Saturday, January 12, 2013

To MSC or not to MSC

So the state is having a big pow-wow with PSVOA this coming Monday over the boards  decision to stick it out with MSC so that Silver Bay Seafoods could go it alone.

This is a complex issue.

First let's start out with SEAS unequivocal and total non-support of MSC from the outset in the late 1990's when then-Gov Knowles administration welcomed the MSC folks in to get the trophy of certifying the worlds best managed commercial fishery-Alaska Salmon.  SEAS, under the leadership of Jim Bacon at that time, determined that the short-term, feel good of having the MSC label would be short-lived and would not be worth the longer term of inviting the Eco-terrorists into the fold to wreak havoc on the Alaska brand.

SEAS is, has always been and will always be opposed to MSC.  The shine of the MSC label began to come off the wrapper in the early 2000's with MSC finagling and harassment of ADFG managers over breaking down Alaska salmon into multiple subdistricts as well as beating up our scientifically sound and and advanced, modern 21st century salmon enhancement practices.  Then the wheels came off when we were traveling in Europe with Governor Murkowski in 2006 and the MSC certifier was on a much ballyhooed rumored cocaine runner in southern California with both our money and our certification.

Shortly thereafter the state of Alaska dumped MSC.  At first ASMI picked up the tab, then AFDF, then finally no one.

Until PSVOA.

SEAS and PSVOA work together on many fronts.  This is not one of them.
But SEAS has no adverse opinion on the very controversial decision by PSVOA to go this course.
It's just not our bag.  Sure we've been adamantly opposed to MSC in Alaska salmon all along.  But then MSC is in several other Alaska species.  They must have just not caused as much mischief in those fisheries, we presume.

Obviously Silver Bay has a relationship they'd like to extend with MSC.  Before it was just down to Silver Bay, Trident was holding on even though Icicle, NPPI, AGS, OBSI had all had enough of MSC.  Once Trident kicked the MSC habit, SBS was left holding the bag.

So why do we bring this up?

The state of Alaska is happy to be going with the new certification program for the rest of he 80% of salmon sold in Alaska but  not while working for the MSC program in addition.  We presume there is a bit of marketplace confusion as well as a lack of staffing to handle both programs.

Having said that, there are some who feel that having both programs gives the marketplace a bit of time to switch as opposed to changing 'cold turkey'.   This is an understandable strategy that seems to allow some grace time between the final weening off of MSC prior to a final departure from using the MSC label.  Of course the financial benefits aren't evenly distributed under this scenario and that is probably one of the major issues here.  It's also confusing the issue for some that MSC must go while it sits on the product lines for potluck, halibut , etc.

SEAS hates MSC.  Always has.  Always will. We're the only state or administrative region in the world that disallows farmed salmon .  Yet we get blasted by MSC ( who certify everything but beluga whaling) for our scientifically sound ocean ranching programs.  MSC set back the Alaska hatchery program by 2 decades, allowing the world farmed salmon countries to eat our proverbial lunch.  MSC is, was and always will be a scam to screw Alaska.

But we are not going to disparage the decision by PSVOA.
These are our brothers and they must have their reasons.

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous7:43 AM

    Follow the the money! Come on, who benefits the most? it's really just that simple. SBS is going it alone, WHY? The mask has been removed from MSC's goals of brand ownnership. So again, why fund them?