Saving Seafood

MASSACHUSETTS: New Bedford Mayor questions decision-making process behind marine monuments

March 16, 2017 — Tuesday’s winter storm prevented Mayor Jon Mitchell from appearing in front of the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources on Wednesday, but he still voiced his opinion on the matter of national marine monuments through written testimony.

Mitchell submitted five pages laying out criticism of President Barack Obama’s executive order that created a protected marine area about 130 miles off the coast of Cape Cod last September.

“The monument designation last fall puts New Bedford jobs in peril, specifically jobs associated with the crab and lobster industries,” he told The Standard-Times. “More generally, the authority exercised by the president is something that could be used again and put other jobs at risk.”

In his testimony, Mitchell highlighted two key concerns with the monuments. First, he called the monument “poorly conceived” and again questioned the process of establishing the protected waters.

“It lacks sufficient amounts of all the ingredients that good policy-making requires: Scientific rigor, direct industry input, transparency and a deliberate pace that allows adequate time and space for review,” Mitchell wrote in his testimony.

He also questioned the effectiveness of the monuments in protecting marine life, stating that fisheries focused on fish near the surface of the water would “have no impact on the integrity of the bathymetry and substrate that a monument is meant to protect.”

Proponents of the monument refer to the order as a vital piece to the future of marine life. Dr. John Bruno, a biology professor at the University of North Carolina who attended Wednesday’s hearing, supported the protected waters. He criticized past legislation like the Magnuson-Stevens Act saying it’s failed to protect oceanic ecosystems.

Under the Magnuson-Stevens act, temporary fishery management plans are enacted for finite periods. Monuments like those enacted by Obama under the Antiquities Act, are permanent.

“Permanent is an awfully long time to state the obvious,” Mitchell said. “When decisions like that are made, they have to be subjected to the fullest possible input. I’m certainly not taking the position that this sort of thing should never happen but rather these decisions need to be more carefully made.”

Read the full story at the New Bedford Standard-Times

Fishermen Fight to Dismantle First Marine Monument

March 10, 2017 — Unhappy that a Connecticut-sized area off the coast of New England has become a commercial-fishing-free zone, lobstermen and other groups are asking a federal judge to find that President Barack Obama lacked the authority to designate the nation’s first marine monument.

Obama created the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Marine Monument this past September, a move that banned oil and gas exploration within the monument area almost immediately, as well as most commercial fishing. Fishing of lobster and red crab is allowed to continue only for the next seven years.

In a March 7 federal complaint, the Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association and four other groups say that designation affects nearly 5,000 square miles of Atlantic Ocean that has been an important commercial fishery for decades.

“For centuries, the Georges Bank has supported lucrative fisheries,” the complaint states. “The iconic fishing communities of New England and throughout the East Coast sprang up because of the value of this fishery.”

The commercial fishers say restrictions associated with the monument are causing irreparable harm.

Read the full story at Courthouse News

Fishermen hope Trump will end Atlantic Ocean’s first marine national monument

November 16, 2016 — The following is excerpted from an Associated Press story that ran in CBS News:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – New England fishermen who opposed President Barack Obama’s creation of the Atlantic Ocean’s first marine national monument are now hopeful President-elect Donald Trump will abolish it, shrink it or allow some fishing inside it.

While Trump, a Republican, hasn’t specifically addressed the monument, he has said he would undo Obama’s policies that he views as executive overreach.

Obama, a Democrat, has protected more land and water using national monument designations than any other president. The designation can be used to prevent activities such as drilling, mining or commercial fishing to preserve landmarks, natural resources or other areas of historic or scientific value.

Fishing industry advocate Robert Vanasse said that with a Trump White House and GOP-controlled House, “It’s a new day.”

“I would anticipate there would be a desire to address monuments,” said Vanasse, executive director of Saving Seafood. “Whether it’s the radical step of revoking the designation, or modifying it to allow non-destructive, sustainable fishing to take place, which we think is rational, I don’t know.”

The new Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument consists of nearly 5,000 square miles of underwater canyons and mountains off the New England coast. Obama created it in September using executive authority under the Antiquities Act, which closed the area to most commercial fishing on Monday.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at CBS News

JIM MEEK: Sure, let’s protect the oceans, but we still need to fish

November 7, 2016 — Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are getting as common as hipster sightings along the south end of Agricola Street.

Just last week, the world’s largest MPA (600,000 square miles) was announced for Antarctica’s Ross Sea.

The new MPA was the result of a multilateral negotiating marathon involving nations that don’t get along — like Russia and the U.S. — so let’s hope it all works out for the environment.

Speaking of the Americans, their outgoing president has burnished his legacy by using executive orders to announce two massive “national marine monuments” off Hawaii and New England.

By massive, I mean 5,000 square miles of MPA territory. We’re not talking the Sailors’ Monument in Point Pleasant Park here, or the Little Mermaid in Copenhagen.

Normally, Americans declare marine sanctuaries instead of marine monuments, but the former would involve pre-consultation with a bunch of noisy people including disgruntled fishermen — who can raise an awful ruckus once they’re riled up.

So Barack Obama got around all that “let’s-listen-to-the-people-first” nonsense by declaring marine monuments under a century-plus old piece of legislation called the Antiquities Act.

So, you’re asking yourself, who can blame a president for using an executive order or two during his last months in office?

New England fishermen, that’s who.

David Borden, who represents offshore lobstermen, goes straight and smart to the heart of the matter.

Environmental groups keep saying the neglected waters are pristine, but ignore the inconvenient truth that they remain blue, serene, and contented after decades of continuous fishing.

Borden’s argument: If the water’s pure, why kick the lobster and crab fishermen out while oil tankers still crisscross the North Atlantic without swearing allegiance to Greenpeace?

Read the full story at The Chronicle Herald

Q&A: Fish and politics behind Antarctic marine reserve deal

October 28, 2016 — WELLINGTON, New Zealand — Nations from around the world on Friday reached an historic agreement to preserve an area of ocean near Antarctica that’s about twice the size of Texas. Here are some questions and answers about the deal:

Q: WHAT’S SPECIAL ABOUT THE AREA?

A: The marine protected area will be in the Ross Sea, considered to be one of the most pristine environments in the world. New Zealand officials say that at different times, the area is home to about one-third of the world’s Adelie penguins and 26 percent of the world’s emperor penguins. It also boasts thriving colonies of seabirds, seals and whales. Researchers say the region is important to study because it is almost untouched by humans, and should remain that way. Several countries fish in the region for lucrative Antarctic toothfish, which are often sold in stores and restaurants as Chilean sea bass.

Q: WHAT MAKES THIS AGREEMENT GROUNDBREAKING?

A: Individual nations across the globe have set aside dozens of marine reserves. But proponents say this is the first time that a bunch of nations have collaborated to protect an area on the high seas — the open ocean that falls outside the jurisdiction of any one nation. The deal was put together by New Zealand and the U.S.

Q: WHAT ARE THE DETAILS?

A: The reserve covers 1.6 million square kilometers (617,000 square miles), making it the world’s largest marine protected area. About 72 percent will be a no-take zone, where commercial fishing will be banned. In the remaining areas, limited fishing for toothfish or krill will be allowed, although fisher folk will be required to do extra monitoring and tagging so scientists can evaluate what’s happening to fish stocks. Researchers can apply to take limited numbers of fish from throughout the reserve.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at the Gloucester Daily Times

Out in the Atlantic, a canyon named Norfolk could be America’s next national marine sanctuary

October 17, 2016 — About 70 miles out in the Atlantic, a canyon begins. Down steep, craggy walls draped with corals it descends some 6,000 feet, a bridge between the continental shelf and the deep, deep ocean. Creatures move in swarms so thick along stretches of this oasis that cameras simply can’t peek through.

Yes, the Norfolk Canyon is grand.

Grand enough, some admirers say, that it should be given special status as a national marine sanctuary.

For more than a year, the Virginia Aquarium and Marine Science Center has been developing a case for making the canyon part of the sanctuary system. It has company: The National Aquarium in Baltimore and the New York Aquarium are working on nominations for ocean canyons off their states as well.

“These are incredibly special places, amazing places,” said Mark Swingle, the Virginia Aquarium’s director of research and conservation.

The Atlantic canyons, of which there are more than 50, large and small, are “biological hot spots,” he said. They’re havens, feeding grounds and nurseries for thousands of species of creatures, from worms burrowing in the deepest sediments to whales breaching on the choppy surface.

Swingle is leading the push for the Norfolk Canyon, the southernmost of the big ones. He said the Beach City Council will be asked soon to adopt a resolution of support, after which a nomination will be filed before year’s end with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Read the full story at The Virginian-Pilot

RAY HILBORN: Obama’s new ocean preserves are bad for the environment and for people

October 6th, 2016 — Who wants to save the oceans? Short answer: everyone, especially politicians. A less frequently asked question is whether their high-profile efforts always work.

Right now, world leaders seem to want to see who can declare the biggest marine protected areas, or MPAs, in their territory. MPAs are kinds of national parks for sea life that extends from ocean surface to ocean floor. Commercial fishing and other undersea ventures are banned in them.

They are popping up everywhere. In August, President Obama announced one in the western Pacific Ocean that is 50 per cent bigger than Texas. In September he created another, more modest one off the coast of New England.

Britain announced yet another MPA in September around St. Helena Island in the south Pacific. It is half the size of the Lone Star State.

In fact, the MPA movement has become a religion with accepted articles of faith that more and bigger are better.  This current obsession is bad for the oceans, bad for the global environment, and bad for people.

Consider what the imposition of an MPA can do to the economy and livelihood of local fishers, who are unable to easily pick up and move elsewhere. Some fishermen in New England are warning that they could go out of business as a result of the new Atlantic marine preserve.

Large MPAs are also bad for people because reducing ocean fish production by itself will mean less high quality, nutritious food available for the poorest people in the world and less employment for fishing-dependent communities

Political leaders argue they are protecting the oceans with MPAs, but mostly they aren’t. The major threats to ocean health and biodiversity, including global warming, ocean acidification, oil spills, floating masses of plastics, pollutant run-off from land, and illegal fishing–all are not addressed by this conservation measure.

Read the full opinion piece at Fox News 

Majority of US Seafood Producers Call to Stop Undermining Magnuson with End Run for Marine Monuments

September 13, 2016 — WASHINGTON — SEAFOOD NEWS — The US has one of the most highly successful systems for managing living marine resources in the world.  Under the Magnuson Act, stakeholders come together to determine fisheries management policy, guided by the best available science.  The result has been a huge rebuilding of US fish stocks, and the protection of essential habitat.  Many tradeoffs have been made to create closed areas, and to preserve fishing rights where coastal conditions support them.

The keys to this success are first, the decision process is completely open and transparent.  Every argument and decision is made in open forums, and according to the best available science.  This limits the ability to use fisheries resources to score political points.

Both Canada and Europe’s fisheries suffered greatly as governments for years abused their authority by trading fishing privileges for other political favors; with the result that these stocks have been significantly overfished. Only in the last few years has this process begun to be reversed.

Use of the Antiquities Act to create marine monuments, although legal, makes an end run around both state and federal management systems, and in short trades monument designations, made without public review,  for political gain.

Today, in advance of the “Our Oceans” conference being held later this week at the State Department, the National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) delivered a letter to the White House calling on the President to refrain from designating new marine monuments under the Antiquities Act. Copies of the letter were also delivered to the offices of Senators representing the states of the signers. (Letter)

The letter has over 900 fishing industry signers and is supported by 35 fishing organizations that together represent a significant majority of domestic seafood producers.  It urges the President to conserve marine resources through the federal fisheries management process established by the bipartisan Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Management Act (MSA).

“The federal fisheries management process is among the most effective systems for managing living marine resources in the world,” the letter states. “The misuse of the Antiquities Act to create a marine monument is a repudiation of the past and ongoing efforts of almost everyone involved to continue to make Magnuson-Stevens management even more effective.”

The NCFC members join an ever-growing list of fishing organizations and individuals opposing new ocean monuments via use of the Antiquities Act. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, the Council Coordination Committee, and over two dozen individual fish and seafood industry trade organizations have previously written to the White House asking for the MSA continue to guide fisheries management.

Mayors from major East and West coast ports have previously expressed their concerns with monument designations in letters to the White House. NCFC members have also spoke out in opposition to designating a monument off the coast of New England, which would hurt the valuable red crab, swordfish, tuna, and offshore lobster fisheries.

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