Saving Seafood

Connecticut fighting move to give Long Island Sound waters to New York, Rhode Island

February 2, 2016 — WASHINGTON – Connecticut’s lawmakers and state officials are trying to derail a bill would take about 150 square miles of Long Island Sound waters from federal government control and give that authority to New York and Rhode Island, a move that could hurt the state’s fishing industry.

The bill would require Connecticut fishermen to obtain permission from the neighboring states to continue to fish those waters, known as an “exclusive economic zone,” or EEZ. Members of the state’s congressional delegation say that would be a costly and burdensome process.

“We believe that this misguided legislation was crafted strategically to benefit certain states while disproportionately harming the Connecticut fishing industry,” delegation members said in a letter to the leaders of the House Natural Resources Committee.

At issue is the “EEZ Clarification Act,” sponsored by New York Republican Rep. Lee Zeldin, that would re-designate 150 square miles of federal EEZ waters in the vicinity of Block Island, between Montauk, N.Y., and Point Judith, R.I., as  New York and Rhode Island state waters.

At a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing Tuesday, Zeldin said the strip of water known as the EEZ poses a threat to fishermen “who can go from fishing legally to breaking the law” by inadvertently straying into federal waters and facing fines.

“Law-abiding, responsible fishermen should not be punished for doing their job,” Zeldin said.

But a representative from the Fish and Wildlife Service and conservationist John McMurray, owner of One More Cast Charters, testified that stripping federal protections from the waters would hurt the Long Island Sound striped bass population.

Read the full story at The Connecticut Mirror

 

House Panel Supports Efforts to Safeguard Atlantic Coast Fisheries Access, Protect Against Obama Administration’s Potential Unilateral Fisheries Closures

December 7, 2015 — RIVERHEAD, N.Y. – The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources: 

Today, the House Committee on Natural Resources held an oversight field hearing in Riverhead, NY on public access to Atlantic fisheries and the impact and implementation of federal decision-making on the commercial and recreational fishing industry and local economies.  The panel received testimony from fisheries stakeholders and a representative from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

One focal point of the hearing was the possible designation by the Obama Administration of National Marine Monuments along the Atlantic Coast using the Antiquities Act, which would deny public input and usurp established habitat and fisheries management plans. Commercial and recreational fisheries stakeholders before the panel supported Committee efforts to ensure public input in future potential designations.

“I know firsthand what happens when a President abuses the Antiquities Act against the wishes of local residents as a means of shutting off multiple uses of lands and waters. There’s a reason we have laws on the books to ensure federal management decisions are informed by experts at the regional level, in full consultation with states and local users – not under the cover of darkness,” Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said.

“Fishing and the maritime economy have been a key part of the economy, culture, and history of Long Island for centuries. Now more than ever our fisheries and the dedicated men and women who work in this important industry face challenges that must be addressed,” stated Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) during opening statements. “And now more than ever we must strike the right balance between a strong fishing economy and protecting our critical natural resources. Fairness, transparency, and giving our fishermen and boaters a seat at the table is why we are here today.”

“Designating marine monuments is a relatively new practice that only began in 2006, with a monument designation larger than all of America’s National Parks combined, approximately the size of Germany,” Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) said during the hearing. “I find it particularly troubling that there is no concern given to local fish and wildlife commissioners or the state and local elected officials when sites are considered. There are serious implications to this designation and local communities should be involved in these designations, rather than a decree from Washington.”

In recent months, Members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle have voiced opposition to the potential Marine Monument designations and called upon the Obama Administration to seek local input on any potential actions.

Earlier this year, the House passed H.R. 1335, a bill to reauthorize and modernize the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the primary federal law that governs federal fisheries management.  This bill makes key reforms to reflect scientific advancements and regional needs, and includes provisions to ensure that state and local interests are protected from future Marine Monuments designated under the Antiquities Act.

Click here to view witness testimony. Video footage of the hearing will be available here later today.

Read the release here

Voices of Alaska: Unified effort in Congress protects Alaska’s seafood powerhouse

November 20, 2015 — Alaska is our nation’s seafood powerhouse. With nine of our country’s top twenty fishing ports by volume, we understand the vital role our seafood industry has played in our communities in the past, how important it is now, and how central the industry will be in the future. Protecting and enhancing Alaska’s fisheries is one of the top priorities of our delegation.

That’s why we were particularly pleased to have passed bipartisan legislation to help protect and enhance our fishing industry. H.R. 477, the Illegal, Unregulated and Underreported (IUU) Fishing Enforcement Act of 2015, increases enforcement capabilities for U.S. authorities to combat illegal fishing and protect fisheries off the coast of Alaska, and around the world. It was signed into law on November 5, 2015.

At issue is how illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, or “pirate” fishing, is hurting our economy, our fishing communities, our healthy seafood stocks, and our sustainable oceans.

Our country’s fishermen have long been subject to sustainable management-based rules and regulations to ensure the long-term vitality of our species; pirate fishermen are not. These rogue vessels raid our oceans wherever, whenever, and however they please. Globally, legal fishing operations lose an estimated $10 to $23 billion a year to pirate fishing. Here at home, the Alaska King Crab fishery alone is estimated to have lost more than $550 million in the past 14 years.

Read the full opinion piece at Peninsula Clarion

 

JON WILLIAMS: Not So Fast On Atlantic Marine Monument

WASHINGTON — November 4, 2015 — The following is an excerpt from an opinion piece written by Jon Williams, President of the Atlantic Red Crab Company of New Bedford, Massachusetts. It was originally published today by The Hill, a Washington-based publication covering Congressional policy and politics: 

An ongoing campaign led by large, well-funded environmental organizations is urging President Obama to use the 1906 Antiquities Act to designate parts of the Atlantic Ocean-such as Cashes Ledge in the Gulf of Maine and the New England Canyons and Seamounts-as marine National Monuments. In September, I had the privilege of testifying before House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans about the aspect of this proposal that seeks to exclude historic fisheries from the designated area.

The Antiquities Act, originally enacted to give Teddy Roosevelt authority to protect vulnerable Native American archeological sites, allows the president to act quickly, unilaterally, and without Congressional oversight to preserve sites in danger of destruction. The act, while undoubtedly created in good faith, has been misused in the case of marine monuments to a frightening extent.

In my case, the red crab fishing business I’ve been operating for twenty years is active in some of the areas under the proposal. Not only has our fishery complied with every regulation, but we have expended significant resources and time to ensure the health of the resource we fish.  We were the first U.S. Atlantic Coast fishery certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council, demonstrating we have minimal impact on the health of the species and its environment. Additionally, we are listed as “Ocean-Friendly” by the New England Aquarium Seafood Guide program. 

Although these processes took years of effort and hundreds of thousands of dollars-a significant cost for a fishery of our size-it was important that we understood how the red crab fishery impacted the environment and demonstrated that our practices were indeed sustainable. 

These efforts to both understand and minimize our impact on the environment have been so successful that after forty years of red crab fishing, our fishing grounds are described as “pristine” by the same environmental groups who seek the monument designation. If these habitats are still “pristine” after forty years of fishing, how can a serious argument be made that the area is in imminent danger and in need of immediate, unilateral protection by presidential fiat? By labeling our fishery as an imminent threat despite our ability to keep the area pristine, these environmental groups have both ignored the facts and devalued our successful efforts to operate a sustainable fishery.

In addition, those of us who have fished sustainably and responsibly in the area for decades have had our voices almost completely shut out of this process. A prime example was the September 15 “town hall” meeting held by NOAA in Providence, Rhode Island. Hastily arranged, many fishermen who would be affected by the proposals were not even aware that it took place. Those in attendance were provided no firm details on the scope of the proposal, preventing them from commenting substantively about something that could dramatically affect or even eliminate their livelihoods. There’s no guarantee that there will be any future opportunity for those affected to voice their concerns. The Antiquities Act does not require such input, and a designation could come at any time.

Read the full opinion piece at The Hill 

House Committee Holds Hearing on Gulf Red Snapper Legislation

November 2, 2015 — While former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s eleven-hour testimony before the 17-month-old House Select Committee on Benghazi took center spotlight on Capitol Hill, the House Committee on Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans met to a packed room filled with Gulf commercial and charter-for-hire fishermen to hear public testimony on H.R. 3094, the “Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act” which gives Gulf States control of the red snapper fishery.

Sponsored by Louisiana Republican Representative Garret Graves, and endorsed by all five Gulf state fisheries managers, the new legislation would remove Gulf red snapper from federal management authorized by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and place it under state management.

In his opening remarks, the bill’s author said he was convinced the Gulf states themselves could do a better job at managing red snapper than the federal government. Rep. Graves said he had repeatedly reached out to get input on the legislation from the commercial industry, but received none. However, he did thank Stan Harris, CEO of the Louisiana Restaurant Association and Board Member of the Gulf Seafood Institute, for his input.

During his opening remarks, Ranking Member Jared Huffman of California stated that the red snapper issue is as contentious as California water issues in terms of items being considered by the House Resources Committee.

The Subcommittee, chaired by Louisiana Representative John Fleming, heard testimony from seven witness including Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Secretary Robert Barham, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s Executive Director Nick Wiley and David Cresson, Executive Director of the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA), who spoke in favor of the legislation.

Read the full story at Gulf Seafood Institute

 

Commercial and Charter Fishermen Send Opposition Letter to Congress on Eve of Red Snapper Hearing

October 22, 2015 — Later today, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans will hold a hearing on the Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority Act (GSRSMA) – H.R. 3094. The bill, sponsored by Representative Garret Graves (R-LA) and originally introduced this summer, transfers management authority from the public and transparent federal process to the five Gulf states. This sets a dangerous precedent to unravel the success of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a landmark piece of legislation.

Read the full story at The Outdoor Wire

View a PDF of the Official Statement of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders’ Alliance

View a PDF of the testimony of Robert F. Zales from the National Association Charterboat Operators

House Natural Resources Committee Demands Obama Administration Info on Marine Monument Designations

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) October 7, 2015 — In a letter signed by the full committee chairman, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans, and the chairman and vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular, and Alaska Native Affairs, the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee has demanded records of all meetings, correspondence and memos related to marine monument designations. 

The letter references emails that “show representatives from the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Pew Charitable Trusts warning their members to avoid talking to the ‘outside world’ about the organizations’ efforts to influence the Administration to announce a Marine National Monument off of New England during the ‘Our Ocean Conference’ in Chile.” The emails in question were originally obtained by Saving Seafood via public records requests, and were first reported by Greenwire.

The following is the text of the press release from the House Natural Resources Committee:

Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), and Reps. John Fleming (R-LA), Don Young (R-AK), and Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen (R-AS) sent a letter today to Council on Environmental Quality Managing Director Christy Goldfuss and Assistant Administrator for the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Eileen Sobeck to request further information on the Obama Administration’s plans to designate new marine monuments or expand existing monuments. This concerns all coastal states.

In particular, the members of the Committee raised concerns about the apparent collusion and influence of environmental groups with regard to the Interior Department’s designation process, with almost no local input.

The letter stated, “[T]he day after the Subcommittee’s hearing, a chain of emails were publicly released which raise serious questions regarding the Administration’s plans for a new marine monument designation and the potential involvement of a number of outside interests. Specifically, the emails show representatives from the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Pew warning their members to avoid talking to the ‘outside world’ about the organizations’ efforts to influence the Administration to announce a Marine National Monument off of New England during the ‘Our Ocean Conference’ in Chile.”

The lack of transparency surrounding the number and scope of potential future designations was a point of emphasis for the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Ocean’s oversight hearing on September 29, 2015.

“As witnesses indicated in testimony before the Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee hearing, the public input process surrounding the designation or expansion of national marine monuments has been woefully inadequate, or even nonexistent. The American people and those impacted by such potential designations deserve the right to know now what the federal government is or has been doing behind closed doors, given that a true public process simply does not exist under current law or practice.”

The letter requests records of all meetings regarding the designation or revision of national monuments, correspondence and memos related to national marine monument designations, and Executive branch communications including those with non-governmental organizations connected to the September 15, 2015 National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Town Hall meeting in Providence, Rhode Island.

Read the House Natural Resources Committee’s press release online

View a PDF of the House Natural Resources Committee’s letter to Christy Goldfuss and Eileen Sobeck

 

New Bedford crab fisherman opposes ‘National Marine Monument’ for Atlantic

September 29, 2015 — WASHINGTON — Jon Williams is hoping President Obama will think twice before establishing a National Marine Monument off the New England coast in waters where his five boats fish for Atlantic red crab.

“It’s very scary,” said Williams, owner of New Bedford’s Atlantic Red Crab Co. that employs nearly 150 people.

Should the New England Coral Canyons and Seamounts Area be named a national monument, Williams said he would be cut off from fishing grounds that account for between 20 and 40 percent of his red crab haul – an annual loss of around $5 million.

“We have to fish these areas. That’s where the red crab live – at these depths,” he said.

Williams testified Tuesday before a House Natural Resources subcommittee that was examining the issue. Some House Republicans oppose the process of designating national monuments, which essentially leaves the decision solely in the hands of the president. Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, has proposed giving Congress and affected governors a say.

A number of petitions are pending with the Obama Administration to designate areas off of Alaska and Cape Cod, which would permanently protect them from commercial fishing or oil exploration. And, the entire Connecticut delegation wrote President Obama earlier this month asking that he establish the Atlantic monument to safeguard “the abundance of fish, whales, dolphins and other marine creatures found in this spectacular undersea landscape.”

Read the full story at the Taunton Daily Gazette

Read Jon Williams’ testimony here

 

Aleutians monument fought as threat, derided as ‘straw man’

September 29, 2015 — Alaska Congressman Don Young and other Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee this morning attacked the idea that President Obama might create a marine national monument around the Aleutian Islands, with unknown effects on the fishing industry. But the administration has given no sign it’s considering the notion.

At a subcommittee hearing, Congressman Young said a marine national monument around the Aleutians would be terrible for the fishing industry.

“I’ve watched this over and over: The creeping cancer of the federal government overreaching,” Young said. “The worst managers of any resource is the federal government. They do not manage. They preclude.”

The idea of protecting the waters of the Aleutian Chain came from environmentalist and retired UAA professor Rick Steiner. Last year, he proposed a massive marine sanctuary, covering all the federal waters of Bristol Bay and thousands of miles of the Bering Sea. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration killed the idea, saying it lacked local support. That seemed to be the end of it, except that Steiner launched an online petition telling President Obama he should create an Aleutian national monument instead. (Under the Antiquities Act, the president can just declare a monument on his own.) Steiner’s plea to Obama, on thepetitionsite.com, has attracted more than 100,000 supporters, many from foreign countries. Steiner was not invited to the hearing to defend his idea.

Read the full story at Alaska Public Media

 

House Subcommittee Considers Atlantic Marine Monument

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – September 28, 2015 – The House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans will convene Tuesday, September 29, to consider “The Potential Implications of Pending Marine National Monument Designations.” This hearing comes in the wake of a campaign from environmental organizations seeking to enact a marine national monument off the coast of New England via direct Executive order from President Obama. The campaign has been sharply criticized by industry members and prominent elected officials as overstepping transparent, public management processes and existing protections for the areas in questions. Included below is an excerpt from the Hearing Memo released by the House Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.

Hearing Overview 

On Tuesday, September 29, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., in 1324 hearing room in the Longworth House Office Building, the Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee will hold a one-panel oversight hearing on “The Potential Implications of Pending Marine National Monument Designations.” 

Policy Overview 

  • The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the President to reserve lands and waters of the United States as National Monuments. While National Monuments have been designated under sixteen Democratic and Republican Administrations, President Obama has expanded or created nineteen national monuments totaling over 260 million acres.
  • These designations are more than any other previous President. While so far he has not designated any Marine National Monuments, he has expanded existing ones by more than 403,000 total square miles – an area larger than the states of Texas and New Mexico combined. While lauded by some groups, the expansions have been criticized for cutting off commercial fishing access and undermining domestic seafood supplies and associated jobs and harming the environment.
  • A number of petitions are pending with the Obama Administration to designate areas off of Alaska and Cape Cod in New England. This hearing will primarily focus on the impacts of existing national marine monuments and these proposals. 

Read Saving Seafood’s analysis of this proposal here

Read the full Hearing Notice

Read the full Hearing Memorandum