Thursday, September 26, 2013

MSC answers its critics

The Marine Stewardship Council today released this open letter along with a fact sheet.


Anonymous said...

Just one question Kerry....

How the heck does the Gulf of Alaska Trawl fishery represent sustainable fishing practices (with it's extremely high rate of bycatch of salmon and halibut), yet MSC finds fault with PWS pinks over an entirely hypothetical 'cause for concern' regarding the straying of hatchery salmon???

The MSC has no credibility anymore. You're approving dirty fisheries like Russian Pollock (rampant poaching) and GOA trawl flatfish and cod (devastating bycatch), and finding faults with the ones that everybody knows are working well.

And the MSC wants to charge a King's ransom for the service! No wonder Alaska wants to take their ball and go home.

Sustainability doesn't require a blue logo, it's what Alaska's fishery managers have done since Statehood--because it's the right thing to do.

When Wal-mart and the US Government require an MSC approval to sell Alaska salmon, then the tail is wagging the dog....Time to break the monopoly and establish an alternative program.

Anonymous said...


Attack Senator Begich
Attack our processing sector

Yeah, had we just sent PWS to the wilderness and fed them to wild dogs we'd have come out ok

After the messes in the mid-2000's with msc certifies holed up in California hotels for years the state of Alaska dumped msc

Then asmi dumped msc

Then afdf

Or was it the reverse order

In any event msc is an Eco-nazi, subversive organization whose dance with us here in alaska expired years ago

Kudos to senator Begich for calling them out


Nuff said

Save your msc crybaby show and go certify whaling or sealing somewhere

Indeed, alaska will invite you back in if you certify sea otter harvests

Barring that just get a rope or quit crying


Anonymous said...

Wow, the MSC won't be making any points in Alaska with that screed.

In terms of costs, the Bering Sea mid water Pollock fishery is one of the most scrutinized and tightly managed in the state, with the best documentation - but the MSC dragged out its certification for four years and it cost several million dollars.

The Gulf cod fisheries also are approaching a cost of $1 million, and you're right - none of the trawl fisheries should get an eco-label of any kind until they clean up their salmon and halibut bycatch. But that's ok by the MSC?

More like the Marine Stewin'in it Council.

Anonymous said...

Take a deep breath "T". Ranting serves no one. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. And "just get a rope or quit crying"? what's that about. Probably better if you get a grip on yourself. Some still think that MSC does have some credibility. I do not. But why the unadulterated hatred? It certainly is not productive. Perhaps it saves you a visit to your shrink. Ok, I can see that. But otherwise???

Anonymous said...

There is some merit to the argument that industry and its membership should not drive questions of sustainability. An independent organization with no "dog in the fight" is always preferable. MSC may not be that organization, but it is also arguable that ASMI should not be the watchdog either. If we leave sustainability up to the fisher, except in a very few cases, we would have sustainability issues. Of course this statement will get "Ts" hackles up and many will claim that the fishers are the best stewards of the resource. But, we all know that is simply not the case. And it is because of this fundamental principal that we have the NPFMC, the BOF, a Dept. full of scientists and managers. MSC's contentions are not unique. claims that hatcheries are bringing down wild stocks is a claim made by some pretty smart people whether you agree with them or not. And that IS a sustainability issue, like it or not. And even if it might be inconsistent with their seemingly ignorance of the impacts of trawl by-catch it still remains a valid point. The governor and the senator have made it clear they are on the side of the fishers and industry. translation: 'the voters" But don't expect Walmart to fold and change its mind so quickly. And don't expect alaskans to boycott a facility that saves them so much in almost all areas involved in their daily living. Won't happen. Perhaps a dialog between the parties on the reasons for MSC action and response from retailers of the resource would be better than the unhealthy attacks which only serve to stoke the fires. Rants get nowhere.

Anonymous said...

What wild dogs? Those dogs are hatchery strays from looking at the otoliths.

Anonymous said...

Lets see their books and see what they do with the extortion money. Everyone knows that money talks and those with the money get their way.

As for straying hatchery fish, wild fish especially pinks have strayed for years. There is a recent study done over a 12 yr period that showed that hatchery fish released in wild streams helped the wild fish recover with know harm to the wild fish and their genetics. The study was peer reviewed. OSU has said that it was a good study.
It was also said that the original study saying harm was done was with steelhead and not salmon. Which was why they did not return as well.

Anonymous said...

Sustainability is in our State constitution. That is the reason why, Alaska is the only state in the union, that currently has multiple sustainable fisheries. MSC is a bully, that is completely driven by dollars, in their pockets. Good riddance to them!

Anonymous said...

It's actually sustained yield in the Constitution, a straying 2.6 lb pink, from a 4.8 lb. average is hardly sustainable for those dependent on them for a livelihood.

4. Sustained Yield
Fish, forests, wildlife, grasslands, and all other replenishable resources belonging to the State shall be utilized, developed, and maintained on the sustained yield principle, subject to preferences among beneficial uses.

15. No Exclusive Right of Fishery
No exclusive right or special privilege of fishery shall be created or authorized in the natural waters of the State. This section does not restrict the power of the State to limit entry into any fishery for purposes of resource conservation, to prevent economic distress among fishermen and those dependent upon them for a livelihood and to promote the efficient development of aquaculture in the State. [Amended 1972]

You don't have to like MSC, but the current model in use at ASMI, cannot apply.

§ 17. Uniform Application
Laws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources shall apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation.

Anonymous said...

What do you expect will happen to the size of pink salmon when you have a return of 140 million?

They get smaller because of competition for food.

Why was there so many pinks?

Way above average marine survival.

Anonymous said...

Bristol Bay - Keeping It Wild

All Natural, All Wild, Naturally Organic

Hatchery fish are not "wild". What part of anti-biotics from artificial fertilization through fingerling remote releases sounds "wild" to you?

Anonymous said...

THE reason the state and industry WELCOMED MSC certification in the first place was to stiff arm the farmed fish producers, who increasing market share at the expense of Alaska salmon and the reason the MSC rushed to certify ALL Alaska salmon fisheries in one fell swoop was to increase its organizational credibility. In other words a marriage of convenience, and as marriages of convenience when one partner no longer suited the other, there is no love lost.