Did you know that people recently became ill from eating farmed Maine oysters?
On July 10, 2024, the Maine Center for Disease Control notified the Department of Marine Resources of an outbreak of campylobactor illness related to the consumption of raw oysters. According to the World Health Organization, “Campylobacter infections are generally mild, but can be fatal among very young children, elderly, and immunosuppressed individuals.”
By Paul Sylvain
This story originally appeared in the Machias Valley News Observer.
Machiasport residents, who on June 24 voted down a commercial aquaculture ordinance, will get to vote on an amended, less restrictive version of that ordinance sometime this fall.
That's following a plea to reconsider the ordinance by Protect Maine's Fishing Heritage Executive Director Crystal Canney at the July 22 selectboard meeting.
Newly elected selectboard member Sarah Craighead Dedmon opened the discussion saying, Canney "reached out to me in my new role and shared that she feels a sense of urgency for the town to reconsider the ordinance that was narrowly defeated at the town meeting. I said that I would be happy to help her come and speak to the town again and see what the town's wishes are."
As Canney explained, Protect Maine approached the town nearly two years ago with a model aquaculture ordinance for consideration. The selectboard reviewed the ordinance and presented it to the town's voters.
Bob Mercer, who was on the planning board at the time, explained how his board got involved, "It wasn't a question of the planning board wanting a chance to review it," opined Mercer. The selectboard reviewed it and approved it for a presentation to the town. The planning board never even got a look at it. We were totally and completely blind-sided at an earlier] town meeting."
The planning board "is supposed to be the ones leading the effort on ordinances," stressed Mercer. "We needed to have a chance to look at this. We did take a look at it, and we felt there were things we didn't like in it as it pertained to Cooke. Cooke provides a lot of jobs in town. So, for various reasons, we chose to go down a path we thought would be less threatening to Cooke." Mercer said of the June 24 town meeting,
"I believe that the vast majority of the objection was because the ordinance was too restrictive as it relates to small aquaculture businesses. We had said that this relates to commercial (aquaculture).
The intent was to only have one big commercial aquaculture business in town because we didn't want another Cooke. So, we went ahead and defined 'commercial' as being those who employ more than two employees."
Mercer said the planning board picked that number "out of the air" and would have readily amended the ordinance to change the number.
"If we'd have had any of that input while we were putting together the ordinance." He added, "We couldn't have cared less, but I think that's what actually sunk the ordinance was because it was deemed to be too restrictive to a small-time aquaculturist."
Machiasport has a sort of love-hate relationship with Cooke Aquaculture. While Cooke provides many jobs and undoubtedly helps Machiasport's tax base, it doesn't erase concerns about impacts on prime fishing grounds. With Canney at the selectboard meeting was Penobscot Shellfish Conservation Committee member Bailey Bowden.
Bowden suggested the town's lobster fishermen have good reason to be concerned.
"We were faced a few years ago with a proposal for an aquaculture lease, and all the town people and fishermen came forward," said Bowden, adding that the Maine Department of Marine Resources "really didn't care about what we had to say."
Said Bowden, "Some of our commercial lobstermen were going to be displaced by this lease. We were going to lose (ocean bottom that was significant to their fishery, and DMR ignored their own criteria and policies that you can't just displace an existing fishery. So that didn't really sit well with the people of Penobscot."
Interestingly enough, DMR "made the lease so restrictive that it wasn't profitable, so the oyster grower withdrew the lease and canceled the project on his own," Bowden said. "So we kind of floundered for several years, wondering what can we do, and we were listening to DMR say, "You can't really do anything, we rule the ocean.""
Protect Maine came along with an ordinance containing model language and pointed out that home rule applied in aquaculture. Said Bowden, "The town quickly formed an aquaculture committee and came up with an ordinance based on Protect Maine's ordinance."
"The Protect Maine ordinance defines industrial scale aquaculture as five acres or larger," Bowden said.
"In Penobscot, we limited it to half an acre. We're making sure that any aquaculture that goes in is Mom and Pop scale, which is exactly what we want - owner operated - and it's not going to be turned into a multi-international operation."
"Right or wrong, our agenda was not to damage Cooke," Mercer said.
"Lots of jobs. Lots of people depend on them. We just wanted to make sure we didn't get another Cooke in here, and we certainly wanted to increase the monitoring of Cooke.
But we didn't want to in any way stifle their ability to do business."
Canney pointed out that Protect Maine's model ordinance had undergone legal review at its expense, and, therefore, would stand by the language vetted in its ordinance. Towns can tweak the ordinance as they see fit, but Protect Maine will not defend legal questions involving any language that was changed by the town.
Penobscot Shellfish Conservation Committee member Bailey Bowden (left) on July 22 detailed his town's experience with commercial aquaculture and adoption of Protect Maine's model aquaculture ordinance. Protect Maine's Fishing Heritage Executive Director Crystal Canney (right) urged the Machiasport selectboard to revise and reconsider a commercial aquaculture ordinance rejected by voters at the June 24 annual town meeting. Photos courtesy Paul Sylvain.
Penobscot, Winter Harbor, Waldoboro, and Cutler have already adopted Protect Maine’s model ordinance in whole or in large part. Canney said Cutler’s voters actually approved a more restrictive version.
Canney said she was concerned with giving Cooke “exclusive use” of the waters in Machiasport. Mercer was quick to reply “Let’s be clear”, said Mercer, “We didn’t just give them [exclusive use of the water]. We stated that there can only be one. We didn’t say it had to be Cooke. The intent there was not to drive them out, but to be dog-gone sure we didn’t get another one.”
The planning board will review the ordinances and most likely revise the number of employees permitted by small, home-grown, aquaculture businesses in Machiasport. If the town cannot get it on the November 5 ballot, Machiasport voters can expect to see it come up for reconsideration at a special town meeting sometime this fall.
We have some important information we want to share about what is happening in Maine waters.
You may have heard about the Cooke Aquaculture die off near Beals. State agencies are keeping much of the information close to the vest about what happened and what the impact will be. As you may know, Cooke leases over 600 acres of Maine waters along the coast to grow net pen salmon.
The leases involved in the latest die off are some of the leases up for renewal through DMR: https://www.maine.gov/dmr/aquaculture/maine-aquaculture-leases-and-lpas/pending-lease-applications
Coastal Communities are taking notice. In a unanimous vote in Beals on July 23, the town voted to institute an aquaculture moratorium and is beginning work on an aquaculture ordinance.
Beals Moratorium Vote
In Machiasport, headquarters for Cooke in the U.S., it’s been a longer road.
The town decided at the most recent selectboard meeting to send the last ordinance back for review to the planning board with a meeting in September. We will have more on that in the weeks to come.
Machiasport
Elected leaders like to say – “Maine, the way life should be” – How can we help them live up to that credo?
Below are two email addresses that will get you to the right people. Let them know you want better regulation of Maine waters and Industrial scale aquaculture shouldn’t have a home in Maine. Transparency in state government is important. As a concerned citizen, you would like accountability and answers.
Elected leaders work for you - not the lobbyists or the foreign corporations that are buying Maine waters.
Commissioner: Patrick.Keliher@maine.gov
Chief of Staff to the Governor: Jeremy.Kennedy@maine.gov
Protect Maine works hard to ensure the future of our waters. We do this work for people like Jason Faulkingham, the entire lobstering and marine harvesting communities, and those who work and recreate on the water. Industrial Scale Aquaculture has had a comfortable ride in Maine. It’s time to put on the breaks and figure out how to protect our natural resources before they are gone. Maine has a lot at stake.
To support our work: https://www.protectmaine.com/donate
For Immediate Release
June 25, 2024
(The Maine Coast) - The towns of Penobscot and Winter Harbor have passed ordinances regulating aquaculture activities. In Penobscot, the vote was unanimous to support the ordinance. The town spent several months considering the appropriate language for their community.
Penobscot - June 10, 2024
On June 18, 2024, the town of Winter Harbor also voted in an ordinance, based entirely on the Protect Maine’s Fishing Heritage Foundation model. Again, it was a unanimous vote at the annual town meeting.
Winter Harbor – June 18, 2024
Four towns have passed ordinances regulating aquaculture – Cutler, Waldoboro, Penobscot, and Winter Harbor.
Protect Maine’s Fishing Heritage Foundation (PMFHF) is working with several more communities around a moratorium and an ordinance on aquaculture. The goal is that every community in Maine responds to the people of their community.
PMFHF Executive Director Crystal Canney said, “We are pleased to have provided the support these communities needed to design their own future as it relates to the heritage industries. We have leadership at the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) that is intent on selling the Maine Coast to the highest aquaculture bidders. Each community has chosen its own path. If you know Maine, you know that not every community is the same and a one size fits all approachdoes not work. If you understand this state, you also know that when the state pushes too hard, communities will push back if they feel they aren’t being heard or the agenda is not in a community’s best interest. Industrial scale aquaculture has had free reign, is loaded with lobbyists and money – but it will never outstrip the will of the people.”
Recently, home rule has been invoked, to create solar ordinances and manage the mining issue in Pembroke. A court case in Bar Harbor ruled that based on home rule, a community has the right to determine its own future. Protect Maine’s reasoning around the suggested language for an ordinance to address industrial scale aquaculture and the effectiveness of home rule can be found here.
To learn more about how home rule is being used in Maine:
Cruise Ship Court Ruling - Bar Harbor
Read Protect Maine's analysis of home rule.
Contact
Crystal Canney
Executive Director
Protect Maine’s Fishing Heritage Foundation
207 615 5968
This story originally appeared in National Fisherman. Article & Image by Larry Chowning.
A $2 billion “False Claims Act” lawsuit alleging “figurehead fraud” against the Canadian seafood giant Cooke Inc. of St. John, New Brunswick, was unsealed in April in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan.
The suit alleges Cooke Inc., Omega Protein, Alpha VesselCo. Holdings, Inc., and others have been violating the American Fisheries Act (AFA) (1998) and Jones Act (1920), which allows only U.S. citizens to fish in U.S. waters.
The suit stems from an approximately $500 million purchase of Omega Protein of Reedville, Va., and all its assets in 2017 to Cooke Inc. The 57-page suit was filed by the New York law firm of Holwell, Shuster & Goldberg LLO (HS&G). Attorney Brendon DeMay of HS&G is requesting a jury trial.
The plaintiffs in the suit are Chris Manthey and W. Benson Chiles. Manthey is a professional investigator and researcher. In 1993, Manthey co-founded Back Track Report, a private investigation firm in New York focused on pre-deal background research on corporate executives.
Chiles is a consultant who has worked with environmental and conservation groups on issues relating to commercial and recreational fishing in U. S. waters. Chiles occasionally receives non-public information regarding corporations operating in the U. S. commercial fishing industry, including defendants Cooke Inc. and Omega, the suit states.
The plaintiffs say they are suing on behalf of the United States government, including the Maritime Administration (MARAD) of the United States Department of Transportation and the United States Coast Guard. MARAD determines whether applicants satisfy AFA vessel citizenship requirements.
Law Suit
As of Sept. 30, 2017, Omega Protein Inc. was a domestic, publicly traded company that owned a fleet of 37 commercial fishing vessels, 27 spotter aircraft to spot schools of fish, three fish-processing operations, and Omega Shipyard in Moss Point, Miss., where the companies’ vessels were built and repaired.
The suit alleges that since 2017, when Cooke Inc. purchased Omega, the firm has been violating the AFA/Jones Act by having “de facto control” over menhaden vessels working in the Chesapeake Bay, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico. Under the AFA/Jones Act, foreign citizens, like Cooke Inc., may not have control over vessels engaged in commercial fishing in United States waters.
The suit alleges that “as a result of a fraudulent scheme, defendants have illegally harvested from United States waters many millions of dollars worth of (menhaden) fish to which they are not entitled.”
The suit states that Cooke, Inc., a privately held Canadian firm controlled and beneficially owned by a single family, acquired Omega and its subsidies and assets, including all of Omega’s vessels. The vessels' homeports are Reedville, Va., on Chesapeake Bay, and Abbeville and Moss Point, Mississippi, on the Gulf of Mexico.
The suit alleges that Cooke Inc. was involved in a “figurehead fraud scheme,” creating a shell corporation to avoid violating the AFA citizenship requirement. It also alleges that “instead of simply acquiring Omega and owning its vessels (Cooke) restructured the entire acquisition to create an illusion of compliance with the AFA citizenship requirement.”
It further states that Omega transferred the Omega Vessels to a new subsidiary, with 20% belonging to Omega (now owned by Cooke Inc.) and 80% to a “Delaware shell” owned by Seth Dunlop, a U.S. citizen, nephew of Cooke CEO Glenn Cooke. The suit states Dunlop was “just a figurehead (and that) Cooke Inc. and Omega retained control.”
Aware early on of AFA issues
The suit alleges that during negotiations of the agreement on the sale of Omega, Cooke agreed to pay a $20 million payment if the acquisition failed to close because they could not obtain MARAD approval, recognizing the citizenship issue.
The suit alleges that “no later than June 2017, Cooke identified a potentially prohibitive obstacle to the acquisition (concerning) the AFA citizenship requirement. Cooke and Omega recognized that the acquisition as originally conceived . . . would render the Omega fishing fleet ineligible to operate in the U.S. commercial fisheries . . .,”
The suit further alleges that “conversely, neither Cooke nor Omega were willing to entertain an arrangement that complied with the AFA prohibition on foreign control. For example, neither Cooke nor Omega was willing to sell the Omega vessels to a bona fide third party in an arms-length transaction and purchase fish from that independent company at an arms-length transaction . . . and both companies viewed the Omega vessels and Omega’s tight control over its vertically integrated menhaden harvesting and processing operations, as major drivers of Omega’s value and as critical to its market dominance,” it alleges.
“Accordingly defendants entered into an agreement . . . to create a post acquisition ownership structure for the Omega vessels . . . while ensuring that Cooke and Omega would retain control via a figurehead,” it alleges.
Attorney’s comment
Attorney DeMay said in a letter announcing that the suit was unsealed, "Cooke’s scheme is illegal. Non-citizens Cooke and Omega are improperly exercising control over the vessels in a shameful violation of AFA.”
The letter alleges that Cooke Inc. concealed facts to MARAD, “flagrantly breaching” the AFA anti-fraud rule, which requires, under penalty of perjury, vessel owners to disclose to MARAD “all relevant facts regarding vessel ownership and control” and which imposes fines of up to $154,000 per vessel per day for concealing material facts or making false representations.
The suit calls for the government to revoke the fishery endorsement of all vessels whose owners do not comply with the AFA citizenship rule.
DeMay wrote that prosecuting Cooke and its “conspirators to the fullest extent of the law, and fining them billions of dollars, will serve as an important deterrent to future foreign prospectors and establish a key precedent for law enforcement.”
Response from defendant Ocean Harvesters
Vice President of public affairs of Ocean Harvesters Ben Landry said, "Ocean Harvesters believes the recently filed lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend against all allegations of wrongdoing.
“As this case proceeds, we look forward to establishing that accusations of failure to disclose appropriate information are inaccurate. Ocean Harvesters is committed to compliance with all applicable laws and to continuing to conduct responsible, sustainable fishing operations along the Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico,” said Landry.
This article originally appeared in Seafood Source.
A Canadian federal court has ruled that a decision to not renew salmon farming licenses in the Discovery Islands, located in British Columbia, Canada, met necessary government standards.
In February 2023, Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) announced it would not renew licenses for 15 open net-pen Atlantic salmon farms in the Discovery Islands. Joyce Murray, who, at the time, was Canada’s minister of fisheries, oceans, and the Canadian Coast Guard, announced the decision following “extensive consultations with First Nations, industry, and others and after closely considering the submissions received.”
The Wei Wai Kum and We Wai Kai First Nations, as well as salmon farm operators such as Grieg Seafood, Cermaq Canada, and Mowi Canada West, applied for judicial review of the decision soon after. Now, Canadian Federal Judge Paul Favel has ruled that Murray’s decision met the “requirement of the duty to consult” and “did not breach the operators’ rights of procedural fairness,” the Canadian Press reported.
The saga stems from a December 2020 announcement that the DFO wanted to phase out all ocean-based salmon farming in the Discovery Islands – a move that B.C. communities and salmon farmers said they were “blindsided” by. An earlier court decision in 2022 initially overturned the DFO’s order, sending it back to the department for reconsideration. The 2023 decision to not renew licenses followed the second consultation process, meeting government standards, according to the latest court decision.
Opponents of salmon farming in the region, including Wild First and the First Nation Wild Salmon Alliance (FNWSA), welcomed the decision, calling it the beginning of a “meaningful transition plan” to protect wild Pacific salmon populations and reconcile with First Nations groups across B.C.
“This federal government is making the correct decision to honor the direction of the Supreme Court of Canada by consulting with First Nations across British Columbia, not just site-specific where the farms are,” FNWSA Chair Bob Chamberlin said. “What they’re learning is that the majority of First Nations across the province are calling for the removal of fish farms from the ocean.”
The DFO’s actions are in accordance with a mandate issued by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has said he wants to phase out net-pen salmon farming in BC and transition to the industry to land-based aquaculture.
Salmon-farming companies in the region oppose that approach, saying a move to land-based aquaculture isn’t feasible for the companies or the industry.
In a webinar hosted by the Global Seafood Alliance covering the topic of salmon aquaculture in British Columbia, Amanda Luxton, the Tsulton site manager for Mowi Canada West, said building land-based recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) will cost more, require more energy, and take up lots of space on land.
“If you’re going to be growing big fish, due to densities, you’d have to have a lot of tanks – and a lot of big tanks – and all the components that go with it,” Luxton said. “You have pumps, you have UV, you have ozone, you have drum filters – there’s so many components that go into making a RAS successful.”
The energy needed to run a facility and heat or cool the water is immense, according to Luxton, and the farms require backup generators in case power is interrupted.
“You have to have every kind of plan to make sure if something goes wrong, you’re prepared,” Luxton said.
That equipment and planning all requires additional money, driving up the price.
“So, if you are trying to grow this product on land and you are spending so much money to grow, it’s going to have to be super expensive, and at the end of the day, that’s not what you want,” Luxton said. “You want to be able to grow happy, healthy fish that anybody can afford and eat.”
A report commissioned by the British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food and conducted by Counterpoint Consulting also found that transitioning from net-pen salmon farms to land-based systems in BC isn’t economically feasible.
The 2023 report stated that the transition would require an investment of CAD 1.8 billion (USD 1.3 billion, EUR 1.2 billion) and would likely mean B.C. communities would miss out on the economic benefits, as RAS systems would be located closer to areas with higher populations.
This Post was originally published in the Portland Press Herald.
Expansion of an oyster farm would continue the degradation of the serenity of Maquoit Bay.
Why are so many hell-bent on destroying what is beautiful and enjoyed by others?
I live in Brunswick, near Maquoit Bay, a shallow saltwater body, which is enjoyed by boaters, fishermen and appreciators of nature. The bay has been taken over, to a great extent, by a commercial oyster farm. I believe this farm is depositing sludge, produced as effluent from the oysters being raised, along the banks of this shallow, not-self-cleaning body of water. Now, our local government is reviewing the oyster company’s application for a 160-foot-long dock out into the near reaches of the bay, disrupting the quietude of neighbors and others who enjoy the serenity still present.
This water, which used to nourish shellfish and other spawning species, is now bereft of precious eel grass, which had been the critical component for the life of this bay. This loss is probably irreversible, damning the future of this precious resource to being a dead zone. Where have sensibility and forethought gone? As has been said often: Follow the money.
Prentiss Tubby
Brunswick
Listen to why communities in Maine have home rule authority concerning aquaculture. Attorney David Kallin explains.
Never underestimate the value of a leap year. On February 29, 2024, Federal court Judge Lance Walker ruled against the assertion that state law facilitating economic development trumps home rule.
As you may recall, Protect Maine has been working with coastal communities in Maine around ordinances that communities can put in place to safeguard the ocean, relying on their rights under Home Rule. While DMR has repeatedly tried to dissuade communities from executing their authority around home rule this recent ruling indicates towns across Maine do have a say in what they want in their communities. Protect Maine sought a legal opinion at the beginning of this project which speaks directly to the ability of communities to act. Here is the news article with a link to the court decision by Justice Walker.
2024 Maine Fishermen’s Forum – Protect Maine’s Table
The Maine Fishermen’s Forum kicked off to a great start with a ton of traffic at our table.
People were asking questions about why there is no plan for aquaculture – a statement made publicly by the Department of Marine Resources both in Damariscotta and Brunswick. It was the poster below that also caused a lot of conversation and even more questions about the plan for Maine’s coastal future and shared waters. As you may recall, 116 thousand fish died at Cooke’s Black Island farm and a few months later DMR renewed the lease for 20 years. Diving underneath the net pens didn’t occur by the state for more than 2 months and therefore any understanding of environmental impact during that time has been lost.
August 2022 – Black Island die off.
Ironically, Cooke sponsored a dinner at the forum – and you guessed it – farmed salmon was the main course.
The Department of Marine Resources is holding listening sessions around the state regarding aquaculture. Camden Reiss, a marine harvester from Brunswick and consultant to Protect Maine was on the Portland panel. There are three more scheduled in Newcastle, Machias, and Ellsworth. Often, we hear about large scale industrial finfish aquaculture. Equally, as important is large scale bivalve development in Maine. For example, did you know that after a bivalve lease is approved DMR does not track how many bivalves are added to a lease. Why is this important? The impact can be substantial to the oxygen and water quality. Listen to Camden speak about this:
If you want more information about the science you can read more here.
Our Protect Maine’s Fishing Heritage hats were a huge success at the forum. We sold out the first day and are getting inquiries about when they will be available again. If you are interested, we are selling this hat at cost for a $25 donation plus shipping. Should you choose to add to your donation, (which we hope you will), it will go to helping us cover costs for educational purposes as we talk to communities around the state about their right to institute ordinances under home rule. If you skipped over the home rule article – here is the link again.
To Order a Hat: email – Protectmaine@gmail.com indicating you want one or more and when they arrive will reach back out to you.