Here's statement just in from the Marine Stewardship Council:
Jan. 17, 2012
MSC statement regarding Alaska salmon
The Marine Stewardship Council has been informed by the Alaska Fisheries Development Foundation, the organization that serves as the client for the Alaska salmon fishery, that it is withdrawing the fishery from assessment toward a possible third five-year certification.
The existing MSC certification runs until Oct. 29, and any Alaska salmon caught prior to that date may be sold as MSC-certified.
Kerry Coughlin, MSC Americas regional director, said: "We regret that the Alaska salmon fishery is being withdrawn from the assessment under way for a potential third certification period. While there are other sources of MSC-certified salmon, Alaska was an early and important leader in the MSC program. We hope that this fishery will re-enter assessment, maintain the market advantage of MSC certification, and continue to showcase their sustainability.
"The number of fisheries and supply chain companies using the MSC program continues to expand worldwide, and consumer appreciation for the MSC ecolabel on products is increasing. MSC remains the recognized global standard by which fisheries confirm they are meeting or improving to global best practice in sustainable fishing as established by a wide consensus of scientists, industry experts and conservation organizations. By demanding a scientifically rigorous, transparent certification process using truly independent, third-party assessments, seafood markets around the world are helping to protect our ocean resources as well as seafood-related jobs and livelihoods now and for the future."
The third assessment was announced by the Alaska salmon fishery on Nov. 18. A certifier had been engaged by AFDF, the first site visit in the assessment process had been scheduled for later this month in Alaska and a number of conservation organizations had registered as stakeholders. The fishery, first certified in 2000 and recertified in 2007, includes Chinook, chum, coho, pink and sockeye salmon throughout Alaska waters. It does not include the tribally managed Annette Islands Reserve salmon fishery in southeast Alaska, which continues in the program and holds its own separate MSC certification.
Certificates for all other MSC-certified species in Alaska are also unaffected by the change in status for the state-managed Alaska salmon assessment.
WTF <')----< here we go again!
ReplyDeleteWhoops?
ReplyDeletehttp://blogs.vancouversun.com/2012/01/17/alaskan-ocean-ranching-damages-wild-salmon-fishery-b-c-conservation-groups-say/
ohhhhh....so that is the reason for the canadian attacks of alaskan salmon recently. a little pay-back from msc.
ReplyDeleteMSC Certified Polluck
ReplyDeleteRussian salmon
Annette Island Salmon
OR
Global Trust certified AlAskan Salmon
Take your pick!!!!!!
Took a dozen Years to get rescued from the Knowles MSC highjacking
One of many reasons, of course Credibility seems to be one forgotten issue.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.msc.org/about-us/credibility
And as if Global Trust won't figure out Salmon, ADF&G, and the rest of the Corrupt Bastards Club in Juneau, and Petersburg?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fao.org/docrep/005/v9878e/v9878e00.HTM#10
Salmon just aren't that hard to prove sustainability practices are in effect. Either you see them coming back every cycle or you don't. It's not as though they are some invisible groundstock or ocean roaming vagabonds, they always have to show themselves every 2-4 years. Buh-bye big billin' MSC. No hard feelings, we just don't like the inflated price tag to pay fatcat salaries.
ReplyDelete...badges?
ReplyDeleteBadges?!
We don't need no stinking MSC badges!!!
The first MSC certification lasted 7 years when it was only supposed to be valid for 5 years. Now it appears MSC is willing to do the same thing (change its rules to keep AK salmon in the fold). In other words, MSC is so desperate, it's willing to give 3 certifications for the price of two. Hard to buy MSC bull about conducting an "independent" objective certification.
ReplyDeleteGranted, the constitution of the State of Alaska had a sustainabilty plank built within it; quite visionary. However, it is safe to say that the MSC, brought the concept to market, in a way that the consumer could hook their wagon to it in a meaningful manner and basically "vote with their dollar".
ReplyDeleteIt was only after the MSC did the heavy lifting that other sustainability initiatives started to emerge and basically co-op the momentum.
While the State of Alaska & ASMI may have heartburn, to the point that they develop their own sustainability logo / campaign, I would hope that there would be room for both, since the MSC has an entrenched, global reach.
Heartburn? Over what?
ReplyDeleteThe state paid for the two certifications and the industry reaped the $s.
The heartburn was due to concern that MSC might actually do an independent assessment that would (horrors) uncover weaknesses in state management (hatchery production for instance) that would then require some signficant change (horrors again).
Well, that was wasted heartburn, since MSC proved twice to be subservient to its "client."
Anon@10:07 pm posted"The heartburn was due to concern that MSC might actually do an independent assessment that would (horrors) uncover weaknesses in state management (hatchery production for instance) that would then require some signficant change (horrors again)"
ReplyDeleteI'd be curious to see if you could offer any support for that statement. Do you have any? Otherwise, just another unfounded opinion, and deckboss comments are certainly full of those. MSC contracted out the certifications to "approved" third party certifiers, btw, they never did them themselves.
Sounds like most of the issues are over hatchery fish. Did MSC believe we had some things that needed to be addressed and dealt with within the hatchery program or no recertification? ADF&G does not seem to be concerned with the current state of affairs within the hatchery programs, or are they just giving into political pressure. Sounds like what really matters is what the processors say, not what the biologist say or even what the fishermen say. I have to believe there are fishermen who fish truly wild salmon runs that feel disappointed with this decision to remove MSC. In particular because most of them had no idea this issue was currently being considered.
ReplyDeleteWith MSC out of the way it will likely remove some of the pressure on the hatcheries, party-time. Let’s get some more pinks in the water; prices are high and there easy to catch when you have a big school pinned up against a barrier seine.
Sounds like most of the issues are over hatchery fish. Did MSC believe we had some things that needed to be addressed and dealt with within the hatchery program or no recertification? ADF&G does not seem to be concerned with the current state of affairs within the hatchery programs, or are they just giving into political pressure. Sounds like what really matters is what the processors say, not what the biologist say or even what the fishermen say. I have to believe there are fishermen who fish truly wild salmon runs that feel disappointed with this decision to remove MSC. In particular because most of them had no idea this issue was currently being considered.
ReplyDeleteWith MSC out of the way it will likely remove some of the pressure on the hatcheries, party-time. Let’s get some more pinks in the water; prices are high and they are easy to catch when you have a big school pinned up against a barrier seine.
Sustainability comes in different forms.
ReplyDeleteHow sustainable is the funding for all the commercialized salmon hatchery production in Alaska - where is the openness and transparency when it comes to overall state funding of the private, not-profit hatcheries that now account for up to half of all "wild caught" Alaska salmon?
The bill to the state in terms of line items to these hatcheries is in the multiple millions per year -the state keeps subsidizing the costs of the commercial salmon fisheries.
What are the ecological impacts of dumping 5 billion hatchery smolt into the North Pacific each year?
Negative impacts on herring productivity from the annual dump of 500 milion pink salmon hatchery smolt have been documented.
Could there be any connection or negative impact of 5 billion salmon hatchery smolt each year to an overall decrease in the age and size class of wild stock salmon across Alaska?
Any connection to the collapse in growth rates of halibut in the same ecoregion?
Probably not - so let's just let the good times roll, create our own stamp of sustainability, put a fox guarding the henhouse logo on it, and let the sustainability chips fall where they may in 20, 50, 100 years on down the road.
As is often said - we will all be dead by then so why should we care...
Just Plug you Nose, a Blind Man is not required to See at his Peril...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.redorbit.com/news/science/176591/processors_in_the_pink_waste_not_wanton
Have you driven a Suzuki lately?
ReplyDeletehttp://alaskasalmonranching.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/monterey-bay-aquarium-should-stick-to-mating-guppies/
i see the norwegian salmon farmers{aka canadians}have posted the anti-alaskan views as usual.
ReplyDeletehow do all those artificial colored anti-biotic,chemical treated,pig-pen fish taste?
I'd be curious to know why processors pulled their funding for recertification. It is a stab in the back to smaller processors, and marketers, who had looked at MSC for selling into certain markets.
ReplyDeleteMSC can take their certification process and stick it where the sun don't shine!
ReplyDeleteLook, you can bet with the State of Alaska willing to tear up clean salmon streams for dirty coal and gold, and dam the Susitna River, with Fish and Game nodding its pretty little head in approval, you can bet your "where the sun don't shine" that Alaska's resource management reputation is going down the drain as quickly as those bad eggs in the plastic buckets.
ReplyDeleteHey! Is it too late to apply for an MSC label for the new Taku king trawl fishery?
ReplyDelete