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

NOAA, groups back adding climate mandates to fishing law

November 18, 2021 — The following was released by the office of Rep. Jared Huffman:

NOAA’s top fisheries official yesterday endorsed a plan that would require the agency for the first time in its history to add climate change requirements to its management of the nation’s fish stocks.

“Fisheries management must continue to adapt as our ocean ecosystem faces unprecedented changes due to climate change,” Janet Coit, the head of NOAA Fisheries, told a House Natural Resources panel.

Testifying before the Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and Wildlife, Coit said NOAA appreciates “the overarching climate focus” of a proposed overhaul of the nation’s primary fishing law, the 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Coit weighed in as the subcommittee heard testimony on a bill, H.R. 4690, sponsored by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), that would reauthorize the law and require NOAA to create plans for “climate ready fisheries.”

If approved, it would mark the first time that climate change received a mention in the federal fishing law, which Congress last reauthorized in 2006.

Read the full release from the office of Rep. Jared Huffman

A Tale of Two Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization Bills

November 18, 2021 — On Tuesday the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Oceans and Wildlife examined Congressman Don Young’s Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) reauthorization bill and Subcommittee Chairman Representative Jared Huffman’s MSA reauthorization bill.

“Alaska’s seafood industry is one of the primary drivers of our economy, and for over forty years, the Magnuson-Stevens Act has allowed our fishermen, processors, and coastal communities to thrive,” said Congressman Young. “It has also assisted in the preservation of subsistence and recreational fishing, which are both essential to our state’s way of life.”

Congressman Young, along with Congressman Gerry Studds, first drafted the bipartisan legislation in 1976. And now Young says that he’s ready to continue defending the bill in Congress.

“The truth is MSA has worked and worked well,” explained Young. “As with any law, it is wise to ensure policies keep pace with changing times. While I believe some changes merit discussion, I do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”

Read the full story at Seafood News

MSA reauthorization debated in US House of Representatives

November 18, 2021 — Two bills that would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act received a hearing on Tuesday, 16 November, in the U.S. House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Oceans, and Wildlife.

As U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) said in a statement, the hearing was “one of contrasts,” as lawmakers reviewed his proposal and one by Subcommittee Chairman Jared Huffman (D-California). Young said Huffman’s bill would take authority away from fishing councils and give it to the U.S. Commerce Secretary. While he agrees with Huffman that some changes should be discussed, Young said the chairman’s bill goes too far.

Read the full story at SeafoodSource

Patricia Saiki: Hawaii Has Benefited From Kitty Simonds’ Leadership

November 17, 2021 — I read with interest Civil Beat’s recent series “On the Hook.” While I applaud the substantial research that went into the series, I must disagree with the criticisms — direct and suggested — of Kitty Simonds, the long-time executive director of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

As the series noted, she has no shortage of critics. But what she has been, everyone seems to agree, is an effective advocate for Hawaii’s commercial fishing fleet. That’s an important part of her role as executive director.

The councils were created by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which was passed in 1976 to assure local participation in matters governing fishing in U.S. federal waters, specifically maintaining populations of fish and sustainability of fishing industries. This is a subject with which I have some personal experience.

When I served in the Congress (1987-1990) representing Hawaii’s 1st Congressional District, I was appointed to a seat on the House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. I sought that committee assignment because I knew how important its decisions were to Hawaii and its aquatic and fishing industries.

Read the full opinion piece at the Civil Beat

Ahead of Magnuson-Stevens Act Hearing, Studies Question Need for Additional Forage Fish Restrictions

November 16, 2021 — Editor’s note: The following was released ahead of today’s House subcommittee hearing on the Forage Fish Conservation Act. Watch the full hearing here.

 

Today, the House Natural Resources Committee Subcommittee on Water Oceans and Wildlife will hold a hearing on H.R. 5770, the Forage Fish Conservation Act, which would impose new rules on how fisheries managers regulate certain small, schooling, short-lived, pelagic fish and invertebrates that serve as food sources for larger predator species. Two recent studies have raised questions about the need for additional restrictions, and point to existing provisions in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) that are already ensuring the sustainability of “forage fish” and the species that depend on them.

In addition to the Forage Fish Conservation Act, the subcommittee will consider two bills that would reauthorize and amend the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).  H.R. 4690 is the Democratic Majority’s re-authorization of MSA, sponsored by Subcommittee Chair Jared Huffman (D-California) and H.R. 59, sponsored by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska).

Proponents of the Forage Fish Act point to the need to keep forage fish populations at extra-precautionary levels, above existing overfishing limits, so that they can better provide for the needs of predator species. But a study released this summer in the journal Conservation Biology, and funded by the Science Center for Marine Fisheries (SCEMFIS), found that, for many predator species, managing forage species at these levels are unlikely to bring additional conservation or environmental benefits. This is especially true in already well-managed and well-monitored fisheries, such as those in the U.S. managed under the existing Magnuson-Stevens Act.

“Management of forage fish populations should be based on data that are specific to that forage fish, and to their predators,” said Dr. Olaf Jensen of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, one of the study’s authors. “When there aren’t sufficient data to conduct a population-specific analysis, it’s reasonable to manage forage fish populations for maximum sustainable yield, as we would other fish populations under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.”

Dr. Jensen and his co-author Dr. Chris Free of the University of California Santa Barbara discuss the results of the paper at greater length in a video released earlier this year. They are joined by scientists Dr. Doug Butterworthof the University of Cape Town, and Dr. Éva Plagányi of CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, who offer their independent assessment of the study and their own conclusions on its findings.

To reach these conclusions, the study examined decades worth of abundance data for 45 different predator species and their prey, and found that only 13 percent of them showed any positive impact from having additional, higher levels of forage. Instead, it found that other environmental factors have a far greater influence.

The results of the study reinforce the conclusions of an earlier 2017 study published in Fisheries Research, which found that the fishing of forage fish species had a much smaller impact than previous studies had indicated, and that forage fish were best managed on a case-by-case basis, rather than on broad rules applied across species.

Nation’s Fishery Management Councils Find Consensus on MSA Changes, Advocate for Efforts to Address Environmental Justice Issues

October 26, 2021 — The following was released by the Pacific Fishery Management Council:

Leaders of the nation’s eight Regional Fishery Management Councils concluded their second biannual meeting in 2021 last week by videoconference. The Council Coordination Committee meeting provides the Councils and heads of the National Marine Fisheries Service an opportunity to discuss issues relevant to all of the Councils. The three-day meeting was open to the public and hosted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council.  Among the issues discussed were proposed changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the need to more fully address environmental justice for underserved fishing communities.

Please view the full press release and a comprehensive summary of the meeting by visiting the U.S. Regional Fishery Management Councils website at: http://www.fisherycouncils.org/ccc-meetings/october-2021.

 

A sea of choices confronts Biden admin in ocean protection

October 5, 2021 — When it comes to meeting its aggressive conservation pledge, the Biden administration appears to have a head start on protecting the United States’ oceans — after all, on paper, the nation is already more than two-thirds of the way to the goal.

But as the administration puts together a tracking mechanism for its pledge to conserve 30 percent of the nation’s lands and waters by 2030, environmental activists warn that frequently cited statistics provide a misleading picture of ocean conservation.

At the same time, advocates for the fishing industry question counter the nation is much closer to the final objective — if not already there. They argue that conservation shouldn’t always mean activities like fishing are banned and say their industry has shown itself willing to help protect vulnerable species.

Managed waters

Opponents of new marine monuments, however, argue that managed waters are sufficient to meet the conservation goals.

“If it’s not conserved unless it’s in a marine sanctuary that excludes fishing — which is a fairly radical and extreme point of view — then I think you get into a very different set of calculations about how you get to 30 percent,” said Roger Mann, a marine sciences professor at the College of William & Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science.

Mann pointed to language in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the nation’s primary fisheries law, that calls for “conservation and management” of the oceans.

“If you’re conserving sustainable resources … then all of the area that is managed under Magnuson is already a conservation area,” argued Mann, who previously served on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

“The councils can all sit there and scratch their heads and say, ‘We’re not 30×30. We’re 100 percent by 2021. What’s the problem?’” he said.

Former Garden State Seafood Association Executive Director Greg DiDomenico said he is optimistic that the Biden administration will adhere to its vow for scientific integrity, but remains staunchly opposed to the idea of new monuments.

“What we expect from 30×30, ultimately, is that it be conducted under rigorous science and an open, transparent policy,” said DiDomenico, who is now with Lund’s Fisheries.

DiDomenico pointed to the creation of the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument during former President Obama’s tenure, which closed the area to commercial fishing.

Former President Trump reversed that closure in 2020, and the New England Fishery Management Council subsequently implemented protections for deep-sea corals in more than 80 percent of the monument (E&E News PM, June 5, 2020).

“The proof is in the pudding,” DiDomenico said, pointing to what is formally known as the Omnibus Deep-Sea Coral Amendment.

He added that: “No one is running from this. We’ve been here before.”

Read the full story at E&E News

 

Close Quarters: Ocean zoning pushes fisheries to the brink

September 23, 2021 — The following is an excerpt from an article published in National Fisherman by Dr. Roger Mann, professor of Marine Science at the College of William and Mary’s Virginia Institute of Marine Science. It is based on an article published by the Journal of Shellfish Research. That paper, “An Ecosystem is Not a Monument, and Other Challenges to Fishing in the 21st Century,” is based on a talk given by Dr. Mann at the annual meeting of the National Shellfisheries Association.

Managing fisheries is no longer simply about [the Magnuson Stevens Act’s] directives to “conserve and manage” a sustainable resource to serve the “social and economic needs of the States.” It is about managing fisheries in a changing landscape of competition for ocean resources, where the environment is changing faster than in living history, and species footprints are on the move.

Part of this changing landscape is the creation of large, no-take MPAs, like the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Monument off the coast of Cape Cod. Designated by President Obama with the sweep of a pen using the Antiquities Act of 1906, the 4,913 square miles of the monument are now managed by multiple federal agencies under a bewildering patchwork of legislation, including Magnuson, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, the Refuge Recreation Act, Public Law 98-532, and Executive Order 6166. Then there is the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, through which the government can designate and protect marine areas of national significance.

This plethora of confusing legislation lacks uniform definitions. It is not clear on how — or even if — MPA designations are required to be revisited, even when species move. In addition, it does not state who has precedent over whom in the management hierarchy.

Even as questions remain over existing MPAs, activists are pushing for more with a “30×30” campaign to protect 30 percent of our nation’s land, inland waters and oceans as conservation areas by 2030. But what is “protected” in this context? Is a region protected only by excluding fishermen through a no-take MPA? Or does the Magnuson Act directive to “conserve and manage the fishery resources” and “exercise sound judgment in [their] stewardship” rise to the level of protection? If so, then is not the entire exclusive economic zone already protected?

MPAs are far from the only competition fishermen are facing in the ocean. Environmental advocacy, communications corridors, mining, national defense, and shipping all threaten fishermen’s access to ocean resources. Perhaps the biggest incursion of all is offshore wind development: the U.S. East Coast continental shelf already has 1.7 million acres of federal bottom under lease for offshore wind, with the Biden administration seemingly poised to expand such efforts along the Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. Offshore wind projects have a projected lifespan of 50 years, with turbine spacing restricting access for both commercial fishing vessels towing mobile gear and federal survey vessels. Stock assessment surveys will be compromised, resulting in reduced quotas for fishermen.

With so many competitors muscling their way into the ocean, who will be the winners and losers? Over what time frames will winners emerge? Where does preservation of the fishing industry sit in the pecking order? At the bottom?

The “space” for fisheries is shrinking. Commercial fishing won’t be the largest economic player as development of our oceans continues, but it is historically an important part of the economic and social structure of coastal communities. Fisheries are based on moving species distributions that do not function well within fixed boundaries, like those being zoned for MPAs and offshore wind.

Read the full article at National Fisherman

Western Pacific Fishery Council Advisors to Evaluate Seabird Conservation Measures

September 10, 2021 — Scientists will meet Sept. 14 to 16, 2021, to provide advice and comments to the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council on domestic seabird conservation measures, Hawai‘i area-based management efforts, proposed changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other topics. The Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) meeting will be held virtually and is open to the public. The full agenda, background documents and instructions for connecting to the meeting and providing oral public comments are available at https://www.wpcouncil.org/event/141st-scientific-and-statistical-committee-virtual-meeting. Among the agenda items are the following:

Potential Revisions for Seabird Conservation Measures

The Council is evaluating using tori lines, or bird scaring lines, as part of a suite of mitigation measures that help the Hawai‘i longline fishery avoid hooking seabirds. Two field trials to develop and test tori lines in the deep-set longline fishery were conducted in 2019-2021 under a cooperative research project between the Council, Hawaii Longline Association and National Marine Fisheries Service. The studies show that tori lines are significantly more effective in preventing longline gear interactions with black-footed and Laysan albatrosses than an existing method of using blue-dyed bait. The SSC will review results from the latest study completed during summer 2021 and may provide advice to the Council on the management action to modify the current conservation measures.

Report on Recently Opened Hawai‘i Bottomfish Restricted Fishing Areas

The Hawai‘i Division of Aquatic Resources (DAR) will present an interim report of data from fishermen who fished in the four reopened areas—Kaua‘i (BRFA C), Penguin Bank (BRFA F), Maui (BRFA J) and Hawai‘i (BRFA L). The Hawai‘i Board of Land and Natural Resources recommended that DAR monitor the fishery performance in these areas and report back in January 2022. The SSC may provide recommendations to improve the preliminary analysis to support DAR in their report and comment on the utility (or lack thereof) of retaining the BRFAs.

Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization Amendments

Two comprehensive bills were recently introduced in the Congress that would amend the MSA. The SSC may comment on several provisions that would affect the committee. These include coordinating with NOAA on multi-year research priorities that should address climate change impacts on fisheries and on forage fish populations and distribution, and the requirement to have an audio/video recording or written transcript of the SSC meeting. The SSC may also provide advice on individual provisions on fish stock status, maintaining the abundance and diversity of forage fish and criteria for determining whether a stock is depleted.

The SSC will also hear a review of impacts from the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument expansion and may discuss alternative area-based management actions.

Recommendations made by the SSC on these and other matters will be considered by the Council when it meets Sept. 21-23, 2021, virtually with host sites at Tedi of Samoa Building, Suite 208B, Fagatogo Village, American Samoa; BRI Building, Suite 205, Kopa Di Oru St., Garapan, Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI); and Cliff Pointe, 304 W. O’Brien Dr., Hagatña, Guam. Instructions on connecting to the web conference, agendas and briefing documents are posted at www.wpcouncil.org/meetings-calendars. Host sites are subject to local and federal safety and health guidelines regarding COVID-19; check the Council website for updates.

 

Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization: “Sustaining America’s Fisheries for the Future Act” Introduced

July 28, 2021 — Last Friday the long-awaited “Sustaining America’s Fisheries for the Future Act”, a reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), was introduced by Representative Jared Huffman (D-CA) and Ed Case (D-HI). Huffman is chair of the Water, Oceans, and Wildlife Subcommittee, within the House Natural Resources Committee.

This is the first time the MSA, the preeminent law on the management of the nations fisheries from 3- to 200-miles, has addressed climate change.

Read the full story at Seafood News

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • …
  • 43
  • 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