Saw this today at a Whole Foods in Tucson, AZ.

Their website:
http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/stores/oracle
Their Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/wholefoodsmarketoracle

They are using the Safina Center's Sustainability Rating for Steelhead that allows for all USA caught steelhead.
The Safina Center's Rating:
http://safinacenter.org/seafoods/trout-steelhead/

I'm not usually into this type of whack-a-mole, but Whole Foods is a corporate giant who can really do some damage on the demand side if not stopped.

FYI, I have already had a conversation with the store and person in charge of buying and they are saying it is wild caught steelhead... regardless of the color of the filets

Agreed about the assumption. Did you ask what the actual source of the fish is? Color is definitely something to behold considering they are marketing it as "wild". What was that percentage of fish that is sold mislabeled?

Looks freezer burned as well. YUMMY

Nice booty kelt!

WTF does "wild caught" mean?

-S

Wild caught means it was caught in an open water fishery. That way, the WA hatchery chinook and coho taken in AK and BC can be called wild-caught.

If they are using the Monterey Aquarium sustainable fish list, they are right. That fish seems to turn a blind eye to steelhead and I suspect some of that is that they have a soft liberal spot for the tribes.

I threw up a little bit when I saw the color of those steelhead fillets. The word "yellow" must be there to help color blind folks make their selection. I'd feed that fish to a feral cat, but it would be on my conscience for a day, or two. All the reason I need to not shop at Whole Foods...

I happen to know for a fact that the Monterey Aquarium doesn't practice what they preach when it comes to sustainable fisheries. I also know that Julie Packard is anti fishing,yet they hook and line fish to capture the fish they have in that aquarium. That being said if you are ever in Monterey you owe it to yourself to go there,as it is pretty damn incredible.


All of the fish in that case looks repulsive incidentally.

This is what Monterey Bay says about wild steelhead:
"In the mid-1900s, lake trout populations suffered from overfishing and the introduction of non-native species in the Great Lakes. Due to recent population increases, lake trout from Lake Huron and Lake Superior is a "Good Alternative." Concerns about low numbers of trout in Lake Michigan result in an "Avoid" rating. Farmed rainbow trout from the U.S. is a "Best Choice" because it's raised in environmentally friendly ways. Rainbow trout is sometimes sold as "golden trout," "steelhead" or "steelhead trout." This recommendation does not apply to wild steelhead; many of its populations are threatened or endangered. "

Neither Monterey Bay or MSC give wild steelhead a "go" rating when it comes to sustainability. The Safina Center is the only one and is the first time any organization has given wild steelhead any kind of decent "sustainability" rating. The reasoning of the Safina Center also happens to be full of crap.

The problem is that the rating lists all USA wild steelhead with the yellow rating, even though most ESU's are listed as endangered or threatened in the USA. You have no way of knowing if the tribal fishery is targeting a so-called "healthy" stock or "endangered" stock and we all know that nets targeting hatchery fish kill wild fish as by-catch.

Whole Foods is cherry-picking sustainability ratings. It ignores the two giants (Monterey Bay and MSC) and chooses one most people have never heard of to sell potentially endangered species.

While I certainly think that the selling (and condoning of selling) the so-called "wild "steelhead is pretty fu**** up I wouldn't say that the Whole Foods fish display is common, after all buying good fish in Arizona has got to be pretty problematic. That being said, those fish are some of the worst looking fish I've ever seen displayed . The fish sold in the Seattle and Portland Whole Foods have been really quality products, we were able to get fresh two day old king crab there a few years ago, never bought frozen again. They source a LOT of good fish locally, including sablefish.I worked in the retail fish industry when I was younger and saw lots of product. Haven't been to the Monterey Aquarium for 20 years or more, was really impressive then. That being said, I think that they are almost as hypocritical as Seaworld. Pushing a non-fishing platform when you make your living capturing and displaying animals for profit really makes your position non-tenable. Bob R

Sable fish = crab bait.

Any fish is crab bait if not treated properly, if you think that sablefish isn't good eating either you don't know how to cook it or you didn't bleed it and ice it. Some people pay really high prices for "crab bait" as you call it. Smoked sablefish is quite good. Bob R

You would not be impressed with the Monterery Bay Aquarium if they stuck their noses up here. Because her Julie Packard and her MBA ilk huge tracks of ocean have been turned into MLPA's and closed to sportfishing in California, including most rocky points where anglers used to be able to target rockfish. Areas that I spent 20 discovering where to find lobsters, spear halibut and catch Rockford are now all closed thanks to Julie Packard. Julie has not hid the fact that if she found she would ban fishing.

What's happening to the marine life in those MLPA's vs. outside of them?

When you eliminate all consumptive activity in one area and shift that activity onto adjacent areas it will create or exacerbate any already existing differences.....all other things being equal.

But since management of the fish is based on conservation needs of the fish in open areas, the resources should be at least holding steady or (if previously overharvested) increasing.

If the resource populations in the open areas continue to decline, when compared to the closed areas, then perhaps the open areas need closing.

Or conclude that the the original premise that so called protected areas can seed surrounding areas was in error and re-open the closed areas with appropriate limits.

http://www.fishwatch.gov/wild_seafood/outside_the_us.htm

I'm guessing since the product next to it is non local monk fish and big box stores need big volumes the steelhead was imported from somewhere.

If the outside areas are not at least stable, and probably increasing, then how can you possibly expect appropriate management by re-opening the closed areas?

"Give us that area back and we promise to manage better." ??

In a word, yes.

But let's go back to the scenario; that is, MPAs set up on the premise that they will develop populations of fishes which have been overfished in adjoining waters and that those developing MPA populations will have a higher fecundity rate therefore being able to "seed" adjoining waters and do so at an increasing rate.

If, in fact, that experiment does not play out it calls the whole theory into question. To suggest that the next step is to expand MPAs thereby putting more fishing pressure on adjoining non-MPA areas is simply illogical unless the real goal is to ultimately cause all recreational fishing to cease.

So, rather than more square miles under MPA restrictions I am suggesting that dissolving MPAs and enacting other management tools may be a better approach all factors considered. I will also opine that MPAs presented to the public as being necessary for recovery need to clearly establish historical biomass, current biomass, and anticipated recovery over time with periodic evaluations of recovery status and a Sunset provision which in many cases would be the delisting from the ESA. If recovery is not occurring IAW the schedule or the agency having primary responsibility does not perform the periodic assessments then the Sunset clause kicks in and any MPA goes away without further action.