But just days after several environmental groups took very public aim at Alaska’s ocean ranching program, several Alaska salmon processors have given notice that they’re no longer interested in the Marine Stewardship Council’s eco-certification label.

Possibly unrelated, but nonetheless interesting.

The Epoch Times reports that several environmental groups are claiming the eco-dump as a “victory”, which seems strange, given that eco-certifications actually help raise the bar on fishery and aquaculture sustainability. But hey, common sense isn’t always a strong point of environmental activists. We digress…

This recent public questioning of Alaska’s “wild” salmon sustainability has highlighted what this blog has discussed for many years now – that is – Alaska’s salmon has long been given a free pass in the seafood sustainability discussion. You can’t just pump billions of fish into the ocean and call it “sustainable fisheries management”.

Biologist Aaron Hill agrees. ”Nobody seems to talk about Alaska and what they’re doing to the (fish) populations,” Hill says.

Well, they’re starting to now Aaron.

Read the full Epoch Times report here - http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/canada/alaskan-salmon-fishery-drops-eco-certification-bc-groups-take-credit-177652.html

The Raincoast Conservation Foundation, SkeenaWild Conservation Trust, and Watershed Watch Salmon Society are taking aim at Alaskan salmon fisheries that are damaging BC

Hidden Falls Salmon Ranching Hatchery

fish stocks.

They are challenging the current recertification of these fisheries by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) - the world’s foremost eco-certification label for sustainable fisheries. The groups cite interception of Canadian-bound salmon and steelhead from at-risk populations as a key concern, along with “reckless” ocean-ranching practices – a form of fish farming not practiced in Canada.

They claim the Canadian federal government is not doing enough to protect at-risk salmon stocks from being overfished as they migrate through Alaskan waters to their natal streams in BC and the Yukon and is turning a blind eye to Alaskan ocean-ranching operations that every year flood the North Pacific ocean with billions of farm-raised salmon which compete with wild Canadian salmon for limited food supplies.

It will be very interesting to see how quickly American based funders of these three “Canadian” environmental groups get cold feet and night sweats. It can’t be easy “outting” the hand that feeds you!

For the complete release, please read http://www.marketwatch.com/story/canadian-conservationists-challenge-unsustainable-alaskan-salmon-fisheries-2012-01-11

A recent study concludes that “Steelhead trout that are originally bred in hatcheries are so genetically impaired that, even if they survive and reproduce in the wild, their offspring will also be significantly less successful at reproducing.”

Perhaps more interesting is the title given by one news source; “Farmed Fish Harm Wild Gene Pool”.

“Farmed fish”? Was this title created to capture headlines, capitilizing on the wild vs farmed fish controversy. Or is it acknowledgement of the fact that hatchery fish are not wild, and therefore farmed. We digress…

The findings, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, raise concerns about programs to supplement wild populations of salmon and steelhead by releasing young hatchery fish near spawning grounds, the paper reported. Unlike conventional hatcheries, supplementation programs try to integrate the hatchery populations into wild populations, many protected under the Endangered Species Act.

Wow, sounds nasty. So scary.

But Peter Galbreath, a fishery scientist with the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, plugs in a bit of common sense and forgotten history into the story. “It’s important to remember that hatchery supplementation is a response to declining or depressed salmon populations, not the cause,” he mentions.  

Thank you Peter. Yes, let’s not forget that “aquaculture”, whether it be hatcheries, fish ranches or farms, began because whatever we were doing at the time, wasn’t working. (a Dr. Phil quote would fit perfectly here)

The solutions may not be perfect, but they are a hell of a lot better than continuing to hunt and gather every last sea creature in the ocean. Important to remember the next time you read a scary, search engine optimized title about the ills of aquaculture.

Unaccountable Activism?

industry. It turns out that activists from a left-wing university in British Columbia, apparently not known for their scientific thoroughness nor public relations smarts, were a little hasty in their announcement that they had “confirmed” the presence of the ISA virus in Pacific salmon.

Canadian authorities have now followed up, retested the original samples and confirmed no presence of the fish virus.

“Our government takes the health of our fisheries very seriously. We have taken appropriate and immediate action to follow up on the allegations of the presence of ISA in BC waters.  We can now confirm that, preliminary analysis, using proper and internationally recognized procedures, has found that none of the samples has tested positive for ISA. In recent years, over 5000 fresh, properly stored and processed salmon have been tested by the BC government and Fisheries and Oceans Canada and there has never been a confirmed case of ISA in British Columbia salmon. An active, science-based sampling program continues for both farmed and wild salmon.”
- Fisheries and Oceans Canada Minister Keith Ashfield

“Reckless allegations based on incomplete science can be devastating to these communities and unfair to the families that make a living from the sea.”
-BC Minister of Agriculture Don McRae

Yeah, reckless allegations with no accountability. Oh, how easy it is to be an activist. 

Twitter. Love it or hate it, it’s a great way to communicate. You can reach your favorite celebrity or tell your followers how important your life is (?). You can even pitch a story to media. You can also be pretty well unaccountable for whatever you say.

Case in point – Oceana. According to its bio, Oceana is “working hard to protect our oceans. Fighting against offshore oil & destructive fishing. Fighting for clean energy, sharks, & turtles.” Good for Oceana and we wish them the best of luck. But lately it has been getting caught up in being “internet tuff” and may have forgotten that it has built a business that should be held accountable to what it says. Their “followers” on Twitter would hope that Oceana is a credible source of information that can be trusted.

One ‘tweet’ the other day caught our eye. It was about caviar and sturgeon. They stated that consumers should steer clear of all imported (to the U.S,) caviar and sturgeon because any caviar or sturgeon from areas outside U.S. borders “contain mercury”. We were pretty sure that most older fish species contain mercury regardless of they are from in the world, and we weren’t aware of any warnings of consumption issued by Federal authorities. So we simply asked them to back up their claim with science.

What followed is a classic game of ignore, divert, avoid, divert again and then back to ignore.  Below is the exchange;

Oceana: #Seafood rec: avoid imported caviar and sturgeon, which can contain mercury. US farmed is a safer option.

Salmon Ranching: Can u please explain why that would be the case?

Oceana: @alaska_salmon more details from@SeafoodWatch ow.ly/6XhGo and ow.ly/6XhGK

Salmon Ranching: @Oceana @SeafoodWatch Don’t see any reference in your links to imported caviar being higher in mercury than US caviar? Can you explain?

Salmon Ranching: @Alaska_Salmon @Oceana @SeafoodWatch I’m hoping you are able to respond to my concern about mercury? Your links didn’t answer.

Oceana: @alaska_salmon That info is from the Jan 2011 paper version of the guide (which contains mercury info I can’t find on their site)

Salmon Ranching: @Oceana If u make the claim (high merc in imported caviar and sturgeon), then u should be able to find published science on this “fact”. No?

Oceana: @alaska_salmon Seafood Watch’s contaminant info comes from EDF; here’s their site: ow.ly/73NDK

Salmon Ranching: @Oceana Check out the link to EDF site. Searched ‘#mercury‘ and found zero documents to backup your imports=+mercury claim. Can you verify?

Oceana: @alaska_salmon ow.ly/74BNr etc

Salmon Ranching: @Oceana tx, but there is NO documention (published study/data) that confirms what the EDF site is stating. We’re asking to verify claim.

Oceana: @alaska_salmon You should try talking to EDF then, it’s their info.

Salmon Ranching: @Oceana That is usually the final response when facts are vacant – take no accountability. How about not presenting feelings as fact?

Now, whether or not mercury is only found in imported caviar is not the point here (but if anyone has information to verify or correct this claim please share). The point is this: shouldn’t environmental organizations be held to the same transparency and accountability that they insist the big and bad ‘corporations’ live by?

Bycatch and marine life interactions is an issue that all ocean users would love to resolve – whether it’s tourism, marine transport, aquaculture or fisheries. Bycatch may include such creatures as fish, invertebrates, mammals, sea turtles and seabirds.

A recent letter from anti-salmon farming activists to Dr. Jane Lubchenco, NOAA Administrator, states: “The U.S. Government has a unique opportunity via the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to step in and demand seal/sea lion-friendly salmon”. They ask that the US boycott all farmed salmon imports.

But while the group of “concerned citizens” asks for this boycott because the industry kills seals and sea lions that threaten their stock, they choose to completely ignore the fact that the US’s own fishery has the exact same issues.

Check that; the US fishery has far worse issues.

Take the 2011 US National Bycatch Report. The report highlights the mammals killed by US fisheries; fur seals, bearded seals, elephant seals, Pacific walrus, Dall’s porpoise, harbor porpoises, California sea lions, Stellar sea lions, fin whales, humpback whales, killer whales…yes, you read that right…Keiko’s cousin bit it.

Oh, and then there’s all the fish and invertebrates too. But who really cares about those things?

Whale? What whale?

Let us be very clear: this is not making light of the issue. Bycatch is certainly something that needs to be transparent, needs to be discussed and needs to be reduced. But this is the case for all marine users. For a group of “concerned citizens” to request a boycott of a one seafood product without putting the issue into context is ridiculous and we can connect the vested interest dots faster than you can even say “Kevin Bacon”;

US Foundations fund US protectionist initiatives – “concerned citizens” from other countries receive monies from US Foundations (after its been laundered first of course) – “concerned citizens” ask US to boycott farmed salmon from other countries– consumer would, by default, buy US salmon – “concerned citizens” neglect to mention that US fisheries have the same bycatch issues as other countries.

….”Kevin Bacon!”

Apparently not.

In a great example of “right back at ya’”China has rejected U.S. oysters from Washington state after reports of illness outbreak suspected to be caused by a Vibrio parahaemolyticus bacteria. 

But wait. Unlike the Catfish Farmers of America’s unfounded claims that anything Asian is of automatically of questionable quality, according to the FDA this precautionary action is apparently quite justified.

Although completely ligimate, it is a bit of a reminder that Asia has well over a billion reasons why one wouldn’t want to start a food fight without backing it up with fact.

Just a few bits?

Not alleged any more.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced that Trident Seafoods Corp., one of the world’s largest seafood processors, has agreed to pay a $2.5 million civil penalty and invest millions in seafood processing waste controls to settle alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

Unauthorized discharges of seafood processing waste lead to large seafood waste piles on the seafloor, creating anoxic, or oxygen-depleted, conditions that result in unsuitable habitats for fish and other living organisms.

Click here for the full story, or don’t, and just enjoy the classic 70′ s song “Fish Heads”.

September 26th, 2011;

New York Times food writer Mark Bittman’s misguided, one-sided column on canned tuna — and whether it’s time again to boycott the lunch staple — drew the ire of the National Fisheries Institute after it appeared a week ago. And who can blame the U.S.-based organization? Bittman apparently made no effort to get the industry’s take on the matter, attributing much of the column’s content to Greenpeace.

Bittman is entitled to his opinion. But he made no attempt to reach out to NFI, StarKist, Chicken of the Sea, Bumble Bee or any industry source, which is puzzling.

NFI reacted to the column by writing a letter to Bittman’s managing editor, lambasting the writer’s lack of research. The industry group has been much more aggressive about countering misinformation in the mainstream media. For too long the industry has been pushed around by the media, which is quick to write off the industry’s view as bias and put much more faith in the opinion of Greenpeace and other NGOs, as if they’re without an agenda.

Will that ever change? Probably not. But what is changing is that the public isn’t reading as many of these misguided, one-sided columns as in the past, according to Gavin Gibbons, NFI’s director of media relations.

The story goes like this: A reporter contacts Gibbons to follow up on a lead, he deems the lead misinformed and backs up his assertion, and the story never runs. That success is difficult to measure and isn’t visible, admits Gibbons, but he’s confident that NFI is gaining traction with the mainstream media. For example, a reporter at a prominent TV news outlet recently said to Gibbons: “Someone in my newsroom told me that I should contact you since I’m doing a story about seafood.” That’s encouraging.

Greenpeace isn’t taking its foot off of the accelerator, so NFI continues to fight back, countering the misinformation through press releases, interviews with reporters and its own media vehicles, such as TunaForTomorrow.com, set up to set the record straight when it comes to America’s favorite finfish.

The industry has learned that it can’t just be reactive and expect to make progress. Proactively reaching out to the media to cut off a potentially damaging story or column at the source is essential. As an editor, I appreciate e-mails and calls from media relations professionals offering a hand on a controversial subject. Maybe Bittman could use a little help to balance out his next anti-seafood rant.

Read full story at SeafoodSource.com

Editors note – Mark Bittman has also been featured on this blog before for similar less-than-acceptable reporting: Once Mark Bittman, Twice Shy

According to its website, PNCIMA initiative’s aim is to “ensure a healthy, safe, and prosperous ocean area by engaging all interested parties in the collaborative development and implementation of an integrated management plan for PNCIMA.” The PNCIMA area falls entirely within Canada.

Sounds righteous right? Maybe…until you question why a massive US based

Canada's message

philanthropic foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, poured in $8.3 mill toward a planning initiative in another country. 

A little “follow the money” investigation clearly shows why the Canucks got cold feet.

With Moore’s PNCIMA money laundered in Canada by Tides Canada, and with Tide’s direct links to radicals in the “social change” movement such as Endswell Foundation, it’s no wonder Canadians aren’t happy with a bunch of past-their-prime-exAmerican hippies attempting to influence their country’s business.

Granted, the motives behind America’s interest in Canada may be many; securing valuable resources and stifling Canada’s economy amongst them. Or maybe, quite simply, those wealthy American’s want to do business in their country and then enjoy a scenic vacation in Canada. One big park and a non-interrupted view from ugly, profiteering businesses.   

Whether it’s seafood marketing or coastal planning, if you follow the money, a large US Foundation is typically pulling the strings.   

We’ll leave you with a telling quote from Endswell Foundation’s website (yikes, even the creepy name has a “Heaven’s Gate” ring to it)

“Endswell has played a role in many initiatives, large and small, that have helped to preserve BC’s wildernesses, enhance models of a solutions economy, extend the reach and breadth of social change, and sometimes, just kept the music playing.”