Monday, December 12, 2011

MCManman and Keaton Conspire to Confuse Less Careful Readers

On page six  and seven of December's 2011 Pacific Fishing Magazine's Don McManman starts a twisted apology (probably mostly to advertisers) about having passed on information Wiglaf pulled from official NMFS numbers (although McManman seems to confuse Wiglaf and Medred).  Josh Keaton of NMFS also weighs in to twist Wiglaf''s flippers over the posting.  Admittedly, Wiglaf has been pretty hard on NMFS for not protecting the resources of the GOA.  McManman even includes some palaver from Merrick Burden, of MCA, a wholly owned and operated extension of the draggers and processors serving as a thinly guised propaganda service to promote DP interests.  Ordinarily, I wouldn't bother to respond, but since this is a clumsy attempt to gut our credibility, here goes.   I do appreciate that this need to fill two pages in Pathetic Fishing means we hare having some effect, or no one would mention us.

No projections of the Alaska Beauty's catch was made by Wiglaf.  Straight off NMFS's report.  No application to the fleet was made by Wiglaf; the Alaska Beauty is regularly dirty, owns no IFQ halibut and so is apparently disinterested in taking care of that resource.  (Don't you love the way Keaton apologizes for the Alaska Beauty?)  We have to wonder though, what happens when Alaska Beauty doesn't have an observer aboard.  Keaton says one observed bad tow, NMFS records show there were five.  NMFS numbers: 43% of his catch of cod was PSC halibut.  Beauty, eh?  A black mark on Alaska to be sure.

The fleet-wide catch was officially extrapolated with an approved NMFS model by NMFS number crunchers and published as such.  That they adjust these numbers regularly as they feel the pressure by the industry to deflate them or find errors in their methods (are there many?) should be our concern, but we publish as the information surfaces.
24 September 2011
http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/2011/car240_psc_halibut.csv
This link has weekly bycatch rates/mortality by area and gear type. (Thanks, GF)

As far as to what Craig Medred says (we saw the error in his report), we have little care.  Medred is devoutly anti-commercial fishing, and so is hardly an ally, except that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" occasionally makes him useful.  Nobody, after all, informed of the horrific bycatch waste in the Gulf of Alaska fails to flinch.  And while it is true we all have bycatch, whether pot, longline, seine, troll, jig, gillnet; the fact remains that trawl bycatch is beyond what anybody should tolerate, and while we argue, trawlers are busily degrading the GOA, its habitat and ocean inhabitants.  NMFS is comfortable with its own models and sincerely does not have the will to change the modus operandi of GOA trawling.  Some say they sincerely don't care.  Too much trouble and too much well financed opposition with no political backbone in DC to back them up.  Fisheries science is up for sale.  Wake up. 

"At times the GOA trawl fleet seems more intent on avoiding halibut (PSC bycatch) than actually catching its target species.  The fleet voluntarily stood down for three weeks in September because of high (observed) halibut bycatch."  Don McManman says.  Oh, Don, come on, you are not really that simple are you?  They had damn well better be careful.  If they exceed the PSC they will be forcibly shut down by Federal law.  Their behavior is called self interested self preservation.  McManman kisses on...

"The GOA trawl fleet also voluntarily took on 100 percent observer coverage---paid for out of their own pockets---to ensure an accurate and timely count of halibut bycatch."  Really?  Don, they didn't do that out of the goodness of their hearts, it is called CYA.  A PR ploy that worked on you and didn't cover anymore time than they needed it to, operating as an informal co-op.  Part of this was to stopper their 'pirate' or sloppy skippers who can't avoid bycatch because they are too unskilled or impaired.  It was also a demonstration of what they could do if we give them the Gulf as IFQ.

Years ago, Al Burch said we had to hang together as commercial fishermen or the greenies and the tree huggers and PETA would hang us all separately.  It is a simple argument that has appeal if you are basically distrustful or paranoid, but not if you are more willing take a chance with honesty with the fish consuming public.  It is the public's ocean.  We need to clear the air, fish as cleanly as we can and change how we catch fish if we need.  If dragging is unable to clean up its act, it needs to go the way of the dinosaurs...extinct.  That restricting trawlers might affect Pacific Fishing's bottom line, or anyone else's, is meaningless in the long run, and that is what we care about, the future of fishing.  We look east of us and see it is mostly gone or a shadow of its former health/wealth.  We don't want to look back at the good old days.  We want them from here on into the future.  You got a problem with that?

Bycatch is an emotional issue, you say?  Damn right.  To see the future swept away by the lust for profits, to see the passive response of NMFS and the NPFMC to such criminality of wasting this year 1829 metric tons of halibut.  One metric ton is 1000 kilograms, so a metric ton is roughly 2205 pounds, so 1829 X 2205 = 4,032,945 pounds.  Check that Don.  No bullshit. 

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/2011/car120_goa.pdf
This is straight off the internet.  Try it, you'll like it.  And if what we believe is true, this is a fraction compared with what is really being killed off as bycatch in the Gulf. 100% observed trawling for an entire year will get us some ground-truthing of what the real cost to the resource is for complacency over trawl bycatch.


Journalists are dependent on economics to survive.  Fishing magazines (all small magazines) are under stress.  They need every advertising dime they can garner.  The smaller the outfit the more dependent they are on their advertisers.  Advertisers hate controversy.  It is hard on the bottom line.  So most journalists are not very independent, they depend on advertising dollars for their daily bread.  Bloggers are not dependent on cash made from their journalism.  They can speak the truth as they see fit without the compromise of fearing offending groups (except for violent threats).  The blog is a leveler.  Wiglaf is saying nothing that hasn't been said before on the docks, but for the first time, you can read it out loud and online.  This news can get beyond the shorelines of this little fish town.  That shakes things up.

Last. Anonymity is for self protection.  What's a name, anyway?   Call me Wiglaf.   Judge the argument.   If you want to get a hold of me, use the comment link, but otherwise don't waste my time.

Keep your flippers wet.

23 comments:

Anonymous said...

:)

Anonymous said...

When did they take on the 100% coverage?

Anonymous said...

Just canceled my P.Fishing subscription. Piece of crap rag. You had me Don before you crapped in your own hat while bashing the one credible source for current bycatch issues in the GOA. May your cheap rag go the way of my quickly disappearing halibut quota.
Wiglaf....keep up the good work we eagerly await your next posts.

Wiglaf said...

When...I gather for a short time this fall when they got into a large volume of halibut PSC. Rumor was they were pretty uptight about exceeding the PSC and wanted to show how a co-op would work to help avoid bycatch, thus proving how badly they need Ratz.

Anonymous said...

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/2011/car240_psc_halibut.csv

That link has weekly bycatch rates/mortality by area and gear type.

Anonymous said...

How can we contact wiglaf? you could have an anonymous email... I may have some pictures/videos that are of use to you.

Wiglaf said...

Write to bycatchfacts@ak.net and I will get them. w

Anonymous said...

Ever make any ground trying to convince the council that leaving these boats unobserved will mean continuing disaster followed by complete collapse?

Anonymous said...

waskily wabbit

Anonymous said...

Your honesty is appriciated. Keep it up.

Anonymous said...

Merry christmas you fat sealion bastard.

Anonymous said...

Bad xmas to you trawl whore.

Anonymous said...

According to your website draggers are required to carry observers 100% of the time in the chiniak gully. Is this true?

Wiglaf said...

100% in Chiniak Gully? Have you been smoking? NMFS staff has stalled on this issue. They say they are too busy. What is included is part of the Sand Box outside Kiliuda, and a little sliver up in Marmot. But until NMFS gets their act together, it is a pipe dream. You have to wonder about NMFS. They appear to act an awful lot like the forest service with regards to the resource. Happy New Year.

Anonymous said...

abuuuusssed

Anonymous said...

did you get the bad guys?

craig medred said...

Medred, for the record, is not "devoutly anti-commercial fishing." He is devoutly pro-Alaska. He believes that all Alaska fisheries should be managed for the highest, in-state economic return, and let the chips fall where they might on allocation issues. Frankly, it would be stupid to be "anti-commercial fishing." There's a lot of resource out there that can, and should be, harvested, and there ain't no way to do it without commercial fishing for Godsake.
That said, it is also clear in terms of both economics and ecology that clean fisheries are always better than dirty fisheries. Nobody - nobody -- make a buck off fish rolled back into the sea dead, and the biological consequences can in some cases be significant.
Medred

Anonymous said...

It's not about whether it's a "clean fishery" or a "dirty fishery." It's about the under reporting of bycatch to make it appear "cleaner." No matter how clean the boats fish, until the system is fixed, the fishery will continue to destroy more halibut than is reported and result in further deterioration of the stock.

Anonymous said...

Medred says he's not anti-commercial fishing?!

That's as laughable as it is dishonest.

I had to re-read a few of his articles from the last year to remind myself of just how anti-commercial fishing he is.

Hardly objective journalism.

Google him and then judge for yourself.

Anonymous said...

Medred says he's not anti-commercial fishing?!

That statement is as laughable as it is dishonest.

Google the guy and judge for yourself, but I can't find a single fisheries article in the last year where he didn't slam the commercial fishing industry in one way or another. Not to mention the selective use of sources, quotations supporting charter positions only, etc.

Hardly objective journalism. He's lost all credibility in my eyes on fisheries.

Anonymous said...

Any chance you can sue pacific fishing for libel?

Anonymous said...

Shut these guys down already. Their whole network is a house of cards resting upon the gamed data. f

Anonymous said...

"Nobody - nobody -- make a buck off fish rolled back into the sea dead, and the biological consequences can in some cases be significant.
Medred"

Wrong. Lots of bucks are made by rolling dead fish back into the sea.

Especially if that "historical bycatch" is monetized and that abuser earns the right to keep that dead fish - and make a buck off it.

Highest in-state economic value?

Surely you jest Medred.

How much of the hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue by the Community Development Quotas stay in-state, let alone in the adjacent communities?

Hardly any.