Could someone or preferably a fisherman (Maxfield?) Explain to this woman that the term “blacklisted” is entirely fair to use and that Berkowitz is trying to shed light on the fact that species that are on these Eco foodie Nazi lists have been rebuilt to sustainable levels even by the Governments own standards but still reside on these lists. Could you also let them know how much more codfish there are swimming in the ocean since the days at sea program had been instituted?
Berkowitz should be commended for standing up to these people. He has much more to lose than to gain. Their Blacklisting influence over willing environmentalists who want desperately to believe anything that some green guru says is undeniable. Even in the face of video evidence and government reports these people still call codfish unsustainable.
Good Morning Gloucester 
For what it’s worth I left a couple of very polite and simple questions on her blog. I do hope you know that we are surrounded by throngs of self-appointed (annointed?) arbiters of all that is fair and just. Don’t ever try to confuse them with facts. You’d be wasting your time. Whether she is one of them or not I do not know, nor do I care. Ionly want to see her response. After that the lawyers and bureaucrats can’ duke it out’. I have tons of puff pastry to make and pictures to take !!
LikeLike
here is the comment i left on her blog:
What does the term “sustainable seafood” mean? It means that the seafood that reaches the consumers’ table is fished in a responsible manner. The United States has one of the most restrictive fisheries management policies implemented in the world. The American seafood industry IS sustainable. Fishermen have made sacrifices for two decades to bring the levels of target species to recovered biomasses. If you want seafood and you aren’t eating American caught seafood because you think it isn’t “sustainable” then you may as well give up eating seafood altogether. No other country practices the bycatch and incidental take reduction efforts that US fishermen practice. Other nations fisheries aren’t governed by closed areas, gear restrictions, and effort control. American commercial fishermen have sacrificed more than anyone at the EDF or any other environmental organization for sustainability.
LikeLike
Well that’s nice Peter. She got around to posting your comment. I’ve left several links to this morning’s To Be Clear post but it somehow hasn’t seen the day of light on her blog.
I hope she does allow it through because it sums it up pretty well but with CLF and Monterey Aquarium listed in her sidebar as fans of her work I doubt she wants to hear anything that conflicts with them.
Perhaps she will post the link, perhaps she won’t.
LikeLike
she must not blog on weekends joey. she just posted two of my posts from friday and a scathing response to me to “read the articles” because she “can’t keep answering the same questions” re: WHO said cod are overfished?
I’m finished over there I think. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink…..
LikeLike
Pete, that’s great. Buying foreign fish is hardly sustainable in any way shape or form. Managed cod fish from the US should be a viable form of food stuff that no one feels guilty about eating or cooking – that’s the point of the management, right?
In general though, I thought her article was just trying to point out that in order to dialog we have to try to use less inflammatory language which is true, though I would argue that the term “blacklisting” is not inflammatory but stirs discussion.
LikeLike
i asked her WHO said that cod are overfished? she still has not answered that question. within that question lies the crux of the issue. NOAA says cod are overfished and on the verge of collapse. fishermen said that cod have made a comeback since the implementation of days at sea. who is right?
I find the reason for inflammatory language results from fishermen having complied with every regulation that has been forced upon them in an effort to rebuild cod stocks. They do not make the regulations, nor do they have any say in making regulations. NMFS makes the regulations, fishermen comply with them, NMFS says the fish stocks are still depleted, they try another form of regulating the industry, fishermen comply, cod stocks are still overfished and so on. This, to me, says that the problem is at NMFS. Either their science is wrong or their management plan is flawed. The fisherman bears the brunt of management financially though. their livelihoods are at stake while regulators make ineffective laws, and when they don’t work, “oh well, make a different rule.” Through it all though, the fisherman has complied and suffered and they have the most vested interest in the industry of all of the parties.
When NOAA subsidized the groundfishery to allow fishermen to buy larger boats with more capacity and more range to compete with foreign fleets exploiting Georges bank fishermen went out and bought bigger boats. Then the Magnusson act was passed and that eliminated the foreign vessels on Georges with the creation of the EEZ. US fishermen continued to fish there though because they had large boats with higher overhead. Eventually the GB biomass was threatened and the government encouraged fishermen to go to smaller vessels and fish the inshore waters on day trips. Then the GOM biomass was threatened and the GB stocks had recovered. The Government encouraged fishermen to convert to a smaller owner operated day fleet, and when they determined that GOM cod were overfished implemented (i think) amendment 13 which implemented days at sea and TAC for the multispecies.
The problem then was that fishermen were catching well over the TAC for cod and discarding marketable fish because they could not land more than 1000 lb, 800 lb, 500 lb, then 300 lb. The SINGLE beneficial caveat of the catch shares is that marketable fish cannot be discarded and count towards the common quota for a sector. (anyone feel free to correct me if i am wrong, i’m a lobsterman not groundfisherman and am going off the top of my head here)
I don’t know why they did not keep the days at sea program, and at the same time just institute a yearly quota for GOM cod and GB cod, etc. Then, fishermen could use their days at sea, land their whole catch of legal cod for the day, count that landing towards the total quota, and when the quota was filled, close the fishery until next year.
Again though, all this comes down to whether cod are overfished or not. We don’t know. NOAA says yes, fishermen say no. The science, in my experience studying marine biology and environmental studies in college, is flawed. No, the data collection is flawed and this leads to the flawed science.
There has never been a recognition of a correlation between increased biomass of spiny dogfish or an increased population of seals affecting the stocks of cod. you can’t fully rebuild one fish stock when you are rebuilding a stock of fish or other animals that prey on them.
But I digress. I’ve posted a few more responses to Jacqueline’s article but they haven’t been approved or posted yet.
LikeLike
The Conservation Law Foundation is claiming that any recovery of cod biomass is because of catch shares, which would be a world record in fisheries management, saving a stock in 8 months! the recovery happened because of the DAS program. Landings are up because fishermen aren’t being forced to dump 1000s of pounds of marketable fish.
LikeLike