Garden State Seafood Association Archives - Page 5 of 8

East Coast Fishing Coalition Continues Legal Challenge to Planned Wind Farm Off New York

WASHINGTON — December 1, 2017 — The following was released by the Fisheries Survival Fund:

A coalition of East Coast fishing businesses, organizations, and communities, led by the Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF), has taken the next step in its legal challenge to a planned wind farm off the coast of New York. FSF and its co-plaintiffs argue that the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) awarded the lease for the New York Wind Energy Area (NY WEA) to Norwegian energy company Statoil without fully considering the impact on fishermen and other stakeholders, in neglect of its responsibilities as stewards of ocean resources.

The plaintiffs outlined their arguments in a brief filed Tuesday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. In the brief, FSF criticizes BOEM’s claim that it is not the agency’s job to resolve conflicts among new and pre-existing ocean users in the NY WEA. In an October filing, BOEM wrote that it is “not the ‘government steward of the ‘ocean commons,’’” a claim that FSF calls “unbecoming.” In fact, BOEM’s own website states: “The bureau is responsible for stewardship of U.S. [Outer Continental Shelf] energy and mineral resources, as well as protecting the environment that development of those resources may impact.”

FSF also writes that the NY WEA, an expanse of ocean nearly twice the size of Washington, D.C., is a poor location for a wind farm, and that BOEM and Statoil have alternately claimed that it is both too early and too late to raise objections to the lease. Statoil previously stated that vacating the lease would “squander the resources and the five years that BOEM has expended to date in the leasing process,” even as BOEM promises it will consider measures to mitigate the impacts of a wind farm later in the process. By then, after more time and resources have been expended, a wind farm “will be all but a foregone conclusion,” FSF writes.

Additionally, FSF argues that evaluating alternatives and considering conflicting ocean uses from the start would ultimately benefit BOEM and energy developers, ensuring they do not expend vast resources developing poorly located wind farms. The brief cites the ongoing debacle over the Cape Wind energy project, an approved wind farm off Cape Cod, Massachusetts, as an example of what can go wrong when BOEM and a developer ram through an agreement and become too invested to turn back. After the project “slogged through state and federal courts and agencies for more than a decade,” delays and uncertainty have jeopardized, if not eliminated, Cape Wind’s financing and power purchase agreements, according to the brief.

The plaintiffs in this case are the Fisheries Survival Fund; the Borough of Barnegat Light, New Jersey; The Town Dock; Seafreeze Shoreside; Sea Fresh USA; Rhode Island Fishermen’s Alliance; Garden State Seafood Association; Long Island Commercial Fishing Association; the Town of Narragansett, Rhode Island; the Narragansett Chamber of Commerce; the City of New Bedford, Massachusetts; and the Fishermen’s Dock Co-Operative of Point Pleasant, New Jersey.

While the fishing groups hold wide-ranging views about offshore wind energy development, they all agree that the siting process for massive wind energy projects “should not be a land rush, but rather reasoned, fully informed, intelligent, and cognizant of the human environment,” according to the brief.

About the Fisheries Survival Fund
The Fisheries Survival Fund (FSF) was established in 1998 to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Atlantic sea scallop fishery. FSF participants include the vast majority of full-time Atlantic scallop fishermen from Maine to Virginia. FSF works with academic institutions and independent scientific experts to foster cooperative research and to help sustain this fully rebuilt fishery. FSF also works with the federal government to ensure that the fishery is responsibly managed.

NCFC Members Support Interior Department’s Reported Marine Monument Recommendations

WASHINGTON — September 18, 2017 — The following was released by Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

Members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities support Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s reported recommendations to alter three marine national monuments. Coalition members are hesitant to comment on leaked recommendations that may not be final, but are offering comment due to the significant media attention this report has already received. The reported revisions to marine monuments will lessen the economic burden on America’s fishing communities while still providing environmental protections for our ocean resources.

According to reports, Secretary Zinke’s recommendations to President Donald Trump would allow commercial fishing managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) in the recently designated Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument. He also reportedly recommended revising the boundaries or allowing commercial fishing under the MSA in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument and the Rose Atoll Marine National Monument. NCFC members in the Pacific hope that the White House will extend these recommendations to the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, and appreciate the open and transparent process by which Secretary Zinke reviewed these designations.

Marine monument expansions and designations have been widely criticized by commercial fishing interests as well as by the nation’s eight regional fishery management councils, which in a May 16 letter told Secretary Zinke and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that marine monument designations “have disrupted the ability of the Councils to manage fisheries throughout their range.” Fishing industry members believe these monuments were created with insufficient local input from stakeholders affected by the designations, and fishing communities felt largely ignored by previous administrations.

“The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument was designated after behind-closed-door campaigns led by large, multinational, environmental lobbying firms, despite vocal opposition from local and federal officials, fisheries managers, and the fishing industry,” said Eric Reid, general manager of Seafreeze Shoreside in Narragansett, R.I., who has been critical of the Obama Administration’s process in designating the monument. “But the reported recommendations from the Interior Department make us hopeful that we can recover the areas we have fished sustainably for decades. We are grateful that the voices of fishermen and shore side businesses have finally been heard,” Mr. Reid concluded.

“There seems to be a huge misconception that there are limitless areas where displaced fishermen can go,” said Grant Moore, president of the Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association. “Basically with the stroke of a pen, President Obama put fishermen and their crews out of work and harmed all the shore-side businesses that support the fishing industry.”

“The fisheries management process under the existing Magnuson Act is far from perfect, but its great strength is that it has afforded ample opportunities for all stakeholders to study and comment on policy decisions, and for peer review of the scientific basis for those decisions,” stated Mayor Jon Mitchell of New Bedford, Massachusetts, the nation’s top-grossing commercial fishing port. In March, Mayor Mitchell submitted testimony to Congress expressing concern over marine monuments. “The marine monument designation process may have been well intended, but it has simply lacked a comparable level of industry input, scientific rigor, and deliberation. That is why I think hitting the reset button ought to be welcomed no matter where one stands in the current fisheries debates, because the end result will be better policy and better outcomes,” Mayor Mitchell concluded.

Fishermen in the Pacific are also supportive of the Interior Department’s review, but remain concerned about the effects of the Papahānaumokuākea Monument, which was omitted from the version of the recommendations being reported. “We are appreciative of Secretary Zinke’s review, and his reported recommendations to support commercial fishing in the Pacific Remote Islands Monument,” said Sean Martin, president of the Hawaii Longline Association. Hawaii’s longline fishing fleet supplies a large portion of the fresh tuna and other fish consumed in Hawaii. “However, we hope that the White House will extend these recommendations to the Papahānaumokuākea Monument, where President Obama closed an area nearly the size of Alaska without a substantive public process. The longline fleet caught about 2 million pounds of fish annually from the expanded area before it was closed to our American fishermen. That was a high price to pay for a presidential legacy,” Mr. Martin continued.

The reported recommended changes come after an extensive and open public comment period in which the Interior Department solicited opinions from scientists, environmentalists, industry stakeholders, and members of the public. As part of the Interior Department’s review process, Secretary Zinke engaged with communities around the country affected by monument designations. This included a meeting with local fishermen in Boston who explained how the designation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument has negatively impacted their livelihoods.

Critics of the monument designation include the regional fishery management councils; numerous fishing groups on the East Coast; and mayors from fishing communities on both coasts.

Additionally, fishery managers in Hawaii have been critical of expansions of both the Papahānaumokuākea Monument and the Pacific Remote Islands Monument. In an April 26 letter to Secretary Zinke, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council stated that marine monuments around Hawaii “impose a disproportionate burden on our fishermen and indigenous communities,” and noted that they have closed regulated domestic commercial fishing in 51 percent of the U.S. exclusive economic zone in the region.

Florida charter fishermen applauded the review, and a return to the process of established law that guides fishery management. “Destin, Florida was founded by commercial fishermen before the turn of the 20^th century, and continues to be a major port for commercial and charter fishing fleets,” said Captain Gary Jarvis, president of the Destin Charter Boat Association. “To our fishing community, it’s extremely important to address closures of historical fishing grounds through the Magnuson-Stevens mandated regional council process.”

Curiously, although President Obama’s September 2016 monument designation prohibited sustainable low-impact commercial fishing, it allowed other extractive activities including recreational fishing, and even far more destructive activities such as the digging of trenches for international communications cables.

NCFC members supporting the Interior Department’s reported recommendations include:

Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association
Destin Charter Boat Association
Fisheries Survival Fund
Garden State Seafood Association
Hawaii Longline Association
Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
North Carolina Fisheries Association
Seafreeze Shoreside
Southeastern Fisheries Association
Western Fishboat Owners Association
West Coast Seafood Processors Association

Trade groups want 10-year requirement removed from Magnuson-Stevens Act

September 15, 2017 — As Congress gets ready to address reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act, representatives from commercial fishing interests are urging lawmakers to revisit some of the current law’s regulations they feel have hindered the industry.

In particular, they’re urging officials to do away with language that caps rebuilding plans for overfished species to 10 years. It’s an arbitrary figure that has too rigidly applied across all federally managed species, said Lori Steele, the executive director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association, at a hearing Tuesday of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard.

“Mixed stock and multispecies fisheries in particular are incredibly complex to understand and manage,” she said in a prepared statement. “We’ve experienced this on the East Coast and the West Coast. Stocks within a multispecies complex can have very different life histories and growth rates.”

Greg DiDomenico, executive director for the Garden State Seafood Association, joined her in support for ending the requirement, adding his group wants rebuilding plans based on science.

“We support rebuilding plans that can take into account environmental factors and predator/prey relationships,” he said.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

East and West Coast NCFC Members Testify on Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization at Senate Hearing

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — September 12, 2017 — Two members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) testified before a key Senate Subcommittee today on the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The hearing was convened by Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, and was the third in a series of hearings on the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Lori Steele, Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association

Lori Steele, Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association based out of Oregon, and Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association based out of New Jersey, discussed the state of U.S. fishery laws and the needs of commercial fishermen.

In written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee, Ms. Steele said in part:

“Based on my prior experience with the New England Council and currently with the seafood industry on the West Coast, I feel confident the next MSA reauthorization can build on lessons learned from our past experiences in order to truly fulfill one of the fundamental and original goals of the MSA, emphasized in National Standard 1, the Act’s guiding principle – to prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield from each fishery. From its beginning, the MSA has conserved, protected, rebuilt, and sustained marine resources in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). As we move forward with this next reauthorization, we have an opportunity to better conserve, protect, and sustain the people, the economies, the culture, and the communities that rely upon healthy and abundant fisheries.”

Read Ms. Steele’s full testimony here

In written testimony submitted to the Subcommittee, Mr. DiDomenico said in part:

“We believe there are four main threats to the domestic fishing industry that are consistent with the concerns of this Subcommittee. They are as follows: (1) the status of the implementation of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), specifically the 2006 Amendments which were interpreted to be overly precautionary and limit management flexibility; (2) the growing efforts of the environmental industry to curtail commercial fishing access via use of the Antiquities Act, National Marine Sanctuary designations, and marine planning created pursuant to the National Ocean Policy; (3) the chronic inability to estimate and manage recreational fishing mortality; and (4) the potential for unfair implementation of catch shares.”

Read Mr. DiDomenico’s full testimony here

Alaska Sen. Sullivan Schedules Next Magnuson-Stevens Hearing for Sept. 12

September 11, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, is continuing his series of hearings regarding reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, with another one scheduled for next week in Washington, D.C.

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation member Sullivan, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, will convene the hearing, “Reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Oversight of Fisheries Management Successes and Challenges” at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 12, in Room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The hearing is the third of the series and will focus on the perspectives of commercial, charter, and recreational fishermen on the state of our nation’s fishery laws.

The first panel of witnesses include: Phil Faulkner, President, Nautic Star Boats; Jim Donofrio, Executive Director, Recreational Fishing Alliance; and Chris Horton, Senior Director, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation.

The second panel of witnesses includes: Lori Steele, Executive Director, West Coast Seafood Processors Association; Capt. Robert F. Zales, II, President, National Association of Charterboat Operators; and Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director, Garden State Seafood Association.

The hearing coincides with the National Fisheries Institute’s Annual Political Conference, when many seafood company representatives will be in Washington, D.C.

Witness testimony, opening statements, and a live video of the hearing will be available on www.commerce.senate.gov.

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

NCFC Members View Interior Department Review of National Monuments As Step In the Right Direction

Responsibly and sustainably caught Atlantic red crab, harvested from the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument region, and landed in New Bedford, Massachusetts, being served at Luke’s Lobster in Washington, D.C.

August 24, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC):

This afternoon, Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke delivered his recommendations to President Trump on changes to existing national monuments. While the details of the Secretary’s recommendations have not been made public, the AP reported today that they pertain to a “handful” of monuments, and include boundary adjustments and restoration of public access for uses such as fishing.

In March, Mayor Jon Mitchell of New Bedford, Massachusetts, the nation’s top-grossing commercial fishing port, submitted testimony to Congress on behalf of the NCFC expressing concern over marine monuments. The mayor released the following statement in light of Secretary Zinke’s findings and recommendations today on national monuments:

“The fisheries management process under the existing Magnuson Act is far from perfect but its great strength is that it has afforded ample structured opportunities for all stakeholders to study and comment on policy decisions and for peer review of the scientific basis for those decisions. The marine monument designation process may have been well intended, but it has simply lacked a comparable level of industry input, scientific rigor, and deliberation. That is why I think the decision to step back and reassess how best to proceed on marine monument designations ought to be welcomed no matter where one stands in the current fisheries debates. We are now presented with an opportunity to integrate the monument designation process with the proven processes established under Magnuson, and that will lead to better policy and better outcomes for all stakeholders.”

Robert Vanasse, Executive Director of Saving Seafood and the NCFC, released the following statement:

“We appreciate Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s comments to the Associated Press regarding his report to the President on the review of national monuments created by prior administrations. We are encouraged by his statement that in certain national monuments, public access for uses including fishing would be maintained or restored. We agree with the Secretary that regions inside monuments can be protected ‘by keeping public access to traditional uses.’ The Secretary’s review has been professional, open, and transparent. The Secretary and his staff have been respectful and courteous. They have listened and paid attention to the concerns of our members whose interests were damaged by actions of previous administrations. The vitriol aimed at the Secretary and his staff, and the inaccurate mass e-mail campaigns from numerous groups who oppose a thoughtful review of these monuments has been unfortunate. We look forward to seeing the Secretary’s recommendations in full after they are reviewed by the White House, and we are hopeful for a return to the management of fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the regions contained in these marine monuments.”

The following members of our National Coalition for Fishing Communities will comment upon the release of the Secretary’s full recommendations:

Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s Association
Destin Charter Boat Association
Fisheries Survival Fund
Garden State Seafood Association
Hawaii Longline Association
Long Island Commercial Fishing Association
North Carolina Fisheries Association
Seafreeze Shoreside
Southeastern Fisheries Association
Western Fishboat Owners Association
West Coast Seafood Processors Association

Shark Fin Soup Could Become Extinct Across the United States

May 23, 2017 — The Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act by U.S. Rep. Ed Royce of Fullerton would extend a similar prohibition to all 50 states. In the upper house, Sen. Cory Booker’s Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act would prohibit the import, export, sale and trade of shark fins. The fishing industry is fighting the legislation, while animal rights advocates say the practice of finning, in which sharks are often maimed and left for dead, needs to stop.

Shark finning is illegal in domestic waters, but sharks are sometimes caught outside the United States and their fins imported. Advocates for the business argue that federal regulations already require all domestic fishing to be ecologically sustainable and that so few sharks fins traded in the United States — the Sustainable Shark Alliance says the country is responsible for about 3 percent of global shark fin trade — that the law is unnecessary.

“We believe in sustainable harvesting [of] every aquatic species and using the whole animal whenever possible,” says Robert Vannase, executive director of Saving Seafood, a public outreach group funded by the commercial fishing industry. “There is demand for shark fins, and we think it makes much more sense for that demand to be fulfilled by well-regulated, sustainable fishing rather than to have the U.S. check out of the market entirely.”

Industry advocates emphasize that when sharks are caught or imported, the whole fish is used. Banning shark fins would contradict this ethos of sustainable fishing, they say. “Why would you throw them in the trash,” says Greg DiDomenico, executive director of New Jersey’s Garden State Seafood Association and a vocal critic of the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act. He adds that such a ban could put some small-scale fishing concerns out of business. “This is a razor-thin margin business,” DiDomenico says. “It will remove another choice for American working fishermen.”

“It’s punishing people who are playing by the rules,” adds Shaun Gehan, an attorney for the pro-fishing-industry Sustainable Shark Alliance.

Read the full story at L.A. Weekly

ENGOs Renew Push for Shark Trade Elimination Act Passage; Industry, Scientists Push Back

May 16, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Like sharks in a feeding frenzy, a group of scientists, students and Oceana are circling, renewing their push to pass the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act, threatening sustainable U.S shark fisheries. The scientists and ENGOs also say sharks are in decline.

On the other side, the Sustainable Shark Alliance, a U.S. seafood industry trade group, opposes the legislation. It’s unnecessary, they say, won’t make a dent in the global shark trade and ultimately penalize responsible fishermen.

“Oceana presents a false choice between a sustainable domestic shark fishery and other uses, such as tourism,” Shaun Gehan, a lawyer for the Sustainable Shark Alliance, said in a statement. “University and federal studies alike show growing domestic populations.”

The practice of shark finning, using only the fins and releasing the shark, has been banned in the U.S. since 1993. Some states have passed legislation banning trade of some shark parts or some species.

“The Shark Finning Prohibition Act ended the brutal practice of finning, the removal of the sharks’ fins while discarding their bodies at sea, and the Shark Conservation Act eventually closed some of its loopholes ensuring that sharks are landed with their fins naturally attached to their bodies,” the scientists wrote in their May 9 letter to Congress. “However, the United States continues to allow the buying and selling of fins. Five of the 11 countries that export shark fins to the U.S. do not prohibit shark finning. Therefore, while the U.S. bans shark finning in its own waters, it indirectly promotes this practice elsewhere and perpetuates the global trade in shark fins.”

Alliance members and other scientists counter that the Shark Trade Elimination Act will, by removing sustainably sourced shark parts, result in the increase of illegal trade of shark fins.

“Oceana and their partners are grossly misinformed and are misinforming the public,” said Bob Jones, Executive Director of the Southeastern Fisheries Association. “The U.S. shark fishery is the most sustainably run shark fishery in the world. Oceana should be promoting the responsible practices of the fishery instead of working to dismantle it.”

Dr. David Shiffman, a renowned shark conservation biologist, also is against the proposed legislation and wrote about it on the marine science and conservation blog Southern Fried Science.

“Shark fin trade bans do not allow for a sustainable supply of shark fins to enter the marketplace, punishing American fishermen who are doing it right,” Shiffman wrote. “Sustainable trade is incompatible with a total ban on trade, at least in the same place and time. The United States has some of the most sustainable managed shark fisheries on Earth. When these fisheries provide fins to the marketplace, it shows that fins can absolutely come from a well-managed shark fishery.”

Moreover, using the sustainably managed U.S. shark fisheries as examples would be better in the long run when the U.S. is negotiating with other countries, Shiffman said.

“This can be an important example for international fisheries negotiations and associated advocacy (e.g., ‘the United States manages their shark fisheries well, and so can you, here’s how.’),” Shiffman wrote. “According to Dr. Robert Hueter of Mote Marine Laboratory, a nationwide ban on the shark fin trade ‘will cause the demise of a legal domestic industry that is showing the rest of the world how to utilize sharks in a responsible, sustainable way.’ (And yes, sustainable shark fisheries absolutely can exist and do exist, although there are certainly many more examples of unsustainable shark fisheries.)”

While not affecting illegal international shark populations, the bill will hurt U.S. shark fishermen who play by the rules. It will force fishermen to dispose of shark fins on every shark they catch, which currently account for 50 percent of a shark’s value. Proper management can only occur when U.S. shark fisheries are allowed to collect the full value of their catch – without this revenue, shark fisheries will not be able to afford fuel costs and will cease to exist, the Alliance said in the statement.

“Our members are struck by the intolerance of the proponents of this campaign. It is clear that they are indifferent to the potential loss of income. I guess the livelihoods of fishing families are insignificant to the folks who support Oceana’s agenda,” said Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association.

Other respected shark scientists have come out in opposition to the legislation as well, including Dr. Robert E. Hueter. Hueter is the Director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota Florida, and has more than 40 years of experience in shark research.

“This bill will do nothing to effectively combat the practice of finning on the high seas and in other countries, where the real problem lies, and it will not significantly reduce mortality of the sharks killed in global fisheries every year,” Hueter wrote in a letter to Congress.

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

A canyon-sized power struggle is developing 100 miles off New Jersey’s coast

May 8, 2017 — It makes little sense that these two groups would be fighting at all.

On one side are the environmentalists, who wish to keep marine life safe from the harmful effects of gas and oil drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. On the other are the fishermen, who want precisely the same thing — to protect their catches and their business.

Yet a divide between the groups has been created, approximately 100 miles east of the mouth of the Hudson River off the New Jersey coast. That’s where the two sides are waging war over the future of the Hudson Canyon, an almost-mile-deep crack in the sea floor.

It’s a battle that has become even more pitched, especially since President Trump has moved to bring oil and gas drilling back to the Atlantic Ocean.

So how did this power struggle develop, and what exactly are the two groups disagreeing about?

In November 2016, the Wildlife Conservation Society nominated Hudson Canyon to be designated a National Marine Sanctuary. The WCS selected the canyon, the largest submarine crevice on the Atlantic Coast, due to its wide biodiversity. The canyon is home to more than 20 protected species, including the North Atlantic right whale, according to the conservation group.

“This is a canyon the scale of the Grand Canyon,” said Jon Forrest Dohlin, the Vice President of the WCS and the director of the New York Aquarium. “It seemed like something that could really benefit from awareness and protection.”

Commercial fishermen in New Jersey fear losing access to a profitable fishing ground. According the Greg DiDomenico, the executive director of the Garden State Seafood Association, $48 million worth of seafood was caught in the Hudson Canyon in 2014. That’s almost a third of the $149.3 million catch landed by New Jersey fishermen that year, according to the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Read the full story at NJ.com

MAFMC Overwhelmingly Rejects Hudson Canyon Sanctuary Proposal

Image courtesy of Hudson Canyon Cruise 2002

April 14, 2017 — On Wednesday, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council voted 15-4 in opposition to a proposal by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) to name the offshore Hudson Canyon a National Marine Sanctuary. The proposal was widely opposed by both commercial and recreational fishermen.

“The proponents of the sanctuary nomination will eventually claim that commercial fishing in the sanctuary is a threat,” said Garden State Seafood Association executive director Greg DiDomenico, who testified in-person at the MAFMC meeting. “They will use the authority under the Sanctuaries Act to address those threats and restrict commercial fishing. In addition, they want to conduct science, and educate and organize a constituent base, all things that they can accomplish without making the Hudson Canyon a sanctuary. It’s that constituent base that they will use later to harm the commercial fishing industry.”

The American Bluefin Tuna Association (ABTA) praised the MAFMC’s decision to oppose the sanctuary nomination. In a press release today, ABTA wrote, “Notwithstanding statements made by the WCS at the meeting that sanctuary status would not affect fishing in the area, great concern was expressed by the Council for the fact that the Marine Sanctuary Act provides for a sanctuary to have ultimate statutory authority over fishing […] The MAFMC should be applauded for a bold decision taken at the appropriate time.”

The following is excerpted from an article published yesterday by The Fisherman:

In their official nomination, the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and their Coney Island Aquarium staff outlined their specific reasons for nominating the offshore Hudson Canyon as a National Marine Sanctuary.

“Many people, whether they are ocean enthusiasts or have never set foot in salt water, will never make it out to the Hudson Canyon itself because of its distance offshore and accessibility being restricted to a half-day boat trip,” the letter says, adding “WCS has the unique opportunity to bring the wonder of the deep sea directly to millions of visitors each year through interactive exhibits within our parks.”

For thousands of coastal fishermen who don’t mind the “half-day boat trip” to the Hudson to tangle with mahi, tuna and billfish, there was good news on April 12 when the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) voted 15-4 in opposition to the WCS pitch to designate the Hudson Canyon as a restricted area of the ocean.

While claiming to have “community-based support for the nomination expressed by a broad range of interests,” the WCS marine sanctuary plan had actual fishermen and fishing industry leaders incensed.

In a letter of opposition on behalf of coastal fishermen, Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) executive director Jim Donofrio noted that regardless of the WCS’s intention, recreational fishermen would not have any legal protection under the federal sanctuary law.

Read the full story at The Fisherman

Read a press release from ABTA here

Read a letter from ABTA to the MAFMC here