Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Mark Powell Posted 10:18 am
   20 Jun 2007

   Strange bedfellows

   Partners are where you find them.  Just as McDonalds and Wal-mart are advancing sustainable fishing, fishery managers in New England continue to "just say no" to sustainability.  And the good family fishermen of New England are the real force blocking change.  

   Just exactly who occupies the moral high ground here?  

   Permalink

2. 

   WWAGD?! Posted 12:01 pm
   20 Jun 2007

   Bottom 3% More Earth Friendly

   Despite the Top 3% percent constantly painting a picture of Darfurians burning every last scrap of tree branch in a firestorm of CO2 gas (to do stuff like cooking and keeping from freezing), the organizations of the Bottom 3% (and 97%) are truly more efficient -- if only for the fact that we use much much less.

   Wal*Mart is an early adopter of solar cells -- maybe even before Google.  

   It's time to draw a line in the sand -- make it a ring around the Top 3% who control 84% of all wealth and who are the ones most responsible for wrecking the Earth.

   Julia Roberts, Sisters Olsen, Paul Allen, Paris Hilton's Dad -- line up for sequestering.

   John Bailo
   You Read It Here First

   Permalink

3. 

   Sam Wells Posted 12:55 pm
   20 Jun 2007

   High Ground

   Alaska and NOAA Fisheries do indeed run an excellent program in that area of the Northwest.  I think what most of what you see is called Pacific Cod and similar ground fish - but not the prized salmon and halbut.  It is fairly sustainable as a fishery but Global Warming, predation, and large foreign factory ships will take its toll sooner or later.  It is just a matter of time.  It might sound romantic but most of that offshore Alaska stuff is caught on factory ships averaging 300 feet long.  The fish holds can accomodate thousands of metric tons of fish.  Cool with that I guess it's OK - but it ain't one dude jerking a line and a fish jerking at the other end.  They scoop them up like vacuum cleaners.

   So poster Samuel did a good job (good name bro') and the only think I might take a little difficulty with is Mark's claim that the Northeast fishery were "blocking change."  Now don't take this wrong sir, but the collapse of the Grand Banks and Georges Banks fisheries goes way back to the days before we got the 200-mile Economic Exclusive Zone, or EEZ.  The Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976 was amended in (I think) 1983 so as to kick out all those foreign factory ships from Alaska and Northeast waters 200 miles.  By that time, Grand Banks and Georges Banks were virtually dead, a wasteland.

   I'd have to do some serous research to figure out why Alaska waters remained fairly productive but the cod fishery in the Northeast almost totally collapsed - I am no marine fisheries expert with historical knowledge.  Perhaps what I am saying is that Grand Banks and George's was raped since the late 1700's and by 1930 it was pretty much a dead zone, the task to be completed by trawlers who mined the banks prior to 1976.

   Alaska on the other hand, had the forbidding and outrageously stormy seas and few vessels could venture there until the invention of the factory ship, which interestingly came about 1970.  Before then, fishing schooners (a hull design not a sailboat) could only work in the mild summer months - no way one could handle below zero temperatures and 30 foot seas.  

   Clue:  the Gulf Stream warms the Northeast banks and while there are freaky storm there, it not as rough and cold as the Bering Sea.

   My thinking and I could be wrong but the US, Canada, Denmark, UK, and mosting interestingly Spain basically denuded the Grand Banks and George's Banks.  Maybe you've all seen the movie 'Perfect Storm' but there are no swordfish left, very few blue tuna left, and because of some vessel permit restrictions, maybe 5% more cod than a few years ago.  Whoppee.  

   So for the Northeast fishermen the US STILL allows huge factory ships there, with holds measured in metric tons.  Meanwhile the honest local fishermen who have been there in families dating back 300 years are limited to hook and line fishing, maybe one tuna or 500 pounds of fish a trip.  It is pure insanity.  The truly sustainable fishery is being put out of business so the factory ships can make it worse.  Go figure.

   But management of the Alaska fishery seems to have been much more elegant and robust, I will say that.  It will crash just as bad and you read it here first.

   sammie

   Onward through the fog

   Permalink

4. 

   Samuel Fromartz Posted 11:23 pm
   20 Jun 2007

   Alaska

   Sammie, such gloom and doom about Alaska. I think that with more awareness about these issues and political pressure, the fishery can be protected. Also, don't forget there is an impetus from fisherman who are doing things right to prevent a collapse. So the best we can do is support them - and the fish.

   What I'd really like to see though is a strong movement for marine sanctuaries. The description of them in New Zealand is amazing, teaming with schools of fish, becoming popular, well-managed parks for people to see the aquatic life.

   Charles Clover made the point to me that one reason Alaska has avoided the fate of the NE cod is that it began fishing much later - which dovetails with your point. They had less time to screw it up.

   And another point: I'm not actually endorsing Mickey D's sandwich. It's got more calories and fat than the plain cheeseburger (though less saturated fat). Though truth be told, I like a good fish and chips.

   Samuel Fromartz Author Organic Inc.

   Permalink

5. 

   atreyger Posted 12:44 am
   21 Jun 2007

   Sam Wells,

   From what I understand, the rebounding of the cod population, while helped by the restrictions on catch, is also helped by a recent warming of the northwestern Atlantic. Apparently, these fish reproduce and survive better in waters that are warmer than recent conditions.

   Also, I am done procrasting...

   Permalink

6. 

   caniscandida Posted 3:13 am
   21 Jun 2007

   NE family fishermen

   Mark Powell is right to deplore unsustainable fishing in the North Atlantic.  But the sociology is complicated, and Sammie does well to give us some of the relevant history.  (Get it, Sammie does well?  You know, Sam Wells?  Sammie does well? ... Oh forget it.)

   Last year, I think in the Fall, there was a documentary on PBS, about two fishing families, one in Gloucester, MA, on the Gulf of Maine, the other in Chatham, MA, at the outer elbow of Cape Cod.  They use a distinctive traditional method, perhaps weir-traps, but I do not recall.  The documentary was discussed here in Gristmill, and in fact the wife from Chatham wrote to me to rebuke me for something I had written in the thread.

   It emerged that the factory ships had indeed already done enough damage to the fisheries by the time they were no longer allowed, as Sammie has told us; the family fishermen were not responsible for that.  But now the family fishermen are finding new restrictions impossible to live with.

   They have got on their side Barney Frank (D-MA), a congressman whom I much respect, though neither Chatham nor Gloucester is in his district.  It seems quite in character that he would feel sorry for them.  Still, it is possible that Mark Powell is correct, that the arrangement that they are seeking may not be sustainable.

   Also, a related environmental problem is that the Stellwagen Bank, which is geologically the below-sealevel northern extension of outer Cape Cod, and is a very rich feeding area for whales, lies athwart most shipping lanes to and from Gloucester, Salem, Boston, Plymouth and the inner Cape towns.  Many whales are injured by passing vessels, and many are tangled and encumbered in fishing lines.  The Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies has a whale-rescue team, including some very talented, sensitive and hard-working people.  Ideally certain kinds of fishing should be restricted or banned in areas frequented by whales, including in this case the severely endangered right whale.

   On Spain as a leading fishing country: Yes, I too was rather surprised to learn that, not long ago.  The extent of their Mediterranean fishery I do not know, though it is no doubt large.  But their most famous fishers are the Basques, on the North Atlantic coast.  Fishing is a centuries-old tradition with them.  It is speculated that they had been to the North Atlantic cod banks, and knew about the existence of North America, long before 1492, but kept it a trade secret.  We briefly visited some fishing towns between San Sebastian and Bilbao in 2004, and if the Basques do operate factory ships, we did not notice any -- but it was Summer, and they may have been at sea.  We did see plenty of their more traditional, smaller fishing vessels: round-hulled, round-bowed, looking very much like Columbus's caravels in fact, but with a smoke stack instead of masts, and tall amidship, not at the stern.  And no doubt there is indeed a family relationship between the caravel and the modern Basque fishing vessel.

   Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

   Permalink

7. 

   Sam Wells Posted 5:56 am
   21 Jun 2007

   LOL, funny

   yeah I got it ... and an interesting thing is that fishermen actually WANT to work with the regulators and scientists to ensure fish for the future.

   And yes, I was just reading about Blue Tuna on Stellwagon, a plateau off the hook of Cape Cod.  I have mixed feelings about taking a bunch of them, though.  /sammie

   Onward through the fog

   Permalink