Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act Archives - Page 2 of 6

Hawaii Longline Leader Testifies on Ways to Strengthen the MSA

July 27, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — A Hawaii fishing industry leader made three suggestions to the House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans during a hearing last week on “Exploring the Successes and Challenges of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.” The hearing was designed to continue discussions relevant to MSA reform and consider current draft legislation.

Hawaii Longline Association President Sean Martin, one of four invited witnesses, said overall the MSA is working well, but the Hawaii seafood industry is facing problems related to national monuments created under the Antiquities Act, Endangered Species Act issues and more.

“The MSA is a success and should be the principal source of authority for management of U.S. fisheries,” Martin said in his testimony. “Overfished stocks have been rebuilt, and few stocks are now overfished. Management measures are precautionary and based on the best scientific information available. The regional fishery management councils provide regional fishing expertise and utilize an effective bottom-up decision making process that includes the fishing industry. The MSA also requires the evaluation of impacts on fish stocks as well as fishermen and fishing communities.”

However, the 140 active vessels in the longline fleet, which lands roughly $100 million worth of tuna and other highly migratory fish annually, is struggling with access to fishing grounds.

“We operate in a very competitive arena, both for fishing grounds in international waters and for the U.S. domestic market. The recent marine monument designations established under the Antiquities Act prohibits us from fishing in 51 percent of the US Exclusive Economic Zone in the Western Pacific region,” Martin said. “Access to the high seas is also being challenged by recent United Nations initiatives. Closure of US waters and the high seas hurts us, reducing our ability to compete and increasing the vulnerability of our markets to foreign takeover.”

Martin said the longliners have worked with NMFS and the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council for more than 25 years to ensure sound fishery data would be used in stock assessments and regulations. They have collaborated on research such as gear modifications to protect sea turtles, seabirds and marine mammals.

“We are proud of our efforts and the Hawaii longline fishery is an iconic, internationally recognized model fishery. It is the most highly monitored, strictly regulated longline fishery in the Pacific,” he said.

With that, Martin suggested three things to help make the MSA stronger:

Manage U.S. ocean fisheries through the MSA process;
Strengthen support for U.S. fisheries in the international arena; and
Simplify the MSA regulatory process.

“In recent years, the management of fisheries covered by the MSA has been circumvented by other statutes and authorities,” Martin said regarding using the MSA process for managing ocean fisheries. “This includes the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the Antiquities Act. These acts do not require the same level of public consultation and transparency as compared to the MSA.

“For our fishery, the biggest gains in protection have been achieved through the Council process. For example, sea turtle and seabird interactions were reduced by 90 percent as a result of industry cooperative research and Council developed regulations. In HLA’s view, fisheries should be managed primarily through the fishery management councils under the MSA. This ensures a transparent, public, and science-based process which allows the fishing industry and stakeholders to be consulted. It provides that analyses of impacts to fishery dependent communities are considered, and prevents regulations that might otherwise be duplicative, unenforceable, or contradictory.

“Past administrations have established huge national marine monuments in the Pacific totaling more than 760 million acres of U.S. waters under the Antiquities Act of 1906. In our view, marine monument designations were politically motivated and addressed non-existing problems. Fisheries operating in these areas were sustainably managed for several decades under the MSA and the Western Pacific Council. There was no serious attempt to work with the fishing industry in the designations of these marine monuments. Public input was minimal.”

Regarding support for U.S. fisheries in the international arena, Martin said, “In 2016, Congress enacted ‘Amendments to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act’ (16U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The amendments direct the Secretaries of Commerce and State to seek to minimize any disadvantage to U.S. fisheries relative to other fisheries of the region and to maximize U.S. fisheries’ harvest of fish in the Convention Area.

“The amendments are intended to level the playing field between
U.S. and foreign fisheries. U.S. fisheries managed under the MSA are sustainable, yet they are often disadvantaged within international fisheries commissions. U.S. fishing interests require strong U.S. government negotiators to advocate and support U.S. fisheries.

“For example, the Hawaii longline bigeye quota has been reduced to 3,345 metric tonnes (mt), while quotas for other countries have not been reduced (e.g. Indonesia). The WCPFC-imposed quotas are based on historical catch and do not match current fishing capacity. For example, Japan has a bigeye quota of nearly 17,000 mt, but only catches around 11,000 mt. China has been expanding its longline fleet from about 100 vessels in 2001 to over 430 vessels in 2015, and has a bigeye quota of around 7,000 mt. Our fleet has been limited to 164 permits since 1991. China is continuing to expand its longline fisheries and supplying US markets with poorly monitored seafood.”

Lastly, Martin hit on another problem faced by several industry groups around the country, not just in Hawaii: Simplifying the MSA regulatory process. The National Environmental Policy Act has caused delays and duplications in several regions.

“HLA supports the regional councils’ efforts to achieve a more streamlined process for approval of regulatory actions,” Martin testified. “A fishery management plan document from a regional council typically contains a full discussion of impacts on the fisheries, on the fish stocks, and on associated species (e.g., endangered species, marine mammals, seabirds, etc.).

“The National Environmental Policy Act requires duplicative evaluation and incongruent public comment periods. The analytical duplication between the MSA and NEPA is unnecessary, delays needed actions, has a high cost, and provides more avenues for legal challenges and delays on non-MSA grounds. Also, it is often very confusing to the industry with regard to timing and where we should apply our input in the process.”

Martin said the longline association recommends amending the MSA to authorize a single analytical document for any proposed regulatory action that will streamline the process, eliminate duplication and allow for more meaningful industry input.

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Ocean Conservancy sues over red snapper

July 18, 2017 — The Ocean Conservancy and Environmental Defense Fund filed a lawsuit on Monday suing the Department of Commerce for its decision to lengthen the federal red snapper season for recreational anglers from three days to 42. Environmentalists with the groups feel the change “sanctioned overfishing,” putting the rebuilding of the historically overfished red snapper fishery at risk, and violated the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).

“We’ve made great progress but we’re only about halfway through the rebuilding plan. You don’t stop taking antibiotics halfway through a prescription,” Chris Dorsett, vice president of conservation policy and programs, said in a press release.

The lawsuit, he said, is about protecting the longevity of the red snapper fishery.

The groups are arguing the mid-season change — which was advocated for by local elected officials — violated the MSA, which requires fishery managers to create and enforce annual catch limits that prevent overfishing. If the catch limit is exceeded, the excess catch is taken out of the allocated catch for the following year.

Red snapper is halfway through a 27-year rebuilding plan. Local fishermen report that it’s working, saying they are catching more and larger red snapper, which is why many found the three-day federal season insulting.

The result, though, is fish are being caught faster and the majority are actually being caught in state-managed waters, which was why the federal season was initially so conservative. When the Department of Commerce lengthened the season, they required the states to give up fishing days as part of the compromise.

Read the full story at the Panama City News Herald

Trump versus EDF in battle over Gulf red snapper season reopening

July 18, 2017 — A month after the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump reopened the red snapper fishing season in the Gulf of Mexico for 39 days, two environmental nonprofits have challenged the decision by filing a lawsuit.

A 14 June agreement struck between The U.S. Department of Commerce and the five U.S. states on the Gulf of Mexico aligned the 2017 federal and states red snapper season for recreational anglers, opening federal waters to private anglers for an additional 39 weekend days and holidays. The agreement made no change to the quota or season length for the charter or commercial sectors of the fishery.

On Monday, 17 July, the Environmental Defense Fund and the Ocean Conservancy filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C., arguing the decision was made without scientific analysis and puts into jeopardy the ongoing recovery of the red snapper population in the Gulf, in violation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. The lawsuit also complains the season was extended without adequate notice or time for public comment, claiming that violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

“In order to prevent overfishing and allow the Gulf of Mexico red snapper population to rebuilt, the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires the Fisheries Service to comply with the annual catch limit and accountability measures established in the fishery management plan for the red snapper fishery,” the suit states. “Yet, in the temporary rule, the Fisheries Service has extended the fishing season of red snapper for private anglers in a manner that conflicts with the FMP and implementing regulations.”

In a statement emailed to SeafoodSource, EDF said publicly available data and conservative assumptions show the extended season will result in private anglers catching three times their science-based limit in 2017. However, the lawsuit does not seek changes to the length of the 2017 fishing season, but rather, it aims to prohibit the Commerce Department from taking similar actions in the future.

In its federal notice reopening the red snapper season, the Commerce Department acknowledged the additional fishing days “will necessarily mean that the private recreational sector will substantially exceed its annual catch limit,” resulting in a delay of the goal year for rebuilding the red snapper fishery from 2032 to 2038. In 17 of the past 22 years, the recreational sector has exceeded its annual catch limit for red snapper, resulting in shorter federal seasons as one year’s overages are subtracted from the next year’s quota. However, Gulf states have responded by lengthening their own red snapper seasons, resulting in a patchwork of regulations that scientific and environmental groups assert impedes recovery of the species.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

ASMFC Reacts to Commerce Secretary Decision to Reject Commission Advice on Summer Flounder

July 14, 2017 — ARLINGTON, Va. — The following was released by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission:

On July 11^th, Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, notified the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission that he has found the State of New Jersey to be in compliance with Addendum XXVII to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan. According to the letter sent to the Commission, Secretary Ross’s decision was based on the assertion that “New Jersey makes a compelling argument that the measures it implemented this year, despite increasing catch above the harvest target, will likely reduce total summer flounder mortality in New Jersey waters to a level consistent with the overall conservation objective for the recreational fishery.” This is the first time since passage of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (Atlantic Coastal Act) in 1993 and the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act in 1984 that the Secretary of Commerce failed to uphold a noncompliance recommendation by the Commission.

“The Commission is deeply concerned about the near-term impact on our ability to end overfishing on the summer flounder stock as well as the longer-term ability for the Commission to effectively conserve numerous other Atlantic coastal shared resources,” stated Commission Chair Douglas Grout of New Hampshire. “The Commission’s finding of noncompliance was not an easy one. It included hours of Board deliberation and rigorous Technical Committee review, and represented, with the exception of New Jersey, a unanimous position of the Commission’s state members. Our decision was based on Technical Committee’s findings that New Jersey’s measures were not conservationally-equivalent to those measures in Addendum XXVIII and are projected to result in an additional 93,800 fish being harvested. Additionally, we had an obligation as a partner in the joint management of summer flounder with the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) to implement measures to end overfishing immediately or face the possibility of summer flounder becoming an overfished stock.”

Based on the latest stock assessment information, summer flounder is currently experiencing overfishing. Spawning stock biomass has been declining since 2010 and is just 16% above the threshold. The vast majority of fishery-independent surveys show rapidly declining abundance. Any increase in overall mortality puts the stock at risk for further declines and increases the probability of the stock becoming overfished. If the stock falls below the biomass threshold, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires the Council to initiate a rebuilding program, which could require more restrictive management measures.

New Jersey was not the only state to be concerned about the impact of the approved measures to its recreational fishing community. Two other states submitted alternative proposals that were rejected in favor of the states equally sharing the burden of needed reductions. Those states, as well as other coastal states, implemented the approved measures in order to end overfishing and support the long-term conservation of the resource.

“The states have a 75-year track record of working together to successfully manage their shared marine resources,” continued Chairman Grout. “We are very much concerned about the short and long-term implications of the Secretary’s decision on interstate fisheries management. Our focus moving forward will be to preserve the integrity of the Commission’s process, as established by the Atlantic Coastal Act, whereby, the states comply with the management measures we collectively agree upon. It is my fervent hope that three-quarters of a century of cooperative management will provide a solid foundation for us to collectively move forward in achieving our vision of sustainably managing Atlantic coastal fisheries.”

The Commission is currently reviewing its options in light of Secretary Ross’s action, and the member states will meet during the Commission’s Summer Meeting in early August to discuss the implications of the Secretary’s determination on the summer flounder resource and on state/federal cooperation in fisheries management under the Atlantic Coastal Act.

For more information, please contact Toni Kerns, Director, Interstate Fisheries Management Program, at tkerns@asmfc.org or 703.842.0740.

Marine Sanctuaries Program is Bad for Fishermen, California Fishing Captain Tells Senate Subcommittee

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — July 10, 2017 — Marine sanctuaries are hurting commercial and recreational fishermen and overruling the fisheries management process created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, said Capt. Jeremiah O’Brien, vice president of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization, at a Senate hearing June 27.

Speaking before the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard at a hearing convened by chairman Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Mr. O’Brien criticized marine sanctuaries for their “weak science capabilities” and “poor, self-serving public process.” He said that policymakers are interpreting the National Marine Sanctuaries Act in a way that steadily limits human uses of marine resources, violating the principles of ecosystem-based management and the law’s mandate for comprehensive and coordinated management.

“For fishermen and fishery managers, the fact that sanctuaries can overrule the Regional Fishery Management Councils, with eight National Standards serving as the council’s guide, is disconcerting, and not in the best interest of ocean health,” Mr. O’Brien said. “I hope Congress will make it clear that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the nation’s law for fisheries and habitat management.”

Read the full testimony here

HARRISON TASOFF: Proposed Changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act Would Compound Problems for the Nation’s Fish

June 2, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Congressional bill H.R. 200, introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-AK) in January, is the latest incarnation of laissez-faire management strategies that are gaining political appeal. This is despite broad support for the current fishing regulations and a principled approach which combines community and industry input with rigorous scientific analysis.

The country’s fisheries are managed by eight regional councils under the National Marine Fisheries Service, also known as NOAA Fisheries. The system was set up in 1976, when President Gerald Ford signed the Magnuson-Stevens Act into law.

Over the last 40 years, the measure has enjoyed wide support.

“It’s become one of the best, if not the best, fisheries management tools in the world,” says Steve Scheiblauer, who serves on the Pacific Fishery Management Council and had been a harbor master in central California for 40 years.

Part of Magnuson’s success comes from the regional councils, which themselves have advisory subgroups composed of a variety of stakeholders and include environmentalists, scientists, fisherman and Native Americans. “I think it’s the best public policy arena I’ve ever seen,” says John Holloway, who represents fishermen on the Pacific Council.

“One of the other things that the Magnuson-Stevens Act embraces is the principal of adaptive management,” explains Scheiblauer. “So when mistakes are recognized, there’s a method to correct them.”

Fishery management got a significant boost when the Act was reauthorized in 2007. The new legislation required the councils to base their strategies and quotas on scientific population surveys.

It is crucial that these fish surveys are done by marine biologists. Professional fishermen’s knowledge of fish runs as deep as some of the waters they trawl. But their background prepares them for different kinds of tasks than a marine biologist, whose years of training equip them with the skills to conduct surveys and model ecological phenomena.

Both fish and fishermen benefit from the role of science in fishery management: Last year NOAA Fisheries announced that nearly 40 fish stocks had recovered since 2000.

The 2007 reauthorization also strengthened the timeframe that the agencies have to rebuild depleted fish stocks. When managers discover that a stock is overfished, the regional council sets out a plan to rebuild the population in the shortest time possible, which is no more than 10 years for most fish species.

This timeframe is necessary to keep federal agencies from simply kicking the can down the road when it comes to overfishing. And a shorter timeframe allows for more fishing opportunities sooner, rather than dragging restrictions out, according to Ted Morton, the Director of U.S. Oceans at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

But most fishermen would like to see these timeframes loosened. The restrictions sometimes force fishermen to limit or forgo their catch of a species with a healthy population if it interferes with the recovery of a struggling stock. It’s nearly impossible to catch dover sole, for example, without catching some overfished black cod, Scheiblauer says, since the two fish associate with each other.

Morton says that extending the timeline would not resolve this issue, but fishermen like David Crabbe in Monterey, California disagree. A longer recovery time means population targets don’t have to be met quite so quickly, which would allow fishermen to catch just a few more of the recovering fish over the course of a season. This, in turn, would enable them to catch significantly more of the plentiful fish they are actually targeting.

“Tweaks in the regulation might help alleviate the constraints some,” says Crabbe, who catches squid and forage fish like sardines and mackerel.

But the bill currently in the House doesn’t just lengthen rebuilding timeframes, it explicitly exempts the councils from setting catch limits for forage fish. In addition to their commercial value, forage fish serve as the primary food-stuff for larger fish like tuna, snapper, and cod. Rolling back management on forage fish could have resounding consequences for these fisheries.

“I’m not aware of any kind of rationale for why this is in [the bill],” says Morton at the Pew Charitable Trusts.

What’s most alarming is that H.R. 200 would give the new version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act greater authority than a host of environmental laws. If H.R. 200 passes, the fishery councils would have the last word on fishing in marine sanctuaries, for instance. Right now, the branch of NOAA that oversees sanctuaries works in concert with NOAA Fisheries to manage stocks within protected waters. Giving priority to Magnuson would make this relationship unnecessarily adversarial.

H.R. 200 would even give the revised Magnuson-Stevens Act priority over the Endangered Species Act, which NOAA Fisheries also administers along with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This means that when the two laws intersect, Congress would require NOAA to manage the situation as a commercial, rather than environmental, issue.

While the Endangered Species Act has been the topic of much debate itself, a quick look at its track record shows that it does prevent extinction and promote recovery. The law is currently protecting my favorite rockfish (the long-lived bocaccio) up in the Puget Sound as well as populations of species with more recognizable commercial histories, like salmon and steelhead.

Giving priority to the Magnuson-Stevens Act when the two butt heads will undermine the strength and efficacy of the Endangered Species Act, which is continually under attack.

Despite its strengths and popularity, the Magnuson-Stevens Act is not equipped to address such a diversity of issues, nor was it intended to. Giving preference to Magnuson erodes the comprehensive monitoring that these issues deserve.

To be effective, the new bill would need “very carefully nuanced language to make sure that it cannot be abused,” warns former harbormaster Scheiblauer. But H.R. 200 is not nuanced, and its provisions are not new.

This is the third Congress in a row that has introduced a similar bill, says Morton at Pew. Although the last two versions were unsuccessful, the second one made it through the House of Representatives in 2015. It died in the Senate, which has been less convinced than the House that Magnuson-Stevens needs a major overhaul.

Unlike the previous two reauthorizations, which had broad support, votes for the 2015 bill came almost exclusively from Republicans. This is troubling for a law that has long enjoyed wide-ranging support from industry, scientists and conservationists alike.

The growth of the red snapper population along the Gulf Coast has kept pace almost perfectly with NOAA Fisheries’ goal of a full recovery by 2032.

Magnuson-Stevens, in its present state, is working. One of its notable successes is the red snapper stock down in the Gulf Coast. The annual catch limit has more than doubled from 6.5 million pounds a decade ago to 13.7 million this year.

But organizational problems turn what is a good situation overall into a headache for recreational fishermen, according to Mike Gravitz, the director of policy and legislation at the Marine Conservation Institute.

Even though red snapper populations have grown significantly, the fishing season and bag limit —how many fish a fisherman can keep — has actually gone down, says Gravitz. “And this just pisses people off.”

But this isn’t a problem with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, it’s a consequence of a recovering stock.

“The problem is the fish they do catch and are allowed to keep are getting bigger,” says Gravits, which means that fishermen reach their weight-limit more quickly than before. Particularly recreational fishermen, who can’t coordinate in the way that commercial fishermen can. And although catching fewer, bigger fish is still exciting, it means fewer adventures, and fewer boat and gear rentals overall.

But older, bigger fish have more offspring than smaller fish, which means recovery should start speeding up. As the stock returns to a healthy size, the restrictions will be phased out.

Overall, though, support for the Magnuson-Stevens remains high. “The Federal process [for fishery regulation] in the US is the best I’ve ever seen in terms of” its provisions for stakeholder involvement and input, says Holloway, who is a recreational fisherman himself.

Fisherman David Crabbe concurs. “I think that its strengths are that it’s a transparent public process … [with] a broad range of opportunities for the public to weigh in.”

The broad support for the Magnuson-Stevens Act is a rarity in the regulatory world these days, and something to celebrate. What we need now is to embrace Magnuson’s strengths – like its diverse advisory councils – which address changes and frustrations as they arise rather than overhaul a law that’s doing its job.

Fish are often out of mind for land-lubbers in a way that birds, game, and livestock are not. It’s hard to have a connection with animals you rarely see outside of a market. That’s why we need smart regulations like Magnuson to manage them: for the fish and their ecosystems, for fishermen and seafood eaters, and for future generations.

This opinion piece originally appeared on SeafoodNews.com, a subscriptions site. It is reprinted with permission.

PETER H. FLOURNOY: Benefits of Antiquities Act Don’t Extend to Marine Monuments

April 4, 2017 — The following was written by Peter H. Flournoy, a representative of the Western Fishboat Owners’ Association, in response to a March 31 op-ed in the New York Times:

I have represented U.S. commercial fishermen for about 35 years, primarily working in the Pacific Ocean. I believe the primary concern of Republicans and Democrats who oppose the Act stems from where the Antiquities Act has been used, primarily by Presidents Bush and Obama, to close large areas of the ocean on both coasts to U.S. fishermen. Sometimes the expressed rationale is to protect the ocean bottom or coral reefs in certain areas, however, too often this also ends all surface fishing, which has no contact with the ocean floor. Traditionally U.S. fisheries are managed under the Magnuson Stevens Act. The Councils formed under this statute are the entities with the fishery management expertise. When the Antiquities Act is used, they are closed out.

While it may be that the Antiquities Act should be used for land areas, for the ocean there is the Marine Sanctuaries Act, which has a very public, transparent, and inclusive process.

In your opinion piece you also frequently used the number of tourists who visit the national parks which have grown from Antiquities Act set asides. I doubt I could count more than a hundred visitors to the marine protected areas which have been established. These visitors are not your common middle class citizen that finds pleasure in taking his family to view nature’s majesty at minimum expense. The only people that can enjoy the marine sanctuaries that have been set up under the Antiquities Act are those rich enough to own cabin cruisers or dedicated sufficiently to enjoy the expensive sport of scuba diving.

I hope the next time you lecture your classes on the Antiquities Act you might mention some of the above concerns.

New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell Submits Additional Testimony on Marine Monuments to Congress

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) – March 30, 2017 – On March 15, Mayor Jon Mitchell of New Bedford, Massachusetts delivered written testimony to the House Natural Resources Committee expressing serious concerns about the impact of marine monuments on fishermen and coastal communities, as well as the process by which president’s designate monuments using the Antiquities Act.

Yesterday, Mayor Mitchell submitted additional answers to questions from Rep. Doug Lamborn, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Oceans. In his follow-up answers, Mayor Mitchell supported fisheries management under the Council process created by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

“I would argue that the Council has both the resources and the approach necessary to achieve ecosystem protection (while balancing economic productivity) commensurate with any protections that could be pursued in conjunction with a monument designation under the Antiquities Act,” Mayor Mitchell wrote. “I have witnessed firsthand the strengths of the of the Fishery Council’s deliberative- and decision-making processes.”

Mayor Mitchell went on to cite two recent examples of the Council process effectively being used to protect important marine resources. In the Mid-Atlantic, the Frank R. Lautenberg Deep-Sea Coral Protection Area, designated by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in 2015, brought together a broad range of stakeholders to protect over 38,000 square miles of federal waters. The resulting protected area was applauded by conservation groups and fishermen alike.

In New England, the Omnibus Habitat Amendment 2, passed last year by the New England Fishery Management Council after more than a decade of work, used the most up-to-date science to protect essential and vulnerable New England habitats, while opening up areas no longer considered important for successfully conserving fish stocks. The development of this amendment was deliberative and collaborative, with input from federal and state regulators, environmental groups, scientists and academics, and members of the fishing industry, Mayor Mitchell wrote.

Read Mayor Mitchell’s letter here

Fish reps to Trump: Marine monuments make it harder to manage industry, fish reps say

March 28, 2017 — The issue of whether presidents should use the Antiquities Act to independently designate new marine national monuments is not going away any time soon.

The chairmen of the eight regional fishery management councils have weighed in, co-authoring a letter to President Donald J. Trump decrying the use of the Antiquities Act to create new marine national monuments and characterizing it as a disruptive end-run around traditional fishery management practices.

The letter and accompanying resolution from the Council Coordinating Committee are the most recent drumbeats in an escalating campaign to reverse marine national monuments designated by former President Barack Obama and dissuade future presidents from using the same procedural mechanism to create the protected areas.

The letter, which includes Chairman John F. Quinn of the New England Fishery Management Council as a signatory, flatly states the use of the Antiquities Act impedes the councils from performing their statutory duties as set out in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).

“Designation of marine national monuments that prohibit fishing have disrupted the ability of the councils to manage fisheries throughout their range, as required by MSA and in an eco-system manner,” the letter stated. “Our experience with marine monument designations to date is that they are counter-productive to domestic fishery goals, as they have displaced and concentrated U.S. fishing effort into less productive fishing grounds and increased dependency on foreign fisheries that are not as sustainably managed as United States fisheries.”

The designations, they wrote, not only curtail potential harvesting areas for commercial fishermen but also diminish the nation’s ability to watch over its waters.

Read the full story at The Gloucester Times

Fisheries Councils Express Concern Over Marine Monuments in Letter to President Trump

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — March 24, 2017 — The Council Coordination Committee (CCC), comprised of representatives from the eight regional fisheries management councils, wrote to President Trump this month expressing its concern with the designation of marine national monuments under the Antiquities Act, and explaining how monuments have already adversely impacted commercial fishing activity.

“Designations of marine national monuments that prohibit fishing have disrupted the ability of the Councils to manage fisheries throughout their range as required by [the Magnuson-Stevens Act] and in an ecosystem-based manner,” the Committee wrote. “Our experience with marine monument designations to date is that they are counterproductive to domestic fishery goals, as they have displaced and concentrated U.S. fishing effort into less productive fishing grounds and increased dependency on foreign fisheries that are not as sustainably managed as United States fisheries.”

The Committee also reiterated its support for regional fisheries management, noting that through the Council process over 1,000 individual spatial habitat and fisheries conservation measures have been implemented, protecting more than 72 percent of U.S. ocean waters.

“The Councils use a public process, in a transparent and inclusive manner, and rely on the best scientific information available as required by the MSA,” the Committee wrote.

Read the full letter here