November, 2015 — A coalition of environmental groups including the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Conservation Law Foundation, and the National Resources Defense Council, is pushing hard to create a half-dozen “marine national monuments” in the Atlantic Ocean that would prohibit commercial fishing and could ban recreational fishing as well.
The coalition is encouraging President Obama to use his authority to designate the monuments through the Antiquities Act of 1906, which was created to “protect the objects of historic and scientific interest” and is supposed to be limited to “the smallest area compatible with proper care and management of the objects to be protected.” Through the Act, a president can unilaterally create these areas without any public or congressional oversight or input. A number of presidents have exercised this privilege in the past, yet most monuments have been designated on land or in the Western Pacific Ocean.
At the time of this writing the areas under consideration are not completely clear, but appear to include at least three canyons – Lydonia, Gilbert, and Oceanographer – along with four seamounts to the south, as well as Cashes Ledge some 50 miles offshore in the Gulf of Maine. Other canyons and seamounts are also reportedly under consideration.
It is clear to many of us, however, that the coalition’s intent in creating these monuments has little to do with historical or cultural preservation. As Maine’s Gov. Paul LePage put it, the monuments designations “would serve only one purpose – excluding commercial fishing from certain segments of the ocean.”
The recreational sector, however, needs to be very careful – and skeptical as well. At least one attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation (CLF) has suggested that recreational fishing would likely be allowed in the monuments, in order to garner support from sport fishermen, and indicated that it would be a real “win” for the recreational sector if just the commercials were prohibited in these areas.
But the rec sector isn’t taking the bait. “Just because a couple of environmental groups claim they wouldn’t oppose recreational fishing in the monuments doesn’t mean that sport fishing would be allowed once the final regulations are drafted in D.C.,” explained Frank Blount, chairman of the New England Fishery Management Council’s (NEFMC) Groundfish Committee and a party boat fleet owner in RI. “There’s no way to predict what the language in any monument designation will entail. We need to oppose the whole idea, right from the get-go.”
One of the biggest problems with the Antiquities Act of 1906 is that it strips away the open, democratic processes that protect these areas yet can allow sustainable and appropriate fishing activity. The open federal Fishery Management Council system is the vehicle by which this is best accomplished, and in fact the NEFMC has already implemented strong protections for Cashes Ledge, where most commercial fishing is already now prohibited. And in June, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council voted to protect 38,000 square miles of marine habitat in order to protect deep-sea corals.
A marine monuments designation, in contrast, would nullify these existing management actions, and deny the public any input into what new restrictions might, or should, be enacted. “Instead, it all becomes purely political,” says Jim Donofrio, the RFA’s Executive Director. “Whoever has the most influence on the administration and the president will get what they want in the way of restrictions in these areas. This is no way to manage our publicly-owned marine resources. We already have a transparent process via the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It’s certainly not perfect, to be sure, but it at least allows for public participation.”
Read the full story at Making Waves, the official publication of the Recreational Fishing Alliance