Feb 272013
 

A few months back, the nation’s “fisheries political stew” got mentioned. We promised more news and since that post, much has happened. In fact, things have come to a boil.

Recent developments will have profound impacts on the local seafood industry in the short and long terms… There’s much to discuss…

We’d like to break up this broad topic into several blogs. The blogs that will follow can be jargon heavy and laden with acronyms. To keep all these ingredients in this stew straight, there’s a Fisheries Acronym/Jargon List that’s a “work-in-progress.” Check it out here.

So, how did the Groundfish industry in New England become an official “Economic Disaster”?…

Let’s begin with Dr. Jane Lubchenco, the person who orchestrated the policy changes which exasperated the local fishing industry’s disarray…

On Dec. 12th, 2012 the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Dr. Jane Lubchenco, announced her resignation effective Feb. 28th 2013.

Dr. Lubchenco’s tenure at NOAA has been marked by controversy. Particularly, her role in the guidance of the National Fisheries Marine Service (NMFS)—a NOAA agency responsible for determining our nation’s fishery policies.

In local waters, Dr. Lubchenco’s policy initiatives’ (notably, Amendment 16—Catch Shares, regulations of Gulf of Maine (GOM) groundfish implemented in May 2010) have significantly challenged the smaller, local-day-boat fleet’s livelihood and seriously jeopardized their future viability with her “fleet consolidation” policy efforts.

Her policy interpretations of the Magnuson-Stevens Act for most in the fishing industry can be summed up by one word: controversial… For some legal eagles attuned to the nuances of legislative interpretation, illegal.

Back in 2011, at Faneuil Hall in Boston, a special Senate Sub-Committee Hearing convened so Dr. Lubchenco could answer questions about her leadership of NMFS’s fishery policies including excessively aggressive, enforcement-allegations towards local fishermen. A full day of hearings was scheduled.

In the morning Dr. Lubchenco answered a handful of questions, to some evasively… When then US Senator Scott Brown asked, “What does it take to get fired from NOAA?”… One can only imagine the sound of crickets filling the silence awaiting her response… (More about the Smartwood Reports and NMFS excessive actions in another Blog…)

Around noon-time, Dr. Lubchenco dismissed herself from further questioning at the congressional hearing. Her reason for leaving, she had an appointment with the Boston Globe’s editors… Eye-brow’s were raised. “Contempt of Congress” charges were murmured. But like most of NMFS actions, there’s been no substantive repercussions for her or NMFS policy actions.

Under Dr. Lubchenco’s leadership, her actions at a congressional sub-hearing, along with her questionable policy initiatives, and selective media appearances spinning blatant lies, is it any wonder why our nation’s fisheries are in such disarray.

When she held a leadership role at the Environmental Defense Fund, Dr. Lubchenco was noted for her contributions to the “‘Oceans of Abundance” paper that “concluded” by 2040, the Ocean’s would only have Jellyfish left. Since then, the paper’s “conclusions” were further peer-reviewed, and decisively dismissed as “junk science.”

With her appointment to NOAA’s top spot in 2009, Dr. Lubchenco implemented and oversaw sweeping changes to Gulf of Maine’s (GOM) ground-fishery regulations. The most notable change has been the New England Fisheries Management Council’s (NEFMC) implementation of “Catch Shares”—Amendment 16—for the May 2010 fishing season.

Amendment 16 is far-reaching in the “who, how, and where” various-sized boats can fish and how they get regulated. The “zero-by-catch” regulations are about the only positive element of this sweeping reform to federal fishing regulations that began in May 2010. However, among many other things, Amendment 16 blurred the line where day-boats vs. trip-boat sized vessels can fish. The unexpected consequences of this has led many fishermen to believe why there’s such dramatic reductions in fish stock assessments in the GOM for fishing season 2013.

In 2013, Amendment 16′s reach will have much further implications to local boats’ overhead costs. On-board NMFS monitors will soon have to be paid for by the local fleet. In other words, commercial fishing vessels will have to pay the cost to have a federally-mandated fish catch monitor on-board. So far, this has been subsidized by NMFS. Big boats can absorb the cost better. For day boats, the added burden of the monitors’ overhead is crippling.

Ultimately, what size boat gets to fish where-and-when has had a profound effect on fish stock health and the day-boat fleet’s economic livelihood. Coupled with paying for an on-board monitor, the day-boat fleets’ viability is grim.

In Dr. Lubchenco’s resignation announcement from NOAA, and in turn the NMFS, she cited “achievements.” The achievements she mentions are truly Orwellian when compared to her policy initiatives end-results.

Under her policy initiatives, Dr. Lubchenco claims she left the local fleets “more profitable”…  If things are “more profitable” because of “consolidation”, why have the Northeast Fisheries been declared an Economic Disaster by Congress?

Under Dr. Lubchenco’s “initiatives,” the day boat-fleet in Gloucester has shrunk by 50%. Future reductions in the day-boat fleet are expected. The day-boat fleet is being driven to extinction by the policies of Dr. Lubchenco’s “fleet consolidation” efforts of Amendment 16 and draconian reductions to quota for groundfish species for the fishing year starting May 2013.

Here at CAFC, we hope Dr. Lubchenco’s successor is more responsive to the local-fleet/day-boat fishermen’s concerns. Preserving the local fishing fleet’s financial impact in the local community and the role it plays in our region’s economy and cultural heritage is spelled out in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Also spelled out in the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the need to properly maintain our nation’s fisheries health. Under Dr. Lubchenco’s tenure, there’s significant concerns with how our nation’s fisheries’ laws have been misinterpreted and poorly implemented.

CAFC hopes NOAA’s next leader understands the ultimate importance of keeping local fisheries harmonious with nature instead of the cacophony Dr. Lubchenco policies have scored…

Dec 032012
 
northern_shrimped

In past CAFC seasons there’s been a lot of anticipation concerning the start date for the Northern Shrimp fishery. This season, the governing body that oversees many migratory species (Northern Shrimp, Scup, Black Sea Bass, Bluefish, Striped Bass, etc.) the Atlantic States Fisheries Marine Commision (ASFMC), met on Mon. Dec. 3rd in Portland, ME to determine the Northern Shrimp Season. This meeting was held about a month or so later than they typically meet to announce the fishery’s start date.

For those unfamiliar, Pandalus borealis are the cold-water shrimp native to our local waters. They’re small, about 2–4 inches in length, or, a 70/90 count (meaning from 70 to 90 shrimp per pound) and most often sold whole. (For a very quick Wikipedia overview: Pandalus borealis.)

Today’s determination/ruling from the ASFMC meeting was eye-opening. Initial rumors were for a fishery moratorium, ie, the fishery wouldn’t open for the season at all. Yet with today’s ruling, the total catch limit for the entire fishery was set at 625 metric tons.

There’s been much discussion regarding the boom-and-bust of the bio-mass of Northern Shrimp that swim into the near-shore winters along the western edge of the Gulf of Maine. Are the fluctuations due to fishing mortality, sketchy scientific surveys, changes in water temperature??? The jury leans towards rising water temps rising but there’s no concrete answer…

However, this season’s catch limit is a third of what was allowed to be caught last year, which was half of the prior season. In other words, ASFMC cut the allowable catch of Northern Shrimp by 83.5% from the 2011 season (start date Dec. 2010).

Frankly, the fishermen in Maine, where approximately 85% of the catch is landed during most recent seasons, will be the hardest hit. For several years the Northern Shrimp fishery has been promoted as an under-utilized species. Especially for the lobstermen—lobsters migrate towards deeper, off-shore waters during winter months. During that time Northern Shrimp migrate where the lobsters had been in the summer, near shore. Trawl-fishing for Northern Shrimp requires a complete change of gear rigging to catch them, the cost requirements for a fishermen’s decision to fish a different gear type is not taken lightly… At all.

Gloucester once had a fairly vibrant Northern Shrimp fishery. However, over the last several decades this fishery activity has slowly shifted north. Ironically, a certain level of dock-side infrastructure is required to process and handle different species. Gloucester once tried to develop such an infrastructure but the forces that were at the time couldn’t align properly. Hence, there’s been less than a handful of boats fishing shrimp out of Cape Ann in the last few seasons.

With the slow and steady migration of the Northern Shrimp fisheries center of dock-side infrastructure moving northward, for whatever economic or ecological reasons, and with the latest news from Portland today, regarding the length of the Northern Shrimp season, if CAFC offers Northern Shrimp as a Neptune’s Choice, get ‘em while you can…

At last season’s catch rate, the 2013 Northern Shrimp fishery season could be as short as one week.

At CAFC, we wish there was better news for our local boats along with our fishery brethren in New Hampshire and Maine.

Sep 082012
 

With about 75% of the Earth’s surface covered by Ocean, fishery “politics” has been a contested topic throughout human history.

With the collapse of herring stocks in the Baltic Sea being the first serious red-flag in modern times, the “commons” of what nature offers has long been politicized by nations to claim the maximum value from a resource that defies national boundaries.

Step back a century-or-so, prior to the steam/combustible-engine era, over-fishing wasn’t considered a problem. Boats were powered by sail and fish were caught by hooks. “Dory-men” would row away from a “schooner” and lay “miles” of long-line laden with baited hooks that they’d then haul up by hand. It was extremely dangerous and tremendously inefficient. Current “reality shows” like the “Deadliest Catch” or “Wicked Tuna” had nothing on the perils those fishermen faced in a two-man dory hundreds of miles away from shore, dead reckoning back to mast tops miles away with a dory laden with fish and gunwales inches away from getting swamped…

…And that’s when it wasn’t foggy. Factor in the lack of weather forecasting back in the day and there’s a memorial in Gloucester that details just how deadly an occupation fishing can be.

Since the late 1800′s/early 1900′s though, with the introduction of steam and then diesel engines, the technological innovations in catching fish allowed mankind to extract a far larger share of seafood than Mother Nature could replace. Technological advancements, along with misunderstood biology, and fuzzy international coastal boundary limits decimated the fish stocks of the Northwest Atlantic in the mid-to-late 20th century.

In 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act got implemented to address the management of the USA’s ocean resources. Along with establishing a 200 mile coastal limit where international vessels couldn’t fish, Magnuson-Stevens created the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a regulatory body whose policies are responsible for determining how the Ocean’s public resources are managed nationally. Providing input to NMFS policy decisions are regional councils. Here in the Gulf of Maine and to the south, we have the New England Fishery Management Council providing input to how federally-regulated species get harvested.

Since it’s inception, NMFS has tried to manage the common resource of our nation’s Ocean in the best way it saw fit. While some policies have proven successful, others haven’t fared as well for the health of the Ocean and the fishing communities whose economy is derived from the sea.

One controversial decision by NMFS in May 2010, was implementing its Amendment 14 to the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Currently, there’s a lawsuit being argued in federal courts brought on by the cities of Gloucester and New Bedford who “argue” NMFS failed to properly consider and include the economic impact of Amendment’s 14′s fallout on fishing communities.

There are several other policy decisions pending that portend to have a significant impact on the local fleet.

In the next several months, fishery politics should get mighty interesting…

CAFC will do our best keep you up-to-date on the latest developments and how they may impact our CSF…

 

Scallop Factoids…

 Posted by on August 12, 2012  Culinary, Fisheries, Science
Aug 122012
 

Scallops…scientific name… Pectinidae…

Found throughout the world’s oceans, scallops are the epitome of fresh shellfish for many cuisines.

A couple of quick facts…

The most productive scallop fishery worldwide is here in the waters of the Northwest Atlantic (the New England Coast).

And… What makes scallops unique is they’re the only significantly migratory bi-valve.

Most bi-valve’s/molluscs are stationary. Here in the Northeast think clams, oysters, and mussels … Clams do travel, but not far. Oysters and mussels “root” which makes them viable for aquaculture.

Scallops on the other-hand, they flip-flop all over the sea floor. Using their adductor muscle, (the scallop meat) they rapidly open and close their shell to propel themselves hither and yon.

Here in the Northwest Atlantic fishing areas off New England, scallops have been a significant source of income for boats out of New Bedford.

Over the last few decades, sea-ports have become specialized in their offerings and that’s what’s happened with New Bedford in some ways. Through it’s scallop landings, it’s been the highest earning port in the country for a few years running.

Gloucester is known for its Gulf of Maine Groundfish. Thankfully, there’s still other boats fishing for different species keeping the diversity of species landed alive and well in here in our home port.

For our previous forays into scallops as a Neptune’s Choice share, the F/V Foxy Lady has been our go-to scalloping boat out of Gloucester.

Let’s hope Mother Nature and Neptune cooperate well so the F/V Foxy Lady can continue to haul in them delicious little nuggets of lovely scallop meat.

Fisheries and Climate Change

 Posted by on July 9, 2012  Fisheries, Science
Jul 092012
 

The news recently has been full of stories regarding the extremes in weather in the mid-west along with fresh data about the sea-level rising along the east coast at 3 to 4 times the global average.

With the preponderance of climate change evidence the globe is experiencing, it’s mind-boggling that some folks still deny the earth’s atmosphere is rapidly changing and with those changes, the subsequent effects on eco-systems.

Undoubtedly, the full effects of these changes will unfold over the next several years, decades, centuries, and millennia. However, some of those climate change effects appear to be happening here and now this fishing season.

For example, lobsters. Lobsters typically molt in June and July. This year, perhaps due to the mild winter and hence warmer ocean temperatures, local lobsters began their molting process far earlier in the year than they have in the past. Additionally, due to warmer water temps, bluefish have arrived much earlier than in years past. These two seasonal species observations haven’t been lost on scientists and fisheries experts. Things are definitely changing with what species get caught when and where. Whether this is a one-off, odd year or further evidence of a significant trend has yet to be fully determined.

Despite NOAA’s efforts, fisheries estimation of yearly production and the health of fish stocks has never been an exact science. But, it’s clear that things have changed significantly compared to historical models over the last several years/decades. This “hiccup” could be explained in the historical context through improved scientific surveys and landing reports.

However, in the face of recent articles that convey that we’ve crested the tipping point in global environmental implications, its fairly clear that the delicate balance of our eco-systems is undergoing significant changes.

We sincerely hope that climate change implications are given greater credence on the world stage and effective steps are taken on a global level to slow this juggernaut. Our generation will undoubtedly see some effects of these climate changes. And knowing that CAFC is doing it’s small part in lowering the carbon footprint of putting dinner on your table is a small but important step in helping future generations and the overall health of the planet.

Jun 262012
 
Maine_Lobster

With the Neptune’s Choice deliveries of lobsters (Homarus americanus) during week 4 of CAFC’s Summer 2012 season, we thought we’d offer up some “historical” perspectives of how lobsters gained their culinary stature, recent concerns of the intrepid fisherman who catch these sweet beasties of the seas, and how these latter two elements relate to the current state of locally-sourced foods.

First, some “ye-olde” lobster factoids from Colonial America…

• Once upon a time, Colonial Massachusetts had a statute on its books that servants and prisoners were not to be served lobsters more than three times a week. Doing more so was considered a “cruel and unusual punishment.”

• During those times, lobsters were so plentiful, they mounded on New England’s shores after a big storm. Shore-side farmers would then collect lobsters that had washed ashore into wheel-barrows. bring them to their fields, and then use them as fertilizer when planting their crops, a farming trick they learned from Native-Americans.

•  In addition to the color of the British Soldiers uniforms, during the American Revolution, the “lobster back” nickname given to British Soldiers was meant as an insult because of “lobsters” perceived “fertilizer” value…

Then America gained its Independence and the lobster’s stature began its transformation…

In the early/mid-1800′s, perceptions changed significantly for the “lowly lobster”…

As with many food sources, an over-abundance diminishes its perceived value. Yet, in the first half of the 1800′s, attitudes changed significantly as lobsters gained popularity with the monied class.

Like today, chefs of that era were on the lookout for cost effective seafood proteins with great flavor. Chefs who had access at the time began introducing lobster on their menus. In the course of a few decades, the lowly lobster was elevated from “fertilizer” to a treasured treat… Rich folks who could afford to eat out were enjoying lobsters on a regular basis. The lobster’s stature as a “delicacy” was firmly in place by the mid 1800s.

(Interestingly, this underutilized species trend continues through today with many different seafood species. Bluefin Tuna and Monkfish are just two significant examples from the past 50 years that were once recently considered “trash” species.)

With the introduction of the refrigerated box car in the 1870′s, lobsters east-coast-only exclusivity soon spread west with the ever-expanding rail lines across the US.

Because lobsters are” live” before they get cooked, there’s a primal element of freshness that enhances its perception of a delicacy. To the burgeoning markets of the mid-west, if you could afford to eat lobster, your stature was sealed, “you had made it.”

This combination of perceived culinary value, limited-availability, along with the challenges of transportation logistics, elevated New England lobsters from a spurned food source into the pantheon of the world’s most sought after delicacies in the late 1800′s. Since then, canning techniques and freezing have changed matters further for the availability of lobster meat.

Still, what’s currently impressive is that Homarus americanus can fetch up to $50/lb on the west coast and across Europe. What was once considered peasant food and fertilizer 300 years ago is now the epitome of fine-dining and “haute-cuisine” world-wide. It’s remarkable how market forces influence a food’s perceived value.

Yet, the food producers face a significant disparity. Their production cost and what the market “determines” what their food is worth doesn’t “trickle-down” to those harvesting the food.

(To address this concern, Community Supported Food Programs have stepped in to help food harvesters confront this disparity.)

For the local lobsterman, in today’s current market, things haven’t changed much in the last 20 years. For example, boat prices for lobsters have remained stagnant. Boats are still, on average, receiving the same price per pound they got for their catch 20 years ago. Yet, across that same time frame, lobsterman’s labor, fuel and bait costs have tripled.

This trend is nearly universal for all small-local food producers who are getting squeezed tighter and tighter by production costs… Small local farms and protein producers are hit with the same cudgel of diminished returns on their increased production costs.

The socio-economic impact of these changes in addition to their ecological and nutritional impacts on our “public health” can’t be overstated.

Ultimately, this brings into focus the larger question of where our food gets produced and who’s benefiting. With the current trend of concentrated consolidation with who supplies our food sources, it raises the concern to the fore of, “who produces our food matters”.

This is a main focus of one of our partner organizations, the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance (www.namanet.org). Their “Who Fishes Matters” campaign strives to bring greater awareness to the socio-economic impacts of how sea-based proteins land on your plate. It’s easily translated to terrestially-based foods as well.

“Food Justice” may sound like an obscure term from a political playbook, however, the implications of where food gets sourced and its value from source-to-table has far-reaching implications for all of us.

We may be preaching to the “converted” with this blog entry. However, there’s a far larger framework of where our food gets sourced and the implications it carries to the overall “health” of ourselves and our “local” economies that needs to get discussed.

Jun 122012
 

Now and again, we get questions addressing the “variety” of species we offer in CAFC shares. While we’ve addressed these concerns individually in the past, we felt it might be helpful to share this concern about variety publicly.

From CAFC’s perspective, there are significant considerations involved in determining the “local” fish species one receives in a CAFC share. In other words, there’s a lot more to the “species” we announce in our Daily Catch notifications than meets the “frying pan”…

First, there’s the regulatory factors for certain species. Then there’s seasonal availability of migratory species, market constraints of availability, and production considerations that limit certain species from getting delivered. All these factors play a major role in determining the “variety” of species you get delivered in your CAFC share. Oh, and did we fail to mention what’s the “freshest fish” available as the primary consideration?

Below, we address these factors and more which will hopefully let you gain and develop a greater understanding of what one can expect in your CAFC share concerning the variety of species we deliver in our regular share.

First off, the fish species Cape Ann Fresh Catch delivers in our regular shares are primarily Gulf of Maine Groundfish. These species tend to be flaky, white-fleshed fish that swim on or near the bottom of the water column. These species are most frequently landed by our local fleet and hence make up the vast majority of our deliveries.

Gulf of Maine Groundfish are regulated by the Northeast Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC, a federal regulatory board that oversees most commercially caught fish landed in the Northeast/Gloucester), there are 15 species that comprise this fishery under their jurisdiction. Some of the more commonly known species would be haddock, cod, pollock, redfish/ocean perch, yellowtail flounder, and monkfish, among others.

Where things get real interesting/confusing is the many species of flatfish that are referred to by different names for the same species. For example, Winter Flounder is what we at CAFC refer to as Blackbacks. American Plaice is known locally as Dabs. Grey Sole is also known as Witch Flounder. In the case of Yellowtail Flounder, it has only one local name, yet two scientific names. Needless to say, naming conventions can get mighty confusing quickly.

In addition to the Gulf of Maine Groundfish nomenclature conundrums, there’s the near-shore and off-shore stipulations of what boats can catch fish where. (A regulatory wrinkle that has yet to get specifically ironed out.) To compound things, there are additional species that are migratory and have a specific seasonal availability such as Northern Shrimp, Striped Bass, and Bluefish, that are regulated by the Atlantic States Fisheries Marine Commission (ASFMC).

Because of these dual regulatory boards controlling what can get landed commercially, there are significant seasonal considerations to species availability. In a very broad and general sense, NEFMC regulated fish are caught year-round and regulated by the Feds. ASFMC fish are seasonally-oriented and regulated by individual states.

To view some local species seasonal “tradtional” availability, please visit, mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/publications/dmf_seafood_availability.pdf

When available either by fisheries regulation or migratory patterns, CAFC tries to deliver the widest variety of local, sustainably-caught species available within a reasonable price range for a share’s affordability.

This consideration of affordability and market forces brings up the next major impact on what gets delivered in your CAFC share weekly/bi-weekly.

To ensure the cost of a CAFC share is economically reasonable, we keep a constant watch on market costs for species consistently landed by CAFC. Because of our unique business model, where folks pay in advance of the shares they receive, and in turn the boats receive a better price for their catch, we pay close attention to dock prices while balancing these two factors.

On a day-to-day basis, it’s akin to a high-wire, balancing-act of cost-benefit analysis. To this end, we have to express tremendous gratitude to the folks at Ocean Crest Seafood for balancing CAFC landings across a daily and seasonal basis. Knowing these certain economic constraints, Ocean Crest has consistently landed for CAFC a tremendous variety of the freshest, local seafood available. There are days when the program loses money with the fish that gets purchased and delivered. On other days, the program regains that lose due to dock prices of that day’s particular species. Throughout it all, the boats that participate in CAFC benefit. To that end, Ocean Crest Seafood has been the keystone on the waterfront and a tremendous partner in balancing the costs of species CAFC delivers.

Managing this balancing act is no small feat. There are cost margins that have to be evaluated daily and compared to seasonal projections of income. This is why certain “high market value” species, e.g. tuna, halibut, swordfish, don’t get delivered in day-to-day CAFC shares. Due to their high-market value, the cost of these shares would bust the budget of the program and make it unaffordable for the cost of an average share.

By avoiding these “high-dollar” pelagic species, and focusing on more equally delicious, under-appreciated “groundfish” species, CAFC strives to enhance the ocean’s sustainability and your food dollar.

Market forces have driven some fishermen to target certain species because they get a better price for that specific species. This is why cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder have traditionally garnered a greater dock price than say hake, pollock, or redfish here in New England. Believe it or not Atlantic Halibut was considered a “trash fish” back in the 1800′s. The same can be said for Monkfish as recently as the 1980′s. Once chefs determined Monkfish had tremendous culinary value, Monkfish has been consistently the most expensive species we deliver. Perceived market value ultimately drives the cost of typical seafood costs.

However, it costs the fishermen the same amount of money to steam out and catch a cod as it does a pollock or monkfish. All are delicious fish, yet it’s a perceived market value that’s influenced many folks palates in determining what’s better-tasting. (We’ll address this matter again and its nuances in another blog post.)

Market forces determine fish prices on a day-to-day basis. However there’s also shore-side costs of production.

Regarding production costs, there’s several factors that influence what CAFC delivers. For those Whole Fish members who’ve filleted a flatfish compared to a big, fat six-pound hake, you can appreciate the production value consideration. And to that end, our partnership with Turner’s Seafood in Gloucester has yielded tremendous benefits for CAFC members. (For those who get fillets, there’s a 90% chance it was cut by Milton. He is an Artisanal Fish Cutter/Ninja! He is the bedrock in CAFC’s fillet processing.)

The yield factor of a species quite often determines what CAFC can deliver reasonably. There are some local species available that are just to small to handle and be economically viable for the program. For example, herring. Production values for herring fillets would be astronomical. (We’d like to completely side-step how its caught for now.) The value-added costs of filleting herring compared to its whole fish costs would quickly render the program untenable with a single delivery. Whiting is another example of a smaller species that’s uneconomical to fillet. We tried it once with “king whiting.” Because of production times alone, we barely made the delivery that day.

Factoring in all these considerations, there’s limitations to the variety of species CAFC can deliver. If it weren’t for the partnerships CAFC forged with Turner’s Seafood and Ocean Crest Seafood, the program wouldn’t be viable.

Undoubtedly our goal is to offer our members the widest variety of local seafood species available. Yet, there are limitations in what we can offer species-wise as described above. Ultimately, Mother Nature’s whimsies determines what Cape Ann Fresh Catch delivers on any given day. We just hope you’re willing to accept the species she offers any given delivery day.

To enhance our offerings and address any perceived discrepancies, we’ve got our Neptune’s Choice Share. With it, we offer species not regularly featured in our regular fish shares, such as, scallop meat, lobsters, crabs, and “other” limited-availability finfish as Neptune’s Choice shares. However, there’s even more regulatory considerations. We’re limited in the “bi-valves” we can deliver for a Neptune’s Choice share.

“Bi-valve” shellfish like oysters, clams, and mussels are “outside” the regulatory framework in which CAFC is permitted to operate. (This too is a whole other blog…)

There’s a tremendous volume of hoop-jumping across multiple planes to ensure folks get the widest variety of seafood available on any given delivery day from Cape Ann Fresh Catch.

If you’ve read this far, it’s our sincere hope you’ve gained a greater appreciation and understanding of what we offer and why.

On the flip-side, hoop-jumping is just a matter of coordinated-efforts meant to be overcome. And, it can be overcome with your support.

While we can’t currently offer the full range of seafood offerings to CAFC members we’d like to, the program is a work-in-progress. To that end, your patience and support of CAFC’s efforts can’t be understated.

Jun 062012
 

In between the Spring 2012 and Summer 2012 seasons last week, Cape Ann Fresh Catch represented at the first “North American Summit of Community Supported Fisheries.”

Held in Portsmouth, NH from 5/31–6/1, along with other “like-minded” organizations, twenty of the two dozen or so Community Supported Fisheries from across the US and Canada gathered to discuss all things “CSF.”

In addition to CSF representatives and associated organizations—such as Turner’s Seafood—there were several fishermen who “land” for CSFs, many SeaGrant representatives from varied colleges and universities, along with a dozen or so folks from non-profit organizations that advocate local fishermen and their communities.

About 60 or so people attended and in a nutshell, it was intensive and great!

One of the most intriguing “take-aways” was just how differently each CSF went about developing its business model and share offerings. Frankly, this was astonishing. Thankfully, there were a couple of anthropologists in attendance who’ll be able to make scholarly sense of this burgeoning food movement.

For example, CAFC is all about “day-boat” fresh seafood. Being so close to the coast, it’s what we kinda take for granted.

On the west coast though, in addition to fresh seafood, some CSFs offer canned salmon and IQF (Individually Quick Frozen) shares due to the distances they travel. Different markets, different logistics.

“Further”… Is something we take relatively for granted in eastern Massachusetts… The distances travelled by some CSFs out west and down south to make their deliveries was eye opening.

Here at CAFC, it made us reflect and be all the more appreciative for the volunteers who help distribute CAFC shares and site partners that help make CAFC deliveries happen.

Prior to this First CSF summit, there were two hour long tele-conferences held among some CSFs, SeaGrant folk, and fishery advocacy organizations. This past week’s summit let CSFs and interested parties gather together under “one roof” and talk “shop” at length. Much was discussed. Much was accomplished.

Through organized discussion groups and informal conversations with one other, the magnitude of each CSFs diversity spawned a profound appreciation for how adaptive CSFs have become to meeting fishing community needs and meshing it with members’ interests.

All in all, the summit was a tremendous success. Its outcome is that the participants have strengthened the CSF network; its ability to share knowledge and experience; and to combine their efforts to improve the “sustainability” of all our fishing communities.

Lots of buzz is afoot regarding further developments from the CSF Summit. Stay tuned.

Jan 162012
 

If you’ve followed some of the Fisheries News we’ve linked to on our blog’s RSS feeds, you might have noticed a subtle change to some names. The organization that regulates how most fish in our oceans are managed is no longer the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). It’s now known as the NOAA Fisheries Service.

Another tidbit that’s flown under some news radars is the former NMFS parent organization, NOAA—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is slated to move from the Commerce Department to a new home under the Department of the Interior (DOI). This was announced last Friday, Jan. 13th.

Current speculation over what this portends is mixed right now. And ultimately, it’s up to the approval of Congress to move NOAA from Commerce to Interior. Given the current Congressional willingness to agree with the Obama Administration—even on the time of day—makes for some interesting political theater down the road.

So how does this affect our Fishing Fleets? Honestly, it’s too early to tell how NOAA and its Fisheries Service fares under DOI jurisdiction. Initially, there shouldn’t be significant changes. In the short term, it’s just shuffling boxes on an Organization Chart. If approved by Congress, down the road the move could have far wider implications when it comes to matters of funding.

Focusing back on near-term impacts to fisheries policy, currently there’s a series of meetings scheduled to address Fleet Diversity. These meetings will address the proposed Amendment 18 to the Magnuson-Stevens Act—the regulations which control how commercial fisheries and our oceans are managed by the government. These meetings are intended to be a chance for public comments.

To get a better sense of what Amendment 18 is about, when these meetings will be held, and how your comments can have impact, check out the work of our sister organization, the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance (NAMA). Their website can be found at www.namanet.org.

As for concerns over the recent stock assessment and its impact on fishermen this upcoming fishing year starting in May, things just got a lot more interesting. There’s an intriguing article from the Jan. 16th Bangor Daily News that outlines what might be in store for all the nation’s fisheries.

Policies regulating our oceans are in flux. Here at CAFC we’re taking a “wait and see” attitude with the hopes that prudent and sound policy measures are put in place to find a harmonious balance between man and nature. Considering previous regulatory decisions and policies governing our fisheries and oceans, we’re not going to hold our breath.

It reminds one of that timeless statement, “may you live in interesting times.” For our nation’s fishermen and the shoreside operations that support them, these are interesting times indeed.

Jan 022012
 

Regarding the Gulf of Maine commercial Northern Shrimp fishery season this winter, we’re keeping our fingers crossed, but have some serious doubts regarding shrimp availability.

Today the season will “open” for commercial boats to go fishing for Pandelus Borealis—Northern Shrimp.

In the past, the Northern Shrimp season typically opened at the first of December. However, this season, starting Jan. 2nd, boats permitted to fish for Northern Shrimp can only land their catch on certain days. Specifically, Monday’s, Wednesday’s, and Friday’s—literally.

Unlike most other species in the Gulf of Maine which are regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Northern Shrimp fishery in the Gulf of Maine is regulated by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. In the off-season they determined that boats could only land shrimp on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. This new regulation was made at the behest of the only shrimp processing facility left on the Gulf of Maine.

It appears another example of “consolidation” is influencing fisheries policies. We hope we’re wrong with how long this influence extends into future seasons. Pandelus Borealis are absolutely delicious. Because of the awkward landing schedule and the short shelf-life for fresh shrimp, CAFC is uncertain whether we can land the species consistently enough to offer it as a share for our members.

We’ll be keeping a close eye on the status of the shrimp fishery and we hope we can make something happen with those little pink and turquoise jewels of epicurean joy.