pierfishing.com :: FAQ :: search :: memberlist :: album
  Sign-up as new user :: log in



Sign-up as new user | I forgot my password

PFIC Message Boards >> Fishery Conservation, Management and Politics Reply to this topic
>> NOAA Approves Unpopular Catch and Trade Policy for U.S. Fish [topic: previous/next]
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:23 pm
Ken Jones


Posts: 9461
Location: California

Dan Bacher

On November 4, the Obama administration officially announced its completion of its new catch shares policy, which encourages the privatization of U.S. fishery resources. Dan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Nov. 8, 2010

NOAA Approves Unpopular Catch and Trade Policy for U.S. Fisheries

Statement by Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food & Water Watch

Washington, DC - “On Thursday, to the dismay and outrage of fishermen and consumer advocates around the country, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officially announced the completion of its new catch shares policy, which encourages the privatization of U.S. fishery resources. Also known as ‘catch and trade’, these programs have been criticized as having similar problems as the cap and trade effort to reduce air pollution.

At its essence, catch and trade is a means to allow almost complete control of our fisheries by bigger business interests. It divides up the fish in any given region and doles them out as shares to certain companies and individuals based on past fishing history. While this may sound fair, in reality it often forces smaller historic fishermen out of the industry, skews fisheries toward industrial production, and decreases job opportunities and wages for crew, leading to widespread devastation in coastal and fishing communities.

NOAA announced its official policy on catch and trade Friday after having already enacted the programs on the East, West and Gulf coasts, where countless fishing operations are slowly being pushed out of business. The legality of the catch and trade model is being challenged in three major lawsuits, one in each region where new programs have been finalized: California, Massachusetts and Florida.

What NOAA failed to announce publicly is that catch and trade programs were already ruled a human rights violation in Iceland in 2007, when the UN Human Rights Committee determined that they violated international law and the rights of fishermen by transforming a public resource into individual property.

Unfortunately, NOAA has been establishing catch and trade programs across the nation for some time now, despite global evidence that they often hurt, not help both fisheries and consumers. The quality of fish often decreases as industrial-scale vessels increasingly dominate the industry. Fish can be crushed through mechanic sorting and by being pulled up in large nets with thousands of other fish. Fish are then processed en masse – sometimes shipped across the world to places with lower food safety standards – for filleting and packaging before they are shipped back to the U.S. for sale.

It is shameful that NOAA is championing private interests rather than doing its job to ensure healthy fish populations, stable fishing communities, and quality seafood for consumers. Recreational and commercial fishermen have spoken out against catch and trade but NOAA refuses to listen, opting instead to push toward consolidation of U.S. fisheries until they become like factory farms on land – large industrial operations that bring profit to a few at the expense of many.”

For more information, see Food & Water Watch’s 2010 report Catch and Trade Catastrophes: Failures in Fishery Quota Programs

_________________
Support UPSAC! Preserve pier and shore angling in California.
Top of page
Send private message Make a quoted reply on this post
PostPosted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 6:50 pm
clayman


Posts: 2298
Location: Lake Almanor, CA

Didn't the International Pacific Halibut Commission do something similar to this? Something along the lines of giving individual quotas to fishermen that were based on how many fish they caught in the previous season. That, combined with the elimination of a designated "opening" day, did a lot of good in the Pacific halibut fisheries, both for the fishermen and the halibut.

As for the "crushed fish" deal: that's been happening for years with those giant factory ships catching walleye pollock and Pacific hake.

I know there's good arguments on both sides of an issue such as this, but the article is heavily biased to only one of those sides.

_________________
What cha lookin at my gut fer?
Top of page
Send private message Make a quoted reply on this post
PFIC Message Boards >> Fishery Conservation, Management and Politics Reply to this topic
Page 1 of 1  
Display posts from previous:   
Jump to: