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

Walter Jones Was the Real Maverick

February 12, 2019 — He was a Republican and a staunch conservative, but he often worked with Democrats, and won their affection. He supported the Iraq War in 2003, but was troubled by the human cost. He was one of President Donald Trump’s most outspoken critics within the GOP, and his death after a long illness leaves an unfillable hole in Congress.

That sounds a lot like a certain senator from Arizona who died recently, but it’s not John McCain—it’s Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina. Jones died Sunday, on his 76th birthday. (Jones’s illness had kept him from Congress since September, though he was easily reelected in November.) Although the late Arizona senator became identified with bucking his party, Jones, far more than McCain, epitomized the “maverick” sobriquet. It’s folly to value heterodoxy for its own sake, but Jones’s ability to make friends and allies across the aisle and to buck his own leaders was a clear, rare demonstration of political courage. Jones was the kind of independent-minded, bipartisan-curious politician whom Americans often say they want but seldom actually elect.

Most Americans knew of Jones—if they knew of him at all—as a driving force behind the bizarre 2003 episode in which Republicans directed the U.S. House cafeteria to change the name of French fries to “freedom fries” as revenge for French opposition to the war in Iraq. (The move was inspired by a restaurant in Jones’s heavily military district in eastern North Carolina.) But “freedom fries” didn’t make for a good epitome of Jones’s political career. They made him appear to be a cartoonish lockstep Republican, when in fact Jones was consistently one of the members of Congress most likely to vote against his party. And they made Jones seem like a super-advocate for the Iraq War, yet he eventually became one of its loudest critics.

Jones’s background hardly telegraphed the unpredictable politics he eventually adopted. He served in the North Carolina General Assembly for 10 years as a Democrat, but switched to the Republican Party when he ran for Congress in 1994. Jones was one of many southern Democrats to make that switch, as the party became more reliably liberal and they stayed (or became more) conservative—though that switch had an often dark history, especially in North Carolina. Jones’s father, also Walter, was a longtime Democratic congressman, but when Jones Jr. ran to replace him after his death in 1992, he lost the primary. Two years later, he ran as a Republican in another district (including large parts of his father’s old constituency) and won. His early years in Congress didn’t offer much indication of what was to come either.

Read the full story at The Atlantic

Trump’s pick to head White House science office gets good reviews

August 2, 2018 — The long wait for a White House science adviser is over. President Donald Trump announced today that he intends to nominate meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier, a university administrator and former vice-chair of the governing board of the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), to be director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The OSTP director traditionally, but not always, also holds the title of the president’s science adviser.

The move caps a search process of record-setting length—nearly 560 days, double the longest time taken by any other modern president to name an OSTP director. Many in the research community had lamented the delay. But the wait may have been worth it: Droegemeier, a respected veteran of the Washington, D.C., policymaking scene, is getting positive reviews from science and university groups.

“He’s a very good pick. … He has experience speaking science to power,” says environmental policy expert John Holdren, who served as science adviser under former President Barack Obama and is now at Harvard University. “I expect he’ll be energetic in defending the R&D budget and climate change research in particular.”

Maria Zuber, a planetary geophysicist and vice president for research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, agrees that Droegemeier will stand up for climate science. “He always has. I see no reason why he wouldn’t now.” But she says his style is not confrontational. “He’s a good old boy. He wears cowboy boots. … He’s a personable guy.” She adds that “he’s got solid conservative credentials,” noting that his web page is emblazoned with “God Bless America!!!”

“He is an excellent choice,” says Tobin Smith, vice president for policy at the Association of American Universities in Washington, D.C. “He has a strong understanding of issues of concern to research universities.”

“Kelvin is a solid scientist, excellent with people, and with deep experience with large bureaucracies,” says Cliff Mass, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle. “A moderate voice that won’t politicize the science.”

Droegemeier, who has served on the faculty of The University of Oklahoma (OU) in Norman for 33 years and been the school’s vice president for research since 2009, has long been rumored to be in the running for the OSTP job, which entails advising the president on technical issues and overseeing coordination of federal science policy. He is no stranger to Washington, D.C.; then-President George W. Bush named him to the National Science Board, which oversees NSF, in 2004, and Obama reappointed him in 2011. He served as the board’s vice-chair from 2014 to 2017.

Read the full story at Science Magazine

 

National Ocean Policy Coalition U.S. Senate Hearing Recap

December 14, 2017 —  The following was released by the National Ocean Policy Coalition:

The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard yesterday held an oversight hearing on the National Ocean Policy (NOP), featuring the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, and Family Farm Alliance, along with minority witness Kathy Metcalf of the Chamber of Shipping of America. An archived video of the hearing is accessible here.

Chairman Dan Sullivan (R-AK) presided over the hearing, with Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-MI) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) joining Sullivan in the witness Q&A, with Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) also in attendance during portions of the hearing.

As more fully described below in the detailed hearing notes, Chairman Sullivan and majority witnesses highlighted the negative impacts and risks involved with the NOP, including the mandatory and regulatory nature of it, increased bureaucracy (highlighted in part through a visual poster chart on display in the hearing room), broad scope in terms of impacted industries and geographic areas (including inland areas), increased uncertainty, new regulatory burdens and overlays (including Regional Planning Body efforts to identify special areas), and conflicts with existing statutes. In doing so, it was noted that all such impacts resulted from the Executive Order in the absence of any statutory authority and in contravention of congressional will and intent.

Majority witnesses also highlighted NOP concerns related to litigation risks, deficiencies in data and a lack of science, non-government funding of NOP activities, lack of transparency, and the fact that negative impacts have already resulted.

In addition, the minority witness also relayed questions and concerns about the NOP, including questioning why inland activities were ever contemplated for a policy that was supposed to focus on the ocean, and noted that while good pieces of the policy need to be kept, others need to be addressed (in part highlighting her organization’s previous concerns about what happens with Regional Planning Body decisions and whether they could lead to regulations). They also acknowledged that uncertainty still exists with the NOP, and suggested that vacating the NOP would be acceptable if that is what it takes to be “where we need to be,” but that “we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.”

During witness questioning, Sen. Blumenthal referred to a visual on display in the hearing room that depicted the complex bureaucracy created by the Executive Order, calling it a “mishmash” of oversight that wouldn’t become any clearer regardless of how close one got to the chart.

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Sullivan

In his opening statement, Chairman Sullivan highlighted concerns with the NOP, noting that it significantly departs from ocean policy under the George W. Bush administration, threatens to impose new regulatory burdens and litigation risks, was established with questionable statutory authority and without congressional authorization, has done more harm than good, is a top-down initiative that could negatively impact a range of activities including those on land, creates conflicts with existing laws, and could undermine existing structures like regional ocean partnerships and fishery management councils. He also noted that numerous congressional efforts to establish a similar policy failed under both Republican and Democrat leadership.

Recognizing that the policy’s architects have asserted that the policy’s goal was to unite stakeholders and streamline decision-making, Sullivan also noted that those are shared goals but that this particular policy could have the opposite effect. Sullivan also drew attention to the complex bureaucracy created by the NOP, using a poster chart to highlight the various bodies and councils that were established under the Executive Order, and noted that goals to increase data sharing and promote science-based decision-making have widespread support.

Ranking Member Peters

Ranking Member Peters noted the NOP’s recognition of the Great Lakes and noted the history of ocean policy in recent administrations following passage of the Ocean Act in 2000. In doing so, he noted that the Obama Administration introduced new components through the NOP like coastal and marine spatial planning, and expressed regret that the Subcommittee would not hear from state and federal agency witnesses about the successes and lessons learned following the 2010 Executive Order. Peters also asked for letters of support from the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean, and several industries to be read into the record.

Long Island Commercial Fishing Association

In asking for Congress’s help to rein in the NOP, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association Executive Director Bonnie Brady talked about her background and experience with the NOP to date, calling the policy one of the greatest threats the Long Island commercial fishing industry has ever seen. She also provided a firsthand account of her experience in dealing with the Regional Planning Bodies (RPBs) established under the Executive Order, and the burdens associated with that engagement.

In doing so, Brady highlighted major concerns regarding the inadequacy and inaccuracy of data being relied upon by the RPBs, the NOP’s attempt to grant various statutory powers to RPBs, the impact that RPB activities including efforts to identify special areas could have on the commercial fishing community, the funding of NOP/RPB activities by groups with anti-development biases, and the lack of transparency surrounding NOP implementation. At the conclusion of her statement, Chairman Sullivan thanked Brady for her “very powerful” testimony.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce

In calling for the NOP to be rescinded and Congress to continue to deny funding for its implementation, U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Energy Institute Senior Vice President Christopher Guith emphasized the unnecessary, bureaucratic, and unauthorized nature of the NOP, and the far-reaching impacts that it could have on various activities including those that take place well inland. In doing so, he highlighted concerns about the policy’s coastal and marine spatial planning component and how it could close off areas to human uses and result in plans that exclude uses. He highlighted that the risks are real and already present, with federal agencies directed to implement the policy and plans already developed in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast, and with the previous administration citing the policy in part as justification for precluding energy activities in any new areas through 2017. Guith also highlighted the widespread support across various economic groups around the country for reining in the NOP, and noted that the NOP is a step in the wrong direction and was an aggressive regulatory action in search of a problem.

Family Farm Alliance

In voicing support for executive and congressional action to vacate the NOP, Family Farm Alliance Executive Director Dan Keppen talked about the potential for the NOP to affect activities well inland, including agriculture, calling the NOP another unhelpful level of federal management and oversight. He specifically voiced concern that Regional Planning Bodies could increase the role of federal agencies in inland areas, and said that the policy’s Ecosystem-Based Management component allows the RPBs to potentially address inland activities in a way that could be leveraged by critics of irrigated agriculture to limit or restrict such activities. Keppen also noted the lack of clarity about the federal resources that have been committed to NOP activities over the years, and said that existing mechanisms should be allowed to work rather than relying on the NOP and the unnecessary duplication and confusion it has created.

Chamber of Shipping of America

In asking the Subcommittee not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater,” Chamber of Shipping of America President and CEO Kathy Metcalf emphasized areas of agreement among the witnesses, such as the importance of coordination and collaboration.  In doing so, she said that the NOP is about good governance, and said that the existing ocean governance structure could use some help. At the same time, Metcalf said that the good pieces need to be left intact while other aspects of the NOP need to be addressed. As to the latter point, she noted previous concerns her organization had about the NOP, including what happens with RPB decisions and whether they could lead to new regulations, adding that her industry cannot afford to have different requirements in different regions of the country.

In expressing support for ocean planning, Metcalf referenced use of regional ocean data portals and the need for accurate data, said that poor planning could reduce navigation safety, and added that the NOP is about helping agencies do a better job under their existing authorities rather than regulations. She closed by expressing hope that the federal government would continue to allow stakeholders and agencies to work with each other either under the current NOP structure or a revised structure, and cited the redrawing of shipping lanes in Boston Harbor as one example of how collaboration can work.

Chairman Sullivan Witness Q&A

Chairman Sullivan noted issues with stakeholders being heard under the NOP, stakeholder costs associated with engaging on it, and the difficulty of navigating through the complex NOP bureaucracy. In response, Brady said her biggest concern is areas being closed off to fishing, the absence of real science in the process, and major deficiencies in data being used by RPBs.

Sullivan also focused on the non-voluntary nature of the NOP, including the requirement that federal agencies participate regardless of whether all states in a given region decide not to engage. Guith agreed, and noted that while everyone agrees on the importance of sustainable uses, the NOP lacks the requisite statutory authority, adding that lawsuits should be expected if final regulatory actions are taken pursuant to the NOP, and further agreeing with Sullivan that the lack of congressional authorization and congressional action to stop its implementation further demonstrates that the NOP is on shaky legal ground.

In noting that some elements discussed in the NOP are important, Sullivan also asked the minority witness what she had challenges with, noting opposition and concerns expressed by other maritime labor and transportation groups over the years. In response, Metcalf said they look at the NOP as a tool to help agencies do their jobs better under existing authority and ensure coordination, while adding that uncertainty does exist about the NOP and questioning why references to activities occurring well inland were included in a policy focused on the ocean.

Sullivan concluded his questions by noting that the NOP was an end-run around Congress and asked the witnesses about the NOP’s most egregious element and whether there were any positive elements that could be pursued. Brady was clear in stating that the NOP should be discarded, with her worst fears being that it results in closed areas under a process that has ulterior motives, and that agencies should already be doing the jobs that they are supposed to be doing. Guith added that his greatest concerns were the NOP’s breadth and the uncertainty it has created, noting that mechanisms like the planning process under the OCS Lands Act already exist for coordination among stakeholders and government agencies. Keppen agreed that the NOP’s breadth and uncertainty were his greatest concerns, also adding that the NOP excludes non-government parties from direct participation and that the NOP needs to be vacated.

Metcalf said that if vacating the NOP is necessary to achieve shared goals and “where we need to be,” then that would be fine, but that “we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.” She said some kind of federal coordinating mechanism is needed, and suggested that efforts to reduce ambiguities, clarify that the NOP won’t have impacts on inland activities, remove overreach, and ensure that the NOP won’t be a tool for mischief could be helpful.

Ranking Member Peters Witness Q&A

Ranking Member Peters asked Metcalf to talk about the importance of marine planning to the Coast Guard. In response, Metcalf said that locating and siting activities and increasing understanding of what is happening in the ocean is important to shipping from a navigation perspective as well as to the Coast Guard from a safety perspective, adding that it allows for an evaluation of threats. Asked how strategic marine planning can help meet infrastructure needs, Metcalf said it can ensure safety, effectiveness of port operations, and efficiencies that result in jobs and economic growth.

Peters also asked Brady about a statement she made to POLITICO in March 2017 in which she voiced concerns about offshore renewable energy projects in the Atlantic. After Brady verified the accuracy of the quote, Blumenthal said he agreed about the need to be careful with project decisions, and asked Brady how planning could be accomplished and whether Regional Planning Bodies could play a role. Brady said she did not see a role for Regional Planning Bodies, adding that they have placed priority on certain uses over others like fishing, and voiced support for giving NOAA a greater role in decision-making (saying NOAA’s ability to influence project proposals is currently limited to Endangered Species Act processes).

Sen. Blumenthal Witness Q&A

Sen. Blumenthal asked Metcalf how the NOP has affected shipping in medium-sized ports and whether the NOP does enough to support shipping. In response, Metcalf said that “we can always get better,” and that the more enclosed the space, the more important it is to identify user conflicts. Referring to concerns raised in Brady’s opening statement, she added that this “should never be about choosing one use over another” but instead about coordinating all uses, which she said would help ports.

In directing a question to Brady, Blumenthal referred to the “mishmash” of oversight reflected in the NOP bureaucracy chart on display in the hearing room, adding that seeing the poster any closer wouldn’t make it any more helpful to understand. He followed up by noting that an imperative of ocean policy is translating policy to action, and asked Brady what changes she would like to see in the NOP. Brady said she would like to see the NOP discarded, that she would like to see NOAA provided with a greater opportunity to deny project approvals when important fishing grounds are threatened, and conveyed support for creating an offshore wind-related compensation fund for fishermen similar to a conventional energy-related one included under the OCS Lands Act. She also noted that the fishing industry is highly regulated, to the point that the U.S. now imports 92% of seafood, compared to 52% in 1996, due to higher costs associated with stringent regulations.  She added that the NOP and associated lack of science compounds the problem.

View the entire release here.

 

Lawmakers move to protect funding for climate change research

June 8, 2017 — A bipartisan group of lawmakers is urging appropriators not to cut funding from one of the federal government’s climate change research accounts.

In a letter penned by Reps. Don Young (R-Alaska) and Jared Polis (D-Colo.), the members told appropriators to preserve the $25.3 million in funding for the National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers.

The program, established in 2008 during the George W. Bush administration, provides climate-related research to fish and wildlife managers as a way to help them “prepare for, respond to, and reduce the negative consequences of climate extremes,” according to the letter.

The Trump administration has requested $17.3 million for the program in 2018, a $7.9 million cut from current levels.

In a letter to Reps. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) and Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee’s Interior and Environment panel, the members said the program has “helped natural and cultural resource managers assess climate-related vulnerabilities in their local jurisdictions as a first step in enhancing preparedness.”

“We support the reputable and important work of the [Department of Interior’s] National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers,” they wrote. “We understand that their return-on-investment is large and we encourage continued stable support and full funding for the program.”

The Trump administration proposed slashing funding for several science research accounts in its 2018 budget request, which lawmakers are beginning to consider this week.

Read the full story at The Hill

PETER H. FLOURNOY: Benefits of Antiquities Act Don’t Extend to Marine Monuments

April 4, 2017 — The following was written by Peter H. Flournoy, a representative of the Western Fishboat Owners’ Association, in response to a March 31 op-ed in the New York Times:

I have represented U.S. commercial fishermen for about 35 years, primarily working in the Pacific Ocean. I believe the primary concern of Republicans and Democrats who oppose the Act stems from where the Antiquities Act has been used, primarily by Presidents Bush and Obama, to close large areas of the ocean on both coasts to U.S. fishermen. Sometimes the expressed rationale is to protect the ocean bottom or coral reefs in certain areas, however, too often this also ends all surface fishing, which has no contact with the ocean floor. Traditionally U.S. fisheries are managed under the Magnuson Stevens Act. The Councils formed under this statute are the entities with the fishery management expertise. When the Antiquities Act is used, they are closed out.

While it may be that the Antiquities Act should be used for land areas, for the ocean there is the Marine Sanctuaries Act, which has a very public, transparent, and inclusive process.

In your opinion piece you also frequently used the number of tourists who visit the national parks which have grown from Antiquities Act set asides. I doubt I could count more than a hundred visitors to the marine protected areas which have been established. These visitors are not your common middle class citizen that finds pleasure in taking his family to view nature’s majesty at minimum expense. The only people that can enjoy the marine sanctuaries that have been set up under the Antiquities Act are those rich enough to own cabin cruisers or dedicated sufficiently to enjoy the expensive sport of scuba diving.

I hope the next time you lecture your classes on the Antiquities Act you might mention some of the above concerns.

Calls grow louder for Trump to reverse marine monument designations

March 13, 2017 — Elected representatives in Congress and industry groups are appealing to the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump to investigate the potential of removing marine monument designations made by Trump’s predecessors, Barack Obama and George W. Bush.

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Rep. Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen (R-American Samoa) sent a letter to Trump earlier this week requesting the removal of fishing restrictions and the reinstatement of fisheries management under federal law, according to a letter released by the committee.

“Using the Antiquities Act to close U.S. waters to domestic fisheries is a clear example of federal overreach and regulatory duplication and obstructs well-managed, sustainable U.S. fishing industries in favor of their foreign counterparts,” the letter said. “You alone can act quickly to reverse this travesty, improve our national security, and support the U.S. fishing industry that contributes to the U.S. economy while providing healthy, well-managed fish for America’s tables.”

The letter attributes the closure of the Tri Marine’s Samoa Tuna Processors canning factory in American Samoa in December 2016 to the U.S. purse-seining tuna fleet’s loss of access to fishing areas in the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument designated in 2009 by President George W. Bush. It also criticizes the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument – created by Bush and expanded by Obama – for removing fishing territory from the Hawaii longline fleet.

“[The monument designations] exemplify how a president and government bureaucracies can dispassionately decimate U.S. fishing industries,” the letter said.

In their letter, Bishop and Radewagen urge Trump to “act swiftly and effectively to remove all marine monument fishing prohibitions,” but do not clarify what specific actions they are asking Trump to take to undo the marine monument designations made under the powers of the Antiquities Act.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

KIMBERLY STRASSEL: Barack Obama’s Midnight Regulation Express

December 23, 2016 — The technical definition of a midnight regulation is one issued between Election Day and the inauguration of a new president. The practice is bipartisan. George W. Bush, despite having promised not to do so, pushed through a fair number of rules in his final months. But Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were more aggressive, and Mr. Obama is making them look like pikers.

Mr. Obama has devoted his last year to ramming through controversial and far-reaching rules. Whether it was born of a desire to lay groundwork for a Clinton presidency, or as a guard against a Trump White House, the motive makes no difference. According to a Politico story of nearly a year ago, the administration had some 4,000 regulations in the works for Mr. Obama’s last year. They included smaller rules on workplace hazards, gun sellers, nutrition labels and energy efficiency, as well as giant regulations (costing billions) on retirement advice and overtime pay.

Since the election Mr. Obama has broken with all precedent by issuing rules that would be astonishing at any moment and are downright obnoxious at this point. This past week we learned of several sweeping new rules from the Interior Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, including regs on methane on public lands (cost: $2.4 billion); a new anti-coal rule related to streams ($1.2 billion) and renewable fuel standards ($1.5 billion).

This follows Mr. Obama’s extraordinary announcement that he will invoke a dusty old law to place nearly all of the Arctic Ocean, and much of the Atlantic Ocean, off limits to oil or gas drilling. This follows his highly politicized move to shut down the Dakota Access pipeline in North Dakota. And it comes amid reports the administration is rushing to implement last-minute rules on commodities speculation, immigrant workers and for-profit colleges—among others.

Any action that is rushed is likely to be shoddy, especially if it’s from the federal government. The point is for Mr. Obama to have his way and to swamp the Trump administration with a dizzying array of new rules to have to undo. That diverts manpower from bigger and better priorities.

Read the full story at The Wall Street Journal 

Donald Trump and the Overinflated Presidency

December 19th, 2016 — In an interview in early December, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said that President-elect Donald Trump is committed to respecting the constitutional prerogatives of Congress. “We’ve talked about…the separation of powers,” he told “60 Minutes.” “He feels very strongly, actually, that under President Obama’s watch, he stripped a lot of power away from the Constitution, away from the legislative branch of government, and we want to reset the balance of power so that [the] people and the Constitution are rightfully restored.”

If history is any guide, Mr. Ryan’s optimism is misplaced.

During the election of 1912, the Progressive candidate, Theodore Roosevelt, articulated a populist defense of virtually unchecked executive power, declaring that the president is a “steward of the people” who can do anything that the Constitution does not explicitly forbid. Roosevelt’s rival, the Republican incumbent William Howard Taft, defended a far more constrained view of executive power, holding that the president could only do what the Constitution explicitly authorized.

Ever since the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Republican and Democratic presidents have embraced Theodore Roosevelt’s view, asserting ever more expansive visions of the president’s ability to do whatever he likes without congressional approval. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama aggressively deployed executive power to circumvent Congress, and their partisans accepted it. During his own campaign, Mr. Trump declared, “I am your voice” and “I alone can fix it.” This is not the rhetoric of a president who intends to defer to the legislative branch.

Read the full story at The Wall Street Journal

Council Wants Money For Fishers Hurt By Monument Expansion

November 14, 2016 — The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council is wasting no time seeking financial compensation for those in the fishing industry who may claim they have been harmed by President Barack Obama’s expansion of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in late August.

At its meeting last month — shortly after being advised by counsel of restrictions on lobbying legislatures or the president for funds — the council decided to send a letter to Obama highlighting the expansion’s impacts on Hawaii fishing and seafood industries and indigenous communities and requesting that the Department of Commerce mitigate those impacts through “direct compensation to fishing sectors.”

The council’s letter will also include a request that the ban on commercial fishing in the expansion area — which includes the waters between 50 and 200 nautical miles off the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands — be phased in. The letter will also ask for “other programs that would directly benefit those impacted from the monument expansion.”

Compensation for fisheries closures in federal waters is not unprecedented. In 2005, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reimbursed the Hawaii Longline Association $2.2 million for legal expenses tied to the group’s lawsuit opposing a temporary closure of the swordfish fishery. Also, as part of the same $5 million federal grant that funded the reimbursement, lobster and bottomfish fishers displaced by the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) Coral Reef Ecosystem Reserve established by President Bill Clinton also received hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct compensation and funds for fisheries research.

With regard to the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, after it was first established by President George W. Bush in 2006, then-Sen. Daniel Inouye inserted an earmark in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2007 that provided more than $6 million to NMFS for a “capacity reduction program.” That program allowed vessel owners with permits to fish for lobster or bottomfish in the NWHI to be paid the economic value of their permits if they chose to stop fishing well ahead of the date all commercial fishing was to end in the monument, June 15, 2011.

Read the full story at the Honolulu Civil Beat

H. STERLING BURNETT: Obama’s Dangerous Use Of The National Monument Law

October 13th, 2016 — Despite objections made by many prominent Hawaiians and a federally designated regional fishing council, President Barack Obama, relying on the authority granted to the presidency in the 1906 Antiquities Act, quadrupled the size of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (PMNM) with one stroke of a pen.

With its August 25 expansion, PMNM became the largest protected reserve on Earth, comprising 582,578 square miles, nearly double the size of Texas. President George W. Bush created PMNM in 2006.

The Antiquities Act is one of the most ill-considered laws ever written. It gives to presidents dictatorial power to declare large swaths of the public’s land off-limits to a variety of uses normally allowed on federal lands. Many presidents have used this power, but none have done so more often or with such recklessness as Obama has. Since 2009, Obama has created or expanded 25 national monuments, more than any other president in history.

The process of creating a national monument under the Antiquities Act does not require approval from the democratically elected Congress, which is especially problematic because the creation of national monuments has often been opposed by many people in the states where the monuments have been established. It’s these people who suffer most directly from the new limits placed on economic and recreational activities.

Read the full op-ed at Forbes 

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »

Recent Headlines

  • MAINE: Maine legislative panel votes down aquaculture regulation bill
  • MASSACHUSETTS: SouthCoast Wind Environmental Report Draws Divergent Views
  • Tuna longline fishing needs to do more to protect endangered species
  • Lobsters may weather warmer waters better than expected, study finds
  • Inside the making of the Global Seafood Alliance, Responsible Fisheries Management partnership
  • MAINE: Winds of Change, Pt. 2: Maine fishermen share concerns with proposed offshore wind farms
  • MASSACHUSETTS: Offshore wind in New Bedford: A guide to what you need to know
  • MAINE: Maine lawmakers consider bill to keep funding lobster legal defense

Most Popular Topics

Alaska Aquaculture ASMFC Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission BOEM California Climate change Coronavirus COVID-19 Donald Trump groundfish Gulf of Maine Gulf of Mexico 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 Scallops South Atlantic Tuna 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 © 2023 Saving Seafood · WordPress Web Design by Jessee Productions