ERIC REID: Northeast Canyon’s Monument Defenders Never Looked at Costs, Considered Alternatives

Now the Trump Administration is proposing to revisit whether commercial fishing would harm the conservation purpose of the monument.

Opponents of this change have mischaracterized the economic impact of the monument.

The Rt. Rev. W. Nicholas Knisely, the Episcopal bishop of Rhode Island, alleged that reopening fishing in the monument would lead to overfishing, overlooking the fact that overfishing is already prohibited under U.S. law.

Others, like former White House chief of staff John Podesta, have argued that fishing closures can have long term benefits for fishermen – a claim questioned by leading fisheries scientists, who point out that there are much more effective ways to manage fisheries.

But most troubling are claims from environmentalists, such as the National Research Defense Council’s Brad Sewell, that the monument has not had any adverse impact on fishing. Any current analysis of the monument’s impact is incomplete at best because it does not include data from the lucrative red crab and offshore lobster fisheries, which will be kicked out in five years. These fisheries have traditionally relied on the Canyons and Seamounts region and will suffer under a ban.

Additionally, current analyses do not consider the impact on the highly migratory species (HMS) commercial handgear fishery. There are approximately 7,000 permits issued each year for this fishery, and NOAA has no data on how many of these permit holders fished in the monument, according to David Schalit, president of the American Bluefin Tuna Association. This is especially concerning because this fishery, along with the pelagic longline fishery, was banned despite the fact that its gear doesn’t come close to the deep-sea corals the monument was ostensibly created to protect.

Also absent from any current analysis is the impact on the whiting fishery; the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association has estimated that fluke and whiting fishermen will lose $1.6 million annually from the monument designation.

Claims that the monument hasn’t hurt fishermen also ignore the opportunity costs of closing nearly 5,000 square miles of prime fishing grounds. Any loss of opportunity harms fishermen’s’ ability to target their catch, forcing them to travel longer and farther to do their job. Increasing time at sea also makes what is already one of the most dangerous jobs in the country even more dangerous. And there are additional risks that result from pushing fishing effort out of large traditional fishing grounds and concentrating it into smaller areas.

All of these ill effects are ultimately unnecessary because fishing can be compatible with the monument’s conservation goals. Environmental groups have hailed the monument area as “pristine” even though fishermen had been working there for decades before the monument was established, indicating that past fishing activities didn’t harm the ecosystem.

Moreover, fishermen have long supported efforts to protect deep-sea corals, like those in the Canyons and Seamounts Monument. They worked collaboratively with conservationists and regulators to preserve 38,000 square miles of ocean habitat in the Mid-Atlantic and extend protections to vulnerable coral reefs, earning an award for conservation for their efforts.

They also contributed to deep-sea coral protections in New England – protections which were done through a public process that included scientists, fishermen, environmental groups, and other stakeholders.

Conservation and productive fisheries can go hand in hand, but this requires well-informed input from all sides. That did not happen with the designation of the Canyons and Seamounts Monument, and critics continue to ignore the closure’s harmful impacts on commercial fishermen.

Fishing should be reopened in the area, and the collaborative fisheries management council process should be restored over the undemocratic monument process.