Saving Seafood

  • Home
  • News
    • Alerts
    • Conservation & Environment
    • Council Actions
    • Economic Impact
    • Enforcement
    • International & Trade
    • Law
    • Management & Regulation
    • Regulations
    • Nutrition
    • Opinion
    • Other News
    • Safety
    • Science
    • State and Local
  • News by Region
    • New England
    • Mid-Atlantic
    • South Atlantic
    • Gulf of Mexico
    • Pacific
    • North Pacific
    • Western Pacific
  • About
    • Contact Us
    • Fishing Terms Glossary

EPA could kill mining project in the Bristol Bay watershed

June 1, 2022 โ€” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will hold public hearings next month on a proposal to restrict mining in Alaskaโ€™s Bristol Bay watershed and possibly kill a large project. 

The move โ€œwould help protect the Bristol Bay watershedโ€™s rivers, streams, and wetlands that support the worldโ€™s largest sockeye salmon fishery and a subsistence-based way of life that has sustained Alaska Native communities for millennia,โ€ officials said on its website. 

Any changes could kill the proposed โ€œPebble Mine,โ€ called โ€œone of the greatest stores of mineral wealth ever discovered, and the worldโ€™s largest undeveloped copper and gold resource,โ€ by Northern Dynasty Minerals, which is in charge of the project. The National Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups have opposed the project, saying it would damage wildlife there.

Read the full story at KPVI

 

Ray Hilborn on the role of industry funding

April 12, 2021 โ€” It is true that my research program receives funding from the fishing industry. Industry funding makes up about 22% of my total funding, while I receive similar amounts from environmental foundations, Universities, and private individuals unassociated with the fishing industry. In addition, I receive funding from environmental NGOs, including over the years the National Resources Defense Council, The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Pew Institute for Ocean Science.

Here is my response to those who say this means you should not believe what I say about fisheries:

Science is collaborative, not individual

When I say that all fish will not be gone by 2048 or that fish stocks are increasing in abundance in much of the world, these are not personal opinions, but results of scientific papers authored by a large group of people, each of whom stands by the results of the paper.

When the claim that โ€œall fish would be gone by 2048โ€ came out, the lead author on that paper, Boris Worm, and I agreed to meet together to understand why we had different perspectives. We organized a group of about 20 scientists and looked at trends in fish stock abundance where it was measured and found no sign that these stocks were generally declining. In 2009, we published a paper in Science Magazine showing this, and the lead author was Boris Worm. It is absurd to say that because I, one of 21 authors, had received funding from the fishing industry this work was biased.

I was the first author on the 2020 follow-up paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Effective fisheries management instrumental in improving fish stock status, that showed that fish stocks were actually increasing in much of the world, but this paper had 23 authors, including professors from several different universities, an employee of The Nature Conservancy, a member of the Board of Directors of The Nature Conservancy, a member of the Board of Directors of Environmental Defense, and an employee of the Wildlife Conservation Society all of whom stand by our conclusions. It is not my work, but group work, and where I get some of my funding is largely irrelevant.

Almost every paper with my name on it in fisheries has a range of authors and many of them have at least one author representing conservation organizations.

Look at the data and what was actually done

My research is not cloaked in secrecy. In every research paper I have been a part of, we tell the reader what data we used and how we used it to get the results we did. This is the methodology section. We describe our data and methods so you, or anyone else, can redo and/or verify the analysis.

This is an important part of science. I have criticized the methodology section of others before, and others have criticized mineโ€”this is what makes information evolve closer to truth. Unfortunately, that part of science gets lost in press releases and hyperbolic headlines, which was a large reason I started this websiteโ€”to explain the methodology sections of important fisheries papers to give the public (and journalists) proper context. For example, we have been highly critical of Oceanaโ€™s seafood fraud methodology on this website, but we appreciate the work they do and gave them a platform to respond to our criticism.

Read the full story at Sustainable Fisheries UW

Environmental Groups, Fishing Advocates Clash over Marine Monument Suit

June 29, 2020 โ€” In response to a June 5 order by President Trump that would open a national marine monument 150 miles off the coast of New England to commercial fishing, the National Resources Defense Council and other entities have come together to file a lawsuit to protect the region.

The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument was established in an area that was previously open to commercial fishing, supporting fish, red crab, squid, and lobster harvests. The monument was designated in 2016 by President Barack Obama as a way to protect the habitat โ€œfor a wide range of species, from endangered whales to Atlantic puffins to centuries-old deep-sea corals,โ€ according to the N.R.D.C.

A group called Saving Seafood has fired back, issuing a June 17 statement of its own that said the marine monument had been established โ€œwithout appropriate stakeholder consultationโ€ in the first place. The environmental conservation community โ€œchose the politically expedient route, and used their contacts and clout in the Obama administration to circumvent the scientific and public process. What they are now discovering is that what one president might create with the stroke of a pen, another president might take away.โ€

Read the full story at The East Hampton Star

Lawsuit filed over Trump plans for offshore drilling tests

December 12, 2018 โ€” Environmental groups sued the Trump administration Tuesday over offshore drilling tests, launching a legal fight against a proposal that has drawn bipartisan opposition along the Atlantic Coast.

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Charleston, South Carolina, claims the National Marine Fisheries Service violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act when it issued five permits for the use of seismic air guns.

โ€œThis action is unlawful and weโ€™re going to stop it,โ€ Diane Hoskins, campaign director at OCEANA, said in a news release. โ€œThe Trump administrationโ€™s rash decision to harm marine mammals hundreds of thousands of times in the hope of finding oil and gas is shortsighted and dangerous.โ€

The coalition includes OCEANA, the Southern Environmental Law Center, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Center for Biological Diversity, Surfrider Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, One Hundred Miles and the Sierra Club, as well as the South Carolina Coastal Conservation League and the North Carolina Coastal Federation.

The blasts are conducted in preparation for potential offshore drilling, which the administration has proposed to expand from the Atlantic to the Arctic and Pacific oceans. The five-year plan would open 90 percent of the nationโ€™s offshore reserves to private development.

Read the full story from the Associated Press at ABC News

Gloucester fishermen โ€˜desperateโ€™ for federal bill to ease catch limits

July 16, 2018 โ€” A bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this week is being cheered by fishermen in Gloucester who are hoping for a lifeline for the struggling industry.

โ€œItโ€™s desperate. We are in a desperate situation. We need a change,โ€ said Angela Sanfilippo, president of the Gloucester Fishermenโ€™s Wives Association. โ€œItโ€™s a good start.โ€

The new law would allow more flexibility for fish populations to be rebuilt, and give more authority to the regional fishery management councils, which may be more in touch with the local industry.

The bill, which passed the House on Wednesday, would change a decades-old fisheries law meant to restrict overfishing in a way proponents say can protect both fishermen and fishing stocks.

โ€œMy bill will update (the law) to ensure a proper balance between the biological needs of fish stocks and the economic needs of fishermen and coastal communities,โ€ said Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska). โ€œWe know that each region works within their unique conditions, which is why I fought to ensure the management process will be improved by allowing regional fisheries to develop plans that meet their local needs.โ€

Read the full story at the Boston Herald

Magnuson Stevens fight to resume early in 2018

December 22, 2017 โ€” There wonโ€™t likely be a long wait in 2018 for the battle to reignite over efforts to change the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA), the key statute that oversees fishing regulations in the US.

Possibly as soon as January, just after Congress returns from its winter break, Alaska Republican senator Dan Sullivan will introduce his own version of an MSA reauthorization bill, sources tell Undercurrent News. Additionally, the MSA-related legislation just approved by the House of Representativeโ€™s Committee on Natural Resources could advance to the House floor.

โ€œThe House Floor schedule hasnโ€™t been set for 2018 yet but we are optimistic that we will move forward with the bill early next year,โ€ said Murphy McCullough, the press secretary for Alaska representative Don Young, about HR 200, the bill he introduced to change MSA. Itโ€™s one of Natural Resource Committee chairman Rob Bishopโ€™s โ€œtop prioritiesโ€.

โ€œAs far as finding a Senate champion, we are working closely with senator Sullivan and his staff on this reauthorization,โ€ she confirmed.

Youngโ€™s bill, formerly named the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, dashed through a one-hour markup last week, during which 13 amendments were discussed, six of which were adopted, before it was passed by a 23-17 vote along party lines.

HR 200 closely resembles HR 1335, legislation sponsored by Young that sailed through the House in 2015 but stalled out, in part, because President Barack Obama threatened to veto it over concerns that it would reduce the influence scientists have over the preservation of fish species. Itโ€™s the same concern that has ocean conservation groups rallying against Youngโ€™s latest bill now.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

Environmentalists Canโ€™t Help Defend Fishing Rules

April 20, 2017 โ€” Three environmental groups cannot join the U.S. government to defend against a challenge to an Obama administration rule requiring seafood companies to report the origin of the fish they sell, a federal judge ruled.

The National Resources Defense Council, the Center for Biological Diversity and Oceana asked the court on March 7 to join the government in defending a suit from a group of fishing companies challenging the seafood traceability rule, which requires companies to disclose on a government form the vessel or collection point of origin for their fish.

The companies say the rule will make seafood more expensive. The environmentalists say it is critical to protecting fish populations from illegal fishing. The environmentalists made specific arguments in support of the rule, telling U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta that reversal would affect their daily lives.

Rachel Golden Kroner, in a declaration supporting Oceana, said that if the companies invalidate the seafood traceability rule she would be at greater risk of buying illegally fished seafood, preventing her from making โ€œsustainable seafood choices.โ€

Todd Steiner, with the Center for Biological Diversity, said that without the rule he would have a harder time studying at-risk populations.

But on Monday Mehta shot down their chance to make their case in court, saying the groups had not shown that overturning the rule would harm them enough to give them standing in the case.

Read the full story at the Courthouse News Service

Recent Headlines

  • Trump reinstating commercial fishing in northeast marine monument
  • Natural toxin in ocean results in restrictions on Pacific sardine fishing off South Coast
  • MAINE: Maine lobstermen remain mighty political force despite shrinking numbers
  • HAWAII: Ahi labeling bill waiting on governorโ€™s signature
  • Trump administration strikes hard at offshore wind
  • USDA awards USD 2.3 million in pollock contracts, seeks more bids on pollock, salmon
  • Trump to reopen Northeast Canyons to commercial fishing
  • US, China agree to 90-day pause on high tariffs

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California China Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico Hawaii Illegal fishing IUU fishing Lobster Maine Massachusetts Mid-Atlantic National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NEFMC New Bedford New England New England Fishery Management Council New Jersey New York NMFS NOAA NOAA Fisheries North Atlantic right whales North Carolina North Pacific offshore energy Offshore wind Pacific right whales Salmon South Atlantic Western Pacific Whales wind energy Wind Farms

Daily Updates & Alerts

Enter your email address to receive daily updates and alerts:
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Tweets by @savingseafood

Copyright ยฉ 2025 Saving Seafood ยท WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions

Notifications