Saving Seafood

BBC: Meet the fishermen beached by Obama

August 14, 2017 — Today, the BBC published a short video by journalist Charlie Northcott in which several fishermen discuss how they have been impacted by the designation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. The monument, located off the coast of New England, was created by President Obama in the fall of 2016 using executive authority under the Antiquities Act. NOAA is currently reviewing the monument as part of President Trump’s order to review all national monuments created since 1996.

Tomorrow is the last day to submit comments to inform this review. If you have not already submitted comments, Saving Seafood encourages you to do so here.

Watch the video at BBC News

Read about the monument designation at the Boston Globe

Read about Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s recent meeting with New England fishermen at the Boston Globe

NOAA rejects bid to list tuna as endangered

August 9, 2017 — The Trump administration on Tuesday chose not to list the Pacific bluefin tuna as an endangered species, rejecting a petition by the largest global conservation group that the U.S. is a member of, with France, South Korea, Australia, and several other countries.

The Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service announced the decision after a 12-month review of the request that started under the Obama administration.

In response, environmentalists are organizing an international boycott of sushi restaurants, decrying what they say is the startling reversal of the agency’s original intent to list the tuna under the Obama administration.

The agency said that it looked at all factors affecting the bluefin tuna’s habitat, and based “on the best scientific and commercial data available … and after taking into account efforts being made to protect the species, we have determined that listing of the Pacific bluefin tuna is not warranted,” the agency said in a notice published in the Federal Register.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature had petitioned the U.S. government to list the tuna after assessing “the status of Pacific bluefin tuna and categorized the species as ‘vulnerable’ in 2014, meaning that the species was considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild,” the notice read.

Read the full story at the Washington Examiner

US Senate committee rejects most of Trump’s proposed cuts to NOAA

August 8, 2017 — The appropriations committee of the United States Senate has voted to reduce the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association’s 2018 budget, but the cuts are less severe than those requested by President Donald Trump.

The Senate Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations subcommittee agreed to a USD 85.1 million (EUR 72.3 million) cut to NOAA’s budget to USD 5.6 billion (EUR 4.8 billion) – much less than the nearly USD 900 million (EUR 764 million) in cuts requested by Trump, according to a press release put out by Senate Republicans.

The committee voted to fully fund NOAA operations including ocean monitoring; fisheries management; coastal grants to states; aquaculture research; and severe weather forecasting, according to the press release.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Tuna won’t be listed as endangered, Trump administration says

August 8, 2017 — Rejecting a petition from environmental groups, the Trump administration announced Monday that it will not list Pacific bluefin tuna — a torpedo-shaped fish that can grow to 1,000 pounds and which sells for $100,000 or more per fish in Japanese sushi markets — as endangered, despite that fact that the animal’s population has fallen 97 percent.

Even with heavy fishing pressure, the steely fish, which swim 6,000 miles between California and Asia, still number about 1.6 million, officials from NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said Monday.

“The Pacific bluefin tuna does not meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act; that is, it’s not likely to become extinct either now or in the foreseeable future,” said Chris Yates, assistant regional administrator for protected resources at the NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region in Long Beach.

“The population has been at low levels before and has rebounded,” he added.

Environmental groups, however, were disappointed. They have compared bluefin tuna to elephant tusks or shark fins — products that come from an important, but vulnerable, species and command high prices for status value.

Read the full story at the Mercury News

Offshore drilling backers, opponents ready for North Carolina battle

August 8, 2017 — RALEIGH, N.C. — Federal regulators again want to hear what North Carolinians think about allowing oil and gas drilling off the state’s coast.

Last year, former President Barack Obama’s administration adopted a five-year energy plan that excluded drilling off the East Coast. But President Donald Trump has said he wants to see more offshore energy development, so his administration has tossed aside the 2016 plan and is starting over.

As part of that process, a public hearing was held Monday night in Wilmington, and others are set for Morehead City on Wednesday and Manteo on Thursday.

Gov. Roy Cooper said last month that he’s opposed to opening the coast to offshore exploration and drilling, saying he doesn’t think the risk to the state’s coastal tourism and commercial fishing industries of a major oil spill are worth the limited revenue North Carolina would receive from the move.

Read the full story at WRAL

SHAWN REGAN: Property Rights Help Environmentalists Protect Wildlife

August 7, 2017 — Earlier this year, President Donald Trump announced that his administration would seek to open oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The plan, outlined in Trump’s 2018 budget resolution, has reignited a long-standing debate over the oil-rich Alaskan wildlife refuge.

“Some places are so special that they should simply be off-limits,” Nicole Whittington-Evans of the Wilderness Society said at the time, arguing that the refuge is “too wild to drill” and “has values far beyond whatever oil might lie beneath it.” David Yarnold, president of the Audubon Society, said that drilling in ANWR “would cause irreversible damage to birds and one of the wildest places we have left on Earth.”

Drilling proponents cite the area’s immense energy potential. More than 10 billion barrels of oil could be tapped by developing just a small portion of the 19-million-acre refuge, according to the U.S. Geological Survey – enough to produce 1.45 million barrels per day, more than the United States imports daily from Saudi Arabia. The Trump administration claims that opening ANWR for leasing would reduce the federal deficit by $1.8 billion over the next decade.

How are these conflicting environmental and natural-resource values to be resolved? In the case of ANWR, the answer is politics. The refuge is federal land, so decisions about its management are political by their nature. Debates are often characterized as all-or-nothing decisions – either “save the Arctic” or “drill baby drill” – and when one side “wins,” another side loses.

But what would happen if ANWR were privately owned, perhaps by an environmental group?

Read the full opinion piece at the Foundation for Economic Education

Review renews debate over first Atlantic marine national monument

August 7, 2017 — BOSTON — During his eight years in office, former President Obama protected more than 550 million acres of public land and water as national monuments under the 1906 Antiquities Act. Unlike creating a national park, which requires an act of Congress, a president can declare a national monument to protect “objects of historic or scientific interest” with a proclamation.

Critics of the monument say President Obama overstepped the powers set forth by the Antiquities Act and did not provide enough opportunity for public comment. In April, President Donald Trump signed an executive order asking his Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, to conduct a review of 27 monuments created since 1996. The purpose of the review is to determine if these monument areas qualify under the terms of the act and to address concerns from the community.

Two days later, Trump signed another executive order outlining his “America-First Offshore Energy Strategy.” The plan demonstrates Trump’s vision for the exploration and production of energy on federal lands and waters to decrease America’s dependence on foreign energy.

Fishing industry’s concerns

Captain Fred Penney, a lobsterman out of Boston Harbor, believes that the monument will hurt the future of fishing in New England because the new restrictions were implemented without much input from the fishermen themselves.

“To have no regulations and have it be a free-for-all, that’s completely unacceptable, I understand that,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to see that. But what they’re doing now doesn’t seem to be it.”

Many in the industry felt fishing in the area should have been regulated under the Magnuson- Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, which created eight regional fishery management councils to maintain sustainable fisheries and habitats in the U.S.

The councils are divided up by region, including the New England, Mid-Atlantic and South- Atlantic councils on the East Coast. Each council sets regulations for certain fisheries such as limiting catch size, issuing permits and monitoring fishing equipment.

Fishermen argue the council’s lengthy public process is more transparent than a proclamation from the president and allows for more input from the community.

Jon Williams of the Atlantic Red Crab Company said the fishermen were not given much notice about meetings and the scope of the monument. He argued the area was thriving under the council’s management before the monument designation.

“We’d been in there for 40 years and if it’s… pristine now, after our presence for 40 years, why is there an emergency for the president to use an act to protect this thing?” Williams said. “Why not give it to the council and let the council do its job?”

Before the Obama administration announced the monument, the New England Fishery Management Council was working on a coral amendment that would protect deep sea corals, one of the goals of the monument. The South and Mid Atlantic Councils passed similar regulations years earlier.

 

Read the full story at The Groundtruth Project

Under Trump, recreational anglers feel tide turning in their favor on red snapper

August 7, 2017 — WASHINGTON — It’s getting easier to snap up red snapper.

The sought-after game fish has been at the center of a years-long debate between environmentalists who want to protect the iconic species while it continues to rebuild from overfishing and recreational anglers who contend years of economically crippling restrictions have paid off and it’s time to go fishing again.

After eight years of policies under President Obama that emphasized protection, there’s now a rising tide of momentum under the Trump administration to loosen restrictions in the federal waters off the Southeastern United States. Already:

• Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in June expanded the recreational fishing season for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico from three to 42 days.

• Legislation has been reintroduced in the House and Senate to give more say over red snapper management to Gulf Coast states, which are seen as more sympathetic to recreational anglers’ interests. Such bills are likely to get a friendly reception if they reach the president’s desk.

• And next month, the agency overseeing fishing restrictions in the South Atlantic is expected to lift a years-long ban on red snapper in 2018.

All of that delights anglers who feel the Obama administration ignored their arguments that red snapper had rebounded so well they were literally “tripping over” fish.

“I feel a whole lot better today than I did a year ago,” said Jeff Angers, president of the Louisiana-based Center for Sportfishing Policy, which advocates for the recreational fishing industry.

Read the full story at USA Today

Opposition grows to seismic testing for offshore oil reserves

More state and local officials join scientists in voicing concerns about impacts on marine life

August 1, 2017 — Scientists are worried that an executive order issued by President Trump earlier this year that seeks to open large portions of the mid-Atlantic and other coastal areas to oil and gas exploration would harm the endangered North Atlantic right whale and other species that occasionally visit the Chesapeake Bay.

Trump’s order, issued April 28, would reverse a 2016 policy from the Obama administration that closed federal waters off portions of the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific coasts and the Gulf of Mexico to drilling as part of the administration’s effort to boost domestic energy production. The order also instructed federal agencies to streamline the permitting process to speed approval of seismic testing to locate oil and gas reserves in those areas.

But the action is increasingly unpopular with many elected officials along the East Coast. In July, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan publically stated his opposition to any further offshore exploration. And the attorneys general from nine East Coast jurisdictions — including those from Maryland, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia and Delaware — submitted comments opposing additional surveys.

“The proposed seismic tests are themselves disruptive and harmful,” Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh said in a statement. “Worse, they are the precursors to offshore drilling that would put the Chesapeake Bay at risk to drilling-related contamination. That contamination would have catastrophic impacts on fragile ecosystems and important economies. This is a foolish gamble with our precious natural resources.”

Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia is the lone Southeastern governor supporting marine oil exploration, saying he “never had a problem” with seismic testing. While 127 municipalities have passed resolutions against the tests, only five are in Virginia.

Read the full story at the Bay Journal

Trump Administration Decision Signals Possible Shift In Fishing Regulations

August 1, 2017 — When it comes to regulatory issues, the fishing industry often finds itself facing off against environmentalists. And some recent moves by the Trump administration seem to be leaning more in the direction of siding with fishermen.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC), the regulatory body that sets the rules for the fishing industry, is meeting this week, and one of the topics of conversation is a recent decision regarding fishing in New Jersey.

The ASMFC said the population of summer flounder – also known as fluke –has been declining since 2010 and is at serious risk. So the commission reduced limits on how much could be caught. New Jersey came up with alternative plan which the state asserted would protect the fish, while still allowing more fishing. But the fisheries commission rejected the New Jersey plan, saying too many fish would be caught, and that it would be bad for the population.

Ordinarily, the federal government listens to the commission’s recommendations. But last week, the U.S. Department of Commerce rejected its recommendation, allowing New Jersey to go ahead with its plan. The ASMFC says this is the first time since passage of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act in 1993 and the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act in 1984 that the secretary of commerce rejected a noncompliance recommendation by the commission.

“I do think it’s healthy for the administration to not simply rubber stamp everything that is done by these commissions, but rather have an actual role in it,” said Bob Vanasse, executive director of an industry group called Saving Seafood. “And I do think that elections matter,” he said.

Vanasse said this is an example of Trump administration listening to the fishing industry.

“I think there’s definitely been a shift in how the commercial fishing industry, how their issues are being addressed by this administration,” he said. “And I think, frankly, it’s a mistake to think it’s some kind of right-wing, Trump administration, erroneous action. I think it’s actually, overall, positive.”

Vanasse said another example of that positive impact is the federal review that’s happening now of national monuments, including Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, which is about 130 miles off the coast of Cape Cod. The Obama administration designated it an offshore monument near the end of his presidency, closing it off to a lot of fishermen.

Vanasse said the Trump administration’s review of that monument designation is an example of something that’s being handled responsibly by people who have careers in this area — not just political appointees.

Read and listen to the full story at WGBH