MSC gets dumped by salmon producers

yak2you2

2012-02-04 16:58:08

I know it doesn't have anything to do with the recent MSC certification of the Polluk draggers, ( which is an absolute insult to the rest of us IMHO), and it has everything to do with trying to highjack the industry for to much money, but I for one am ecstatic that salmon are no longer associated with this outfit. To me they were like a potent mix of executive banker, environmental activist, and used car salesman. I say good riddance. To me, we were giving our lunch money to the guys who use to beat us up, so they would tell everybody we are ok guys.







Processors look to U.N. for sustainable certification



The eight major salmon buyers in Alaska, including Icicle Seafoods, Trident, Peter Pan, and Ocean Beauty, are withdrawing their financial support for the Marine Stewardship Council's sustainable seafood certification for Alaska wild salmon beyond October 2012, when the current certification expires, a move that essentially dooms the certification.



The Alaska Fisheries Development Association, which is the client responsible for getting the product re-certified, issued a statement that said those processors buy and market about 72 percent of Alaska salmon.



At issue is mostly the money processors must spend for the certification, according to a statement released by AFDA.



"The level of industry support for MSC certification has changed substantially since 2010," the statement read. "After receiving letters from the aforementioned eight Alaska Salmon Processors, the AFDA Board of Directors met January 16 to consider its best course of action. Lacking substantial industry support for continuing MSC salmon certification beyond October 29, 2012, the Board was compelled to comply with the requests of its major clientship sponsors and instructed AFDA Executive Director, Jim Browning, to proceed only with those actions necessary to maintain the MSC certification of Alaska Salmon through October 29, 2012.



"While individual companies requested their letters be held confidential, their reasons for announcing their phased pullout note that MSC certification has been welcome and valuable for more than a decade. MSC has offered independent affirmation of what the Alaska industry and fishery managers have held since statehood: that Alaska salmon fisheries are sustainably managed. However, the majority of these processors now feel it is time to redirect their resources toward a broader marketing message."



In an online article, Seafood News noted that Alaska processors, whose product was sustainable prior to the existence of the MSC and whose product will be sustainable long after the MSC, have evolved into a new organizational form. They believe they can better market the sustainability and unique qualities of wild Alaska salmon, as well as meet the needs of their customers for responsible sourcing, by withdrawing from the MSC program. The move allows those customers who rely on third-party certification to get such certification from the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization standards through Global Trust.



The move is a boost to FAO's Responsible Fisheries Management certification process, whose mandate is achieving food security for all, and whose budget is funded by voluntary contributions.



The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute noted that the cost of FAO certification will not be passed on to the processors.



In an ASMI press statement, Commissioner Cora Campbell of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game said, "We are pleased that the Responsible Fisheries Management certification model has taken hold. It's a model that fits the purpose of what certification should be about — providing credible verification that fishery management is conducted in accordance with accepted international norms, leaving actual management decisions up to our professional staff."



Although the processors pulling out of the MSC re-certification process has probably been in the works for awhile, it comes just days after three Canadian conservation groups had announced they were strongly protesting the MSC re-certification, a move timed to coincide with the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations between the United States and Canada. The groups are taking credit for the Alaska processors dropping the MSC eco-label.



Those groups, Raincoast Conservation Foundation, SkeenaWild Conservation Trust and Watershed Watch Salmon Society, claim that the practice of Alaskan hatcheries releasing billions of salmon fry into the North Pacific, known as "ocean ranching," competes with and harms wild stocks from British Columbia.



The other major Alaska fisheries that bear the MSC label are the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska pollock, both of which were re-certified in 2010, and will not face another certification until 2015. No decision has been made regarding processors remaining in the pollock certification program.



ADFA and MSC stressed that all salmon caught and marketed during the upcoming season will still be able to carry the MSC "Sustainable Fishery" label.



A federal judge has ruled for the National Marine Fisheries Service in the battle between the State of Alaska, Alaska Seafood Cooperative and the Freezer Longline Coalition over closing fishing areas in the Aleutian Islands to protect food sources for endangered Stellar sea lions.



Alaska U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Burgess said that while he sympathized with the plaintiffs for the substantial financial losses due to the closures, "the Court must defer to the technical expertise of the agency as long as there is a rational connection between the evidence and its conclusions.



"In this case, the Court finds that NMFS did not apply improper (Endangered Species Act) standards and that the evidence, although equivocal, was sufficient to support its conclusions that the fisheries were likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the (Western District Population Segment) and adversely modify its critical habitat."



The judge also indicated that although the procedures NMFS followed to comply with its obligations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act and Administrative Procedures Act were "far from ideal," the deviations were not sufficient to reverse the fisheries closures.



NMFS estimates that the closures and restrictions will cost the fishing industry between $44 million and $61 million per year, and between 250 and 750 jobs.



The ruling came out at the same time that a study published by researchers at Oregon State University and the Alaska SeaLife Center found that predation by killer whales and sharks may have a decidedly irreversible impact on sea lion populations.



According to an article in the Anchorage Daily News, the study following 36 juvenile Stellar sea lions in 2005 found that by November 2011, 12 had died, a death rate that's not exceptional, according to OSU marine mammal expert Markus Horning.



The difference is the number killed by predation.



Previous models have suggested falling birth rates as a reason why Steller sea lions have not recovered.



Those models, however, essentially present a hypothesis unconfirmed by hard data, Horning said. Instead, it's possible that high levels of predation are the predominant factor preventing the recovery of the species.



"Our model suggests that even if the birth rate would be as high as is possible, if every female out there has a pup every year, the population could still not recover unless predation were reduced," he said.



Cristy Fry has commercial fished out of Homer and King Cove since 1978. She can be reached at realist468@gmail.com.

yak2you2

2012-02-04 21:30:35

interesting, looks like an internal feud brewing. at least some of them are smart enough to realize that blackmail and tantrums is going to work.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyLUjOBKLwQ

yak2you2

2012-02-05 00:20:29

is NOT going to work.

Salty

2012-02-05 01:31:08

Yak,

My sources tell me this is a terrible disaster for Alaska salmon and hope the powers to be come to their senses before our markets and prices collapse. The Alaska Fisheries report has a great story this week on the situation.

It is one thing to be upset at bullying, it is quite another to slice your wrists to bloody him.

Salty

2012-02-05 07:03:22

A friend of mine who lurks but seldom posts compared this move by Alaska processors to the fishermen in Bristol Bay suing their Japanese processors.



He says this will mostly affect the high quality Alaska salmon shipped abroad, like troll quality silvers etc.

Drew

2012-02-05 19:39:52

"Alaska wild salmon is no longer certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council."



How does this sentence sound to you?



Does it sound like a good thing to be telling consumers?

Salty

2012-02-05 21:10:55

From an e-mail from a friend of mine who knows something about marketing his fish.



"The europeans are serious about sourcing their food. They will stop buying the high end products. This means troll salmon. Cheaper fish do not require MSC to move. Only quality products need a quality label."



Oh, well.

paul

2012-02-05 21:49:20

The Bering Sea P-codders spent a lot of money to get MSC certified. Look where they are at now. They are building new boats.

yak2you2

2012-02-08 14:55:51

Sustainable certification is a great idea, if that's what some of the customers want. However, it should be some official agency that handles it, not what amounts to being a subsidiary of Greenpeace. If you've got the money, they'll sign off anyone, they proved that by certifying the draggers. It's extortion, and you cannot negotiate. Regularly they ignore glaring things that are wrong based on political climate. No, if it,s going to be like that, and you feel we need certification better to have some stability. Think about it, how much money do you have at stake? Ok now how much do all the majors have at stake? These guys aren't stupid, they bailed for a very good reason.

I'd rather spend the money on marketing, and education myself.

yak2you2

2012-02-08 16:09:24

When you look at the salmon, halibut, and other species of by-catch killed and dumped over the side by the draggers, there is no way you can say with a clear conscience that you think this is a sustainable way to fish. MSC certified them. So, it is all about the money. Period. They have no credibility, and it's not all they ignore.

MSC Marine Stewardship Council. Heavily dependant on Monterrey Bay Aquarium for their guidance. So, they know full well the plight of the California salmon of late. Everybody can plainly see what the problem is in California, the Agricultural industry sucks to much water out of the rivers for the ever increasing growth of their produce. The same producers that MSC refuses to call out for their actions. I'd like to know how much MSC got paid to stay quiet about that?

Interesting to note Bristol Bay. You should check the place out now-a-days. Most boats are RSW, trip limits are regular to avoid plugging the producers, and permit values are climbing. Their product is doing better now than it ever was.

Salty

2012-02-08 19:01:40

I sat in on the Bristol Bay Seafood presentation at fish expo. Learned a lot. They are definitely making great strides on care of their Sockeye, which is actually good news for all Alaska salmon fishermen, even though it makes their product more competitive with our troll silvers.



MSC is a subsidiary of the World Wildlife Fund which is quite a bit different than Greenpeace.



Some fishermen on this forum might not be aware that Greenpeace really helped when we organized SeaCops to get rid of high seas salmon gillnetting. Keep that in mind every time you think about bashing them. Politics often makes for strange bedfellows on particular issues.

yak2you2

2012-02-08 19:29:34

I often use Greenpeace as a generic name for environmental organizations. You are right, it is a mistake for me to do this. I stand by the rest of my opinion on MSC certification.

spike christopher

2012-02-09 00:38:07

Salty, most the time I agree with you, but not on the green peace issue.



Is this the same green peace that

1. Demanded the halibut fisherman not set their gear closer than five mile radius around a sea lion pull out.

2. Not allow any trapping or taking of sea otters no matter how they deplete the Dungeness crab and sea urgent as well as abalone.

3. Not allow any firer arms in the wild life refuges’ mean while the bears kill people who happen to walk on to them or their kill sites.

4. Demand that all boats no matter what size, grind up all their waste.

5. Demand that we crap three miles from shore.

6. That no matter what the whales do including destroying our salmon release, or eating all the sable fish on our gear we can’t harass them to get them away.

7. That all commerce stop traveling up Cook Inlet to Anchorage because the Beluga whale population is down.

I could go on for some time but you get my drift.

As you can tell I’m not a big fan, I would never get in bed with them as you might find some of your appendices missing when you climb out of bed in the morning.

Now there are some things I agree with them but for every one I agree with there are 10 that I don't I don't find that very good odds.

But no matter how much I rant I'm still open to the issues.

Salty

2012-02-09 04:32:17

Spike,

I think there are a lot of things about a lot of groups that we don't like, even though we may find ourselves allied on a particular issue. I, for example, believe that the elevation of marine mammals in some parts of Europe and North America to the "sacred cow" status of some beef in India is just plain ridiculous.



That doesn't mean I don't participate in, support, and enjoy our Sitka Whale fest.