catch and currently his quota is too low. If he cannot lease white hake it threatens to shut Paul down for the season. Right now the going rate to lease white hake is $.75/lb (keep in mind this is just for the rights to fish). During the summer months Paul earns anywhere from $.75-1.00/lb. at the docks for white hake. For Paul the numbers don’t add up.

Paul pays $.75/lb. just for the rights to fish and then (without factoring in gas costs, crew, ice, etc.) he earns somewhere between $.75-1.00/lb. at the docks??

How could anyone make a profit with those numbers? They don't. Larger-scale boats are causing the leasing price to be extraordinarily high because they can target white hake during the poor-weather months (typically during the winter time) when the price may exceed $2.00/lb. and when smaller-scale boats won't be able to access the area. Larger-scale boats drive the leasing price and in the end Paul's out of luck.

The result: Paul and other fishermen like him lease their fishing rights to the larger-scale boats.

What’s the problem? Some folks might say, “Survival of the fittest. The boats who are the most economically efficient will outcompete the rest. They will harvest the most, in the shortest amount of time, and offer the cheapest prices to consumers. And since the fleet is operating under a strict total allowable catch, it’s all sustainable.”

The problem is that our status quo rewards those with the largest-scale boats and the deepest pockets. Paul brings values to the table that go beyond just economic efficiency yet he is not rewarded or incentivized. See our Who Fishes Matters page to learn more. In short, Paul brings higher ecological, social, and economic values to his community. If fishermen like Paul are getting squeezed out it poses long-term problems like the ones we are seeing in the land-based food system that is driven by industrialization. i.e. depleted lands, food-related disease such as diabetes, and displaced family farmers.

Affordability and access to fish are a major threat to family fishermen, the health of our oceans, and the quality of our food system. Help us in taking action and spreading the word. Supporters are invited to write a Letter-to-the-Editor to their local newspapers as part of a New England wide drive to increase awareness. You can also ‘sign’ our petition.

Badlands - Badfish

2011-06-13T09:53:00.010-04:00

By Niaz Dorry, NAMA's Coordinating Director

I got pulled over in Illinois. I’ve been driving across the country with my dog Hailey heading to BALLE’s national conference, amongst other stops.

Getting pulled over is never fun. The highway patrol officer asked me what I was up to… was I on vacation or what? I told him I was headed to Bellingham, Washington to give a talk on fisheries issues. He asked for the typical stuff… my driver’s license and registration. But he also asked for my business card. I gave him a card and one of our seafood wallet cards. He went off to his car as I anxiously awaited my fate.

He came back and handed me my stuff plus a written warning (you have to read the whole blog to find out what I was warned about). Then he went on to talk about fisheries issues. He said the reason he was interested was that along the Mississippi River, where he lives, small scale commercial fishermen are losing their businesses to fish farms, imported seafood and big chain stores and with that has come loss of tradition, livelihoods, access to good local fish, businesses and a social element of their communities which are deeply connected to the river’s environment. Sound familiar? It seems even in the mid-west who fishes matters.

We went on to discuss what’s going on around the world and how fishing communities everywhere are facing the same problems.

I was grateful to only have a warning and went on my way. As I drove through the mid-west stopping at various places for meals, I couldn’t help noticing the seafood items on the menus… “farm-raised white fish” was the most predominant item. How much more generic can we get? White fish? What is that? What happened to recognizing our food? Do we put “round red globes” on the menu instead of tomatoes? Or “red meat” instead of beef or lamb?

Going through South Dakota was one of the highlights of the trip. Having never been there before, I was looking forward to taking a couple of days to hike through the Badlands and the Black Hills. As I expected, the place took my breath away. The history and scenery was amazing. I could imagine what the place looked liked when the buffalo were running free, the original people taking care of the land and there were no billboards advertising all you can eat shrimp. Almost all the seafood advertised in this area comes either from factory farms or factory fishing operations.

Spearfish Creek Canyon, South Dakota

It was on the menu of a tiny little place called Cheyenne Crossing that I noticed particular attention to where their seafood comes from. Alaskan cod and halibut were the main items featured, which are not bad considering the Pacific Northwest is the closest place to this part of the world where marine based fishing is taking place. So in many ways, they were offering as local as they could. But Cheyenne Crossing is right on the Spearfish Creek where fishing used to be a mainstay. Mining in the Black Hills affected the river’s health and it has taken years for it to be considered healthy. Recreational fishing happens on the Creek, but I couldn’t tell if there was any fish from the Creek actually on any menus. Which took me back to the stop in Illinois and the story the highway patrol officer told me about their local fisheries.

I realized even more the importance of our work on fleet diversity and maintaining healthy marine fisheries that feed our food systems, our communities, our economies and our lives without undermining the health of the ocean.

By the way, I was pulled over for following too closely. I didn’t want to argue about how the car in front me pulled in from the left lane once s/he saw the highway patrol car in the median. Talking about whether it would have been safer for me to break suddenly or pull abruptly in the left lane was not going to be as much fun or productive as the conversation I ended up having with the officer. Talking about fisheries instead put us on a level playing field and created a connection between two ships passing on the Illinois toll road.

Live from Fleet Diversity Workshop!

2011-06-09T10:59:00.004-04:00

The conference ended somewhat abruptly with the PDT taking the role of synthesizing the workgroups efforts and sending out a summation via email, which we will post as soon as we get it.

Afternoon update:

The four breakout groups are now reporting on what they came up with for Fleet Diversity goals and measures. There seems to be a consensus that Community Fishing Associations should be developed as a means to address fleet diversity.

Allocation limits are problematic across the board and that more analysis would need to be done to find a way to put any sort of meaningful cap in place.

"Use it or lose it" provisions are getting some support. Dave Goethal refers to them as "Slipper Captains."

It looks like the meeting is breaking up...analysis later.

Post lunch update:
Interesting that this workgroup is so focused on Community Fishing Associations yet have not even discussed baseline leasing restrictions, owner-operator requirements, and fully dismissed any kind of quota set asides.

Without someone to champion these ideas, they are getting no voice at all.
___________________________________

Hi All! Live from Danvers, MA today we'll be covering the Fleet Diversity workshop. The NEFMC Groundfish comittee, SSC and Groundfish Advisory committee have been broekn out into four workgroups. I'll be covering one of them, workgroup 1.

So far, the scuttlebutt is that the council doesn't want to deal with Fleet Diversity. They want to let the market deal with any issues.

Workgroup One is having a hard time seeing that there is any problem. There has been some productive discussion about Community based organizations as being the answer to fleet diversity. But some of the more vocal members of the group are arguing that there is no problem and therefore nothing should be done, let the markets do their job.

Allocation limits conversation is revolving around the difficulties of doing anything to split out species from permits, permits from sectors etc.,

11:30 AM Update
The morning agenda is:

The group is asked to recommend what goals and objectives should be considered if the
Council pursues an action on fleet diversity.

Topics to consider:

• What social and economic goals and objectives could be considered for fleet
diversity and accumulation limits?
• Which are desirable for the groundfish fishery?
• Are the current goals in the FMP adequate for addressing fleet diversity and
accumulation limits?
• Should goals for the management plan be consistent through time, or should they
respond to conditions in the fishery?
• The National Standard guidelines prohibit the attainment of excessive shares in a
fishery. What should be considered an “excessive share”?
• How should changes in the fishery be monitored, and are current data sources
adequate? Are there undesirable changes that should be avoided or watched for?

Work Product:

The group should prepare answers to the following questions:
1) Which goals are more important related to diversity and accumulation limits?
2) What is an excessive share?
3) Should diversity goals and accumulation limits be responsive to changing industry
conditions?

The workgroup has focused on Community Fishing Associations as one of of the goals that should be explored to deal with diversity. They largely got hung up on how to deal with excessive shares owning to the difficulty of splitting out permits according to species etc. And lastly, they agree that the Council should include an annual review of these issues as part of the priority setting process.

There is a general sense at this table, even an indignity that this "issue" is even on the table. "Why are we dealing with this?"
"No other fisheries have to deal with this, for example Redcrab!"

The indignity and lack of recognition that there may be a legitimate concern out there is lost on some of the participants here. It has always struck me as very strange that there is such a disconnect from what politicians are saying in public, what we hear from a lot of fishermen and what is happening in the council. Why is that?

Fleet Diversity once again on the docket at NEFMC

2011-06-07T16:07:00.000-04:00

by Sean Sullivan, NAMA's Marketing, Development and Outreach Associate

A lot has changed in a year. A year ago, the New England Fisheries Management Council was not talking about Fleet Diversity. Politicians were not talking about the negative impacts to communities and smaller scale community based fishermen from Catch Shares. The mainstream press and non-mainstream press was not talking about our local seafood as sustainable.

Now, far be it for us to take all the credit for all these things happening, but uh, well, uh, yeah, actually maybe we should tke some credit here. A year ago, NAMA's Brett Tolley presented the New England Fisheries Management Council's (NEFMC) Multi-species committee (now called the Groundfish Committee) wth the outcomes of the Fleet Vision Project. One of outcomes he suggested they consider is preserving a diverse fleet. Now almost exactly a year later, the NEFMC has convened a workshop on Fleet Diversity. I cannot guarantee it, but I can say with confidence that if Brett had not championed this issue, there would not be a workshop taking place this week. (Credit for this should go also to the many fishermen, scientists, activists and partners who have all testified over the course of the year that they care "Who Fishes Matters!").

This workshop will most likely determine which if any protections will be recommended to be put in place to protect a diverse fleet. If you care about preserving a diverse fleet, we've created a sign on letter and a petition you can sign to tell the NEFMC that you care about preserving a diverse fleet.

A Rare Opportunity to Change How Fisheries are Regulated

2011-05-24T16:20:00.000-04:00

by Sean Sullivan NAMA's Marketing, Outreach and Development Associate

Russia is famously described as a mystery wrapped in a conundrum. The New England Fisheries Management Council process and meetings could well be described the same way. Ordinary logic flies out the window at council meetings. Vast numbers of fish are discarded dead overboard in the name of saving fish. Fishermen are watched like criminals, penalized like landed peasantry, treated routinely with disrespect when they summon the courage to speak. It can be a pretty grim environment. And to be fair, even those who oppose our work find the process tedious, confusing and unfulfilling. You rarely see people walking out of council and comittee meetings happy.

Some of this misery is captured in a recent report from NOAA, "New England Fishery Management Review". The report finds faults across the board in how the NEFMC works, how the agencies responsible for the science, oversight and enforcement fail to work together, how fishermen are excluded from the process and of course, as we've been saying for years - the Council operates without any kind of vision or strategic plan.

Well, there may be an opportunity to change much of how the council conducts it's business. NOAA has promised to enact many of the reforms recommended in the report, including creating a shared stakeholder vision, improving collaboration between agencies and fishermen and increasing the inclusiveness of the process itself.

NOAA will be accepting comments on the report and the recommendations in the report until this Friday May 27, 2011.

Thus comes a rare opportunity for seafood lovers, local food activists, seafood dealers, CSF folks, fishermen, shoreside service providers - ANYONE who cares about healthy oceans to speak up and tell NOAA to reform the process.

We've created a page that explains a bit about the report and gives you a number of ways to speak out on this subject. It will only take a few minutes of your time. I've been called naively optimistic (among other less flattering things!) but I beleive if we can reform the process and create an effective shared vision New England can and SHOULD have the best fishery in the world, one that provides jobs, seafood, and maintains a healthy ocean.

So, please take a few minutes and tell NOAA what you think.

Local Access and Local Control Over Who Fishes

2011-05-18T11:23:00.000-04:00

By Brett Tolley, NAMA's Community Organizer

I come from a long line of family-fishermen but I did not become a fisherman myself. In an unlikely career path (to my father at least) I became a Community Organizer instead. I worked for several years in Brooklyn, NY organizing tenants who were being forced out of their communities by gentrification. Folks who lived in neighborhoods for generations, who also worked there, all of a sudden couldn't afford to live there anymore. Sound familiar?

Maybe it was my sub-conscience picking up on these issues as a young boy listening to my grandfather, uncles, and father talk fish at the family barbeque. Because to me, the same issues that folks face in a gentrifying community are the same issues that our family fishermen face today in New England. The cost to access the rights to fish are skyrocketing, quota is being concentrated into the hands of a few, and there are fewer opportunities for young people like myself to enter the industry.

In the fisheries world one of the biggest threats is access to fishing rights. Right now New England fisheries are going through a transition and issues like access to fish, who gets to fish, and the future of our fisheries are all at stake.

Fishermen like BG Brown talk about how in the past a person could work their way from a deck-hand to a captain to a boat-owner. Nowadays unless a deck-hand wins the lottery there is little chance they may one day own and operate a boat.

We believe that Who Fishes Matters and that means it's not just about how much fish gets caught. Who catches the fish is equally important because of the ecological, social, and economic implications. If we look to the food community (fish is a food after all!) there are groups like the US Food Sovereignty Alliance who also believe that Who harvests the food matters. Access to food impacts all community members and should therefore be in the control of the local food providers as well as the community. This principal is also echoed in the Internationally Recognized Principals for Food Sovereignty.

How do we ensure local access and control over who fishes?

In the housing world we promote local control/access with things like affordable housing programs, fair laws and policies, good paying jobs, education opportunities, and bottom-up community planning... to name just a few.

In the fisheries world we need the same. Tools like permit banks, protections for fleet diversity, fair prices to local fishermen, caps on the accumulation of fishing rights, and bottom-up government are all needed.

One tool in particular, permit banks, is relatively new to New England fisheries and are in the early stages of development. The model is similar to that of affordable housing -- the intent is to provide affordable access that is anchored in a particular community. And like affordable housing it matters that those most impacted by policy are the same voices that shape the model moving forward.

Right now there's a chance to weigh in and help shape the direction of permit banks in it's early stages. The New England Fisheries Council is now accepting public comments on a rule that will effect State-Operated Permit Banks. To learn more and to weigh in click here.

To get involved in other ways you can sign our petition, join our newsletter, or consider becoming part of the Fish Locally Collaborative.

Consolidation of the fleet confirmed by NE Science Center

2011-05-17T10:10:00.005-04:00

By Sean Sullivan, NAMA's Outreach Marketing and Development Associate

As if it were not obvious from the lack of activity along the waterfronts of smaller ports and those with dayboat fleets, the New England Science Center's review of the first year of sectors confirms what almost everyone now knows, the New England fleet is rapidly consolidating into the hands a few. From the executive summary:

Several measures of fishing activity and effort also continued to decline in 2010:
there were 18% fewer active vessels in 2010 than in 2007, 46% fewer groundfish trips, 38% fewer days absent on groundfish trips, and fewer crew positions, days, and trips.

So, not only are there less fishermen and crew out there fishing, fishing revenues are also consolidating into the hands of a few:

There has also been an increasing concentration of groundfish revenues among top earning vessels, as revenues have become consolidated on fewer vessels. About 66% of revenues from groundfish sales during 2007-2009 resulted from landings by 20% of active groundfish vessels. In 2010, 75% of the revenues from groundfish sales resulted from landings by 20% of active groundfish vessels.

Those in favor of consolidation point to increased revenues as a sign that sectors are working to help the industry. But, as the report notes, revenues are up but only compared to the last two years:

Revenues from all species landed were higher in 2010 than in 2008 or 2009, but were $4 million less than in 2007.

These are trends that are part and parcel of privatization schemes. We've seen the rapid consolidation of family farms. We've also seen other privatized fisheries turn into what are in effect sharecropper arrangements where quota "owners" lease out quota to fishermen.

It sure seems like folks are waking up to the loss of our community based fishermen, but will it be too late?

-Sean

2011-05-15T16:28:00.000-04:00

Each week in conjunction with Cape Ann Fresh Catch we publish another blog. The Cape Ann Fresh Catch blog generally covers fisheries regulation, but also covers issues germane to other CSF's, and of course occaisionally something related to our love of seafood. This week, reprinted below, we continue on the theme of "What can I do to help change the current state of seafood?"

____________________________

Last week, we discussed the amazingly Orwellian life of a commercial fisherman. When people hear how regulated and heavy-handed regulations are for commercial fishermen they often ask, "What I can do to help change things?"

The first and easiest (and admittedly something that most of you who may be reading this blog are already doing by buying shares at Cape Ann Fresh Catch or another CSF) is to stop buying seafood from the great international fish conspiracy. Here is the easiest and best thing you can do for your health and the health of the oceans and fishermen everywhere:

Stop buying imported farmed shrimp.

Farmed shrimp have a terrible track record.

They are often pumped full of antibiotic's, live in crowded conditions and are farmed in sensitive environments like mangrove swamps.

Also, the testing of imported seafood for contaminants is questionable enough that states have taken it upon themselves to test seafood with less than stellar results.

Not only that but at least to me, they taste awful, a bit like rubber mixed with cardboard and ammonia.

So that's easy right? Just eat local Maine shrimp, fresh in season or frozen out of season. Or support Gulf of Mexico fishermen and buy shrimp from the gulf. (No time here to go into the health and safety aspects of whether Gulf of Mexico shrimp are OK to eat or not. Some reading on that here and here if you care to delve into it.)

And, feel free to lecture your buddies on this subject, you'll be doing them favor!

Another way to get involved is to submit comments to the government on policy issues. This week you can weigh in on state operated permit banks. Its a bit of a complicated issue, but you can find all you need to know here (and also further down the blog in Brett's post.)

Morality & the Marginalized

2011-05-09T13:46:00.014-04:00

By Niaz Dorry, NAMA's Coordinating Director

Welcome to the first entry in NAMA's blog. Most people don't expect fisheries issues to be couched in the context of morality or marginalization. That needs to change. So we thought we would start our blog by sharing with you a couple of unintended compliments we received recently.

Earlier this year in a meeting with someone who works closely with fishing communities, I was told that we were working with the marginalized. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t a compliment. In fact, it was said with a tone that suggested we weren’t working with those who really mattered.

Later, at a meeting of the New England Fishery Management Council, our call for fleet diversity was couched as a moral issue not a fishery management one by someone testifying before the council. I’m certain the testimony was intended to suggest it doesn’t really matter who fishes and the council should disregard calls for fleet diversity. Although I agree with the speaker that the issue is a moral one, I disagree that it’s not a fishery management one.

I must admit at first both comments made me pause. I wasn’t sure whether I should be insulted or not. Within a few seconds I found myself feeling proud to be regarded as working to represent those who are marginalized while pursuing a moral agenda. After all, some of my heroes spent their life’s work pursuing moral issues on behalf of the marginalized. Not that I consider us in the same league as Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. or others whose life was spent exposing wrongdoings of systems that undermine the lives of millions at a great cost to all just so that a few can benefit and hold power, but we have reached the point in the fishing world where we are making decisions about who gets to fish.

More and more fisheries are beginning to resemble the rest of the world: fisheries wealth and power are being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. Anyone who doesn’t think this concentration of power has adverse consequences for the marine ecosystem hasn’t been paying attention to what’s been going on around the world and/or other industries.

Let’s see… the financial industry, housing industry, agriculture, media and health care.

Fisheries are no different, and more and more fisheries policies are resembling those that brought us the banking disasters, the financial meltdown, the destruction of agriculture and we won’t even talk about health care.

And who are the marginalized? They are fishermen like Naz Sanfilippo of Gloucester. When I first met Naz by his boat, he told me this story: there is a tree across the street where Naz ties his boat. His father taught him to watch for when that tree blooms before he goes fishing for cod. One year Naz decided to ignore his father’s advice and sure enough… he came home empty handed. Regardless of the ethics, values, skills and knowledge Naz brings to his fishing operation, current fisheries management strategies aren't made to value his operations. He's considered too small to matter.

You can watch other testimonies from some other so-called marginalized fishermen of New England.

If political power is determined by ones investment portfolio or bank accounts or ability to hire lobbyists, then our priorities are way out of whack. We know the so called marginalized – the community based fishing businesses like Naz’ and others like him – are those with the least ecological impact and bring the most value to our food system, local economies and local communities. These are best portrayed in this chart by Daniel Pauly in 2006:

Pauly wasn't the first one to lay out these differences in such an easy to understand fashion. When I first began working on fisheries issues in 1994, it was the work of Peter Weber in the Worldwatch Institute paper #12 Net Loss: Fish, Jobs & The Marine Environment, that caught my eye:

There are major moral incongruities in the current fisheries management systems that not only jeopardize the lives of marginalized fishermen around the globe, but the very marine ecosystem fisheries management is meant to protect.

Who Fishes Matters… and if we are to stop fisheries from following the path of other industries that have valued consolidation and concentration of power instead of all other values, then we are in for a bumpy ride that will leave a lot of damage in its wake.

We can change the course. Let’s bring the perceived marginalized fishermen back into the page and address the moral issues we have to tackle because they have huge ecological implications.