Saving Seafood

Controversial fishing bill divides anglers and environmentalists

July 16, 2018 — Recreational fishermen are applauding and environmentalists are decrying a proposed overhaul to a 1976 fishing law credited with regrowing fish populations off the nation’s coasts.

Largely along a party-line vote, the House greenlit the measure seeking to amend what is known as the Magnuson-Stevens Act late last week.

Under the current law, regional councils delineate seasons and set catch limits for fishermen — all so fish stocks can be sustained from year to year.

The House bill seeks to cede more control to these local groups in developing recovery plans when populations dip too low. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who sponsored both this recent bill and the original 1976 law, said the update ensures “a proper balance between the biological needs of fish stocks and the economic needs of fishermen.”

For example, when a species is deemed “overfished,” current law requires the regional councils to develop a plan to rebuild the population that often involves placing new short-term and, at times, financially painful catch limits on fishermen. The law requires the plans to try to resuscitate the fishery as quickly as possible — in 10 years or fewer.

Critics of the current system say that time requirement is too unyielding. Instead, the House bill gives councils, which are part of the Commerce Department’s National Marine Fisheries Service, the discretion to base the time frame on “the biology of the stock of fish.”

The bill was commended by some regional seafood industry groups, who in a letter organized by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities last month lauded the bill for creating “flexibility without compromising conservation.” The bill is backed by many boating and sportsmen groups, too.

Read the full story at The Washington Post

House Passes MSA Reauthorization with Support of NCFC Members

July 13, 2018 — The following was released by Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

Yesterday the House passed H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, which modifies and reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities from around the country have been invested in improving MSA for years, and weighed in with their comments and concerns at various points in this process.

Many of these concerns were addressed during the committee process and in the discussion of amendments. Several Members of Congress cited support from NCFC members for the bill during the debate on the House floor.

From Rep. Bradley Byrne of Alabama:

Let me tell you, there are over 170 groups that have signed on to being supportive of this bill. I do not have time to read all the names to you, but let me just read a few: the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation…the National Coalition for Fishing Communities…and the Guy Harvey Foundation. This is a very broadly, deeply supported bill among people who are actually fishing. Now, it may not be supported by people who don’t fish and who don’t know anything about fishing, but for those of us who do fish…we like it.

From Rep. Garret Graves of Louisiana:

…Mr. Chairman, this bill is bipartisan. It’s why we have bipartisan support for this legislation. We have co-sponsors. It’s why the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, the National Coalition for Fishing Communities…American Scallop Association, Garden State Seafood Association, West Coast Seafood Processors Association, North Carolina Fisheries Association, Florida Keys Commercial Fishing Association, Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance, Southeastern Fisheries Association and many, many others that have a genuine stake in the sustainability of our fisheries [support this legislation].

In the debate over a proposed amendment from Reps. Jared Huffman of California and Alcee Hastings of Florida that would be detrimental to commercial fishing, Rep. Don Young of Alaska, author of the bill, quoted from a letter signed by several of our members and submitted the day before the vote. The amendment was ultimately defeated.

According to a letter authorized by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities…I want to submit for the record, if I could, the letter to the leadership of the House and to myself where they say… “We believe it will undermine the MSA, impede reforms that are desperately needed, and attack jobs in coastal communities around the country, including California and Florida,” the home states of Mr. Huffman and Mr. Hastings. I suggest this amendment is uncalled for and frankly will gut the bill and the MSA, period.

House Passes Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization with Bipartisan Support

July 12, 2018 — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 200, the bipartisan Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. Introduced by Rep. Don Young (R-Ala.), the bill reauthorizes and modernizes the Magnuson-Stevens Act by implementing regional flexibility, tailored management practices and improved data collection for America’s federal fisheries.

“Improving how we manage our fisheries will help us be better stewards of our resources, while bolstering an economic engine for our country. This bipartisan bill provides much needed flexibility for fishery managers and creates greater fishing access for the public. I want to thank Reps. Young and Graves for their tireless efforts to work across the aisle and move this bill through the House. With this vote, the ball is now in the Senate’s court, and we will work with them to get a final bill to the president’s desk,” Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) stated.

“The North Pacific is the gold standard of fisheries management, and in Alaska the fishing industry is crucial to our local economies and livelihood,” said Congressman Young. “It’s been over a decade since Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) was reauthorized which is why I’m proud to see this bill pass out of the House today with bipartisan support. My bill will update MSA to ensure a proper balance between the biological needs of fish stocks and the economic needs of fishermen and coastal communities. We know that each region works within their unique conditions which is why I fought to ensure the management process will be improved by allowing regional fisheries to develop plans that meet their local needs. I am proud to say my bill protects our commercial and recreational fishing interests, and will allow Councils to do their jobs in a more streamlined and effective manner. I thank my colleagues who helped pass this important fisheries legislation today which will deliver much needed relief to this industry. I look forward to working with my Senators to see this legislation get to the President’s desk,” Rep. Young said.

“In Louisiana as in places across the country, our fisheries are more than major economic drivers – they are a way of life for millions of normal, everyday people who like to fish, to be outside and enjoy the bounty of America’s waters. H.R. 200 improves federal fisheries policy so that resource managers can use better science, management strategies, tools and other updated capabilities that have developed since Magnuson-Stevens was enacted more than four decades ago. The bill also provides more flexibility compared to the current system, which means that management plans can be regionally tailored to specific species while improving the balance of management between recreational and commercial fisheries,” Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) said.

“I am an avid outdoorsman. I’ve hunted and fished with both my son and now my grandchildren.  There is no one who cares more about the conservation of species than hunters and recreational fishers. It’s time that Magnuson-Stevens reflect a healthy balance between commercial and recreational fisherman.  All too often recreational fishers take a back seat to commercial interests.  This bill establishes catch limit time periods that give recreational fishers the certainty they need to plan fishing seasons,” Congressional Sportsmen Caucus Co-Chairman Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas) said.

“This bill accomplishes several objectives of the recreational fishing community that will contribute to the growth of our economy, while rebuilding overfished and depleted stocks. I negotiated with the majority to remove some problematic provisions that related to the Endanger Species Act, the Antiquities Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. The resulting bill provides fishery councils with the tools they need to manage federal fisheries, and still ensure conservation and sustainability of saltwater fishery resources,” Congressional Sportsmen Caucus Vice-Chair Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) said.

Background:

The U.S. seafood industry is an economic engine for the American economy. In 2015, the fishing industry generated $208 billion in sales and supported 1.62 million U.S. jobs. Commercial fishing had a sales impact of $144.2 billion, an additional $60.6 billion in value added impacts, and generated $5.2 billion in revenue. Approximately 11 million saltwater anglers spent a total of $60.9 million on fishing trips generating $22.7 billion in income and contributing an additional $36.1 billion in value added impacts.

Specifically, H.R. 200:

• Eliminates unscientific timeframes to rebuild fish stocks that unnecessarily restrict access to fisheries.
• Provides flexibility for fishery managers to apply alternative management strategies better suited to regional needs and specific fish stocks.
• Includes critical reforms advocated by the sportsman community to allow for proper management of recreational fisheries.
• Provides necessary support for stock assessments, cooperative research and fisheries science to empower NOAA to prioritize its core mission of health fisheries management and achieving maximum sustainable yield.
• Authorizes no new federal spending and an estimated $100 million in savings over a similar bill, H.R. 1335, that passed the House with bipartisan support in the 114th Congress.

Click here for additional information on the bill.

Stakeholder support for the bill includes:

“Marine recreational fishing is not a partisan issue, which was illustrated by the support H.R. 200 received from both parties today in the House. We owe great thanks to Chairman Rob Bishop, Congressmen Don Young, Garret Graves, Gene Green and Marc Veasey for working together to properly recognize recreational fishing within the Magnuson-Stevens Act. These bipartisan leaders have made the difference for anglers from coast to coast.” – Jeff Angers, president of the Center for Sportfishing Policy

“We thank the House Leadership, Congressman Young and the leaders of the House Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus for their leadership in finding bipartisan solutions to move the bill forward. The provisions of the Modern Fish Act contained in H.R. 200 are a top priority for saltwater anglers across the United States and charts a clear course for effective recreational fisheries management while ensuring abundant, sustainable fisheries for future generations.” – Jeff Crane, president of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation

“We applaud the U.S. House of Representatives for passing commonsense legislation modernizing the federal fisheries management system, which will provide America’s recreational anglers and boaters reasonable and responsible access to public marine resources. The recreational boating industry calls on the U.S. Senate to pick up the baton, and immediately take up and pass S.1520, the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017 (Modern Fish Act). Millions of Americans are counting on it.” – Thom Dammrich, president of the National Marine Manufacturers Association

“No legislation is ever able to please every constituency, but Chairman Rob Bishop, Subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn, and Chairman Emeritus Don Young deserve a round of applause for developing a bill that addresses the concerns of multiple constituencies, and will serve to further improve the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which has left a legacy of success in its wake since Congressman Young and my former Congressman, the late Gerry Studds. were original co-sponsors in 1976. Legitimate commercial fishing organizations and seafood companies across the nation, — together with recreational interests — have spoken in favor of HR 200. It is unfortunate that uncompromising environmental groups and the fishing organizations funded by them did not work more cooperatively over the years during which this bill was crafted. In addition, Congressmen Gene Green and Marc Veasey of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus should be commended for their work across the aisle to bring this important legislation to the floor.” – Bob Vanasse, executive director of Saving Seafood and its National Coalition for Fishing Communities

“The GSSA is very appreciative of the reform efforts brought forth by Chairman Rob Bishop, Congressman Don Young, and their respective staff. While GSSA members operating in numerous East Coast fisheries understand that no bill can be perfect, we agree H.R. 200 is a positive step forward toward restoring some badly needed balance to the Act while preserving our conservation success since the 2006 Amendments.” – Greg DiDomenico, executive director of the Garden State Seafood Association (GSSA)

Magnuson-Stevens Act Reauthorization Heads to House Floor

July 11, 2018 — Today, the House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 200, also known as the “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility on Fisheries Management Act.” The bill would update and reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), the primary law governing fisheries management in the United States.

Members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities from across the country have previously written in support of the bill, believing that it “allows for both sustainable fisheries management, and the long-term preservation of our nation’s fishing communities.”

According to the letter, the bill has several provision that would “create flexibility without compromising conservation.” They include:

“1) Eliminating the 10-year time requirement for rebuilding fisheries and replacing it with a biologically based time frame is essential and allows the Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) to determine the optimal path and duration for stock rebuilding.

2) Modifying requirements for annual catch limits (ACLs) to allow RFMCs to consider ecosystem changes and the needs of fishing communities when establishing ACLs. In light of changing environmental conditions and the role of the environment in fisheries recruitment, these considerations make both scientific and common sense.

3) Using the term “depleted” instead of “overfished” throughout the Act is a simple yet very important change that will allow the Secretary to more accurately characterize stock condition not based solely on fishing mortality. The term “overfished” is perceived negatively and can unfairly implicate the industry for stock conditions resulting from other factors.

4) Maintaining the requirement for a transparent referendum process before any new Catch Share program can be implemented in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions will ensure the industry has a role in determining its future.”

Yesterday, Gulf Coast Coalition members reiterated this support in a second letter, signed by the Florida Keys Commercial Fishing Association, Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance, and Southeastern Fisheries Association.

Coalition members also submitted a letter yesterday to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) opposing a last-minute amendment to the bill added by Reps. Jared Huffman (D-CA) and Alcee Hastings (D-FL). According to the letter, the amendment would have the practical effect of requiring fisheries managers to implement significantly reduced quotas on fish stocks in order to meet more aggressive rebuilding targets. Coalition members believe that this change will ultimately hurt fishing communities.

“We believe [the amendment] would actually undermine the MSA, impede reforms that are desperately needed, and attack jobs in coastal communities around the country, including in California and Florida, the home states of Mr. Huffman and Mr. Hastings,” the letter states.

Members also believe that this change is unnecessary, noting that current rebuilding policies have led to successful and sustainable fisheries management in much of the U.S. They specifically cite NOAA’s 2018 report to Congress, which stated that “overfishing remains near all time lows and we reached a new milestone with the number of overfished stocks at the lowest level ever.”

US Congress delays vote on Magnuson-Stevens Act renewal

June 28, 2018 — U.S. Congress delayed taking action this week on a bill that would reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

H.R. 200, which would have extended the fishery management law until fiscal year 2022, has been held up in Congress by more than two-dozen amendments to the bill. Instead of a vote this week, multiple seafood industry and environmental representatives told Seafoodsource they now expect a vote after the House of Representatives returns from its Fourth of July break.

At a House Rules Committee hearing regarding the bill on Monday 25 June, lawmakers introduced 27 amendments to it.

What the delay means for the bill’s chances remains unclear. However, both the bill’s advocates and its opponents will use the time to continue their full court press on lawmakers.

The bill, formally titled the “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act,” would extend the MSA through the 2022 fiscal year. However, in its current form, it would also make substantial changes to the act.

Among those who support the bill are members of the East Coast and West Coast of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities. They say the bill will create a fisheries management program that is both flexible and conservation-focused.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

East and West Coast NCFC Members: ‘H.R. 200 Will Create Flexibility Without Compromising Conservation’

June 25, 2018 — WASHINGTON — Today, East and West Coast members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities (NCFC) submitted a letter to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy in support of H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, which would update the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

The letter, which was also sent to Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Emeritus Don Young, and other top Congressional officials, states that H.R. 200 will “create flexibility without compromising conservation.”

“We want a Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) that allows for both sustainable fisheries management, and the long-term preservation of our nation’s fishing communities,” the groups wrote. “We firmly believe that Congress can meet these goals by allowing for more flexibility in management, eliminating arbitrary rebuilding timelines, and adding other reforms that better take into account the complex challenges facing commercial fishermen.”

The letter does not include support from the NCFC’s Florida, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic members, which supported the legislation from the beginning, but withdrew their support due to a late change to the Manager’s Amendment that would negatively impact their region. The NCFC’s East and West Coast members continue to support the bill on its overall merits, but share the concerns of Gulf and South Atlantic fishermen over this late alteration.

Organizations affiliated with the NCFC do not accept money from ENGOs, and represent the authentic views of the U.S. commercial fishing industry.

The letter signers represent the American Scallop Association, Atlantic Red Crab Company, Atlantic Capes Fisheries, BASE Seafood, California Wetfish Producers Association, Cape Seafood, Garden State Seafood Association, Inlet Seafood, Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, Lund’s Fisheries, North Carolina Fisheries Association, Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Alliance, Seafreeze Ltd., Town Dock, West Coast Seafood Processors Association, and Western Fishboat Owners Association.

Read the full letter here

 

Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act Receives Broad, Growing Support

May 21, 2018 — A growing coalition of industry groups, conservationists, scientists, and other stakeholders are rallying behind a bill that promotes global shark conservation, while protecting responsible U.S. fishermen. The bill, Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act, is undergoing a markup before the Senate Commerce committee on Tuesday, May 22. Similar, bipartisan legislation from Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) is under consideration in the House.

Introduced by Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the bill would require that all countries exporting shark fins to the U.S. receive certification that their shark fisheries have an effective ban on the practice of shark finning, and adhere to sustainable management practices like those in U.S. fisheries. The new certification program would be similar to the existing U.S. shrimp certification program.

The United States has been praised for having among the strictest and most conservation-minded shark management in the world; all shark species are required to be harvested at sustainable rates, and the practice of shark finninghas long been banned.

The bill’s approach to conservation, which would preserve the jobs of responsible, law-abiding shark fishermen in the U.S. while promoting a high standard of shark conservation abroad, has won support from a broad cross-section of shark fishery stakeholders, including the Sustainable Shark Alliance. It is joined in its support by leading conservation groups, such as the Wildlife Conservation Society; shark experts at the Mote Marine Laboratory; 62 leading shark scientists; recreational fishing organizations such as the American Sportfishing Association, the Center for Sportfishing Policy, and the Coastal Conservation Association; the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and the Diving Equipment and Marketing Association.

“The Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act allows the United States to continue its role as a global leader in shark conservation and management,” says Shaun Gehan, a representative for the Sustainable Shark Alliance. “Unlike other bills that would ban the sale of shark fins outright, this bill maintains our own rigorous conservation standards, while allowing U.S. fishermen to maintain their livelihoods by responsibly utilizing every part of the shark.”

About the Sustainable Shark Alliance
The Sustainable Shark Alliance (SSA) is a coalition of shark fishermen and seafood dealers that advocates for sustainable U.S. shark fisheries and supports healthy shark populations. The SSA stands behind U.S. shark fisheries as global leaders in successful shark management and conservation. The SSA is a member of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities.

 

Senate Should Confirm Barry Myers to Lead NOAA

May 14, 2018 — NOAA – the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – needs its leader! President Trump nominated Barry Lee Myers, the CEO of AccuWeather, to the post in mid-October. The Senate Commerce Committee has twice advanced Myers’ nomination to the full Senate. All that’s needed to fill this important job is a majority vote on the Senate floor, which both Democrats and Republicans expect to happen. Unfortunately, partisan politics keeps getting in the way, delaying the vote.

Why is moving this along important? The Atlantic Ocean’s hurricane season begins June 1; tornado season has already started. In the first few days of May alone, 18 tornadoes were reported in Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma. In addition, 117 severe storms ravaged the Plains. The experienced professionals at NOAA can deal with the daily challenges of severe weather. But bigger decisions to carry out congressionally mandated improvements in hurricane and tornado forecasting require the authority of a Senate-confirmed nominee. As does putting a new hurricane-hunter plane into operation and prioritizing seasonal forecasts for farmers and ranchers. The nation also has a huge seafood trade imbalance that needs the attention of top NOAA leadership.

Few people are as qualified to head NOAA as Barry Myers. He has successfully headed a large, complex, science-based organization that is one of the country’s – and the world’s – leading creators and distributors of weather forecasts, data and scientific information. In other words, Myers is a veteran executive in the areas in which NOAA operates.

Myers also has worked for more than 30 years to make NOAA a better, stronger and more transparent organization. He helped establish the American Weather Enterprise, which combines the resources of NOAA, academic and research institutions, and America’s private-sector weather companies. The federal government works with industry leaders including Myers to distribute weather data free of charge to the American people. In fact, Myers has been repeatedly honored for helping to bring to the nation these major advancements, making the U.S. the envy of the world in how it provides weather information to its citizens.

Senate offices have received more than 60 letters from individuals and organizations supporting his confirmation, including strong backing from the past four leaders of the U. S. National Weather Service who served under both Democratic and Republican administrations. In addition, the seafood industry has overwhelmingly advocated his confirmation with letters of support from seafood processors and others in the fisheries industry ranging from ship captains to sport fishermen.

Members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities consider Myers’ experience at the helm of a family-based business to be a special asset for his role at NOAA. They recognize this connection as a skill set no other leader of NOAA has had. Many American seafood-harvesting and processing companies are multi-generational, family-based businesses and his understanding of them is unique. While individuals with impressive scientific credentials have led NOAA in the past, the coalition believes Myers brings to the agency much-needed leadership, vision and managerial skills.

Read the full op-ed at Real Clear Politics

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy Asks for More Time to Analyze Offshore Wind Impacts on Commercial Fishermen

May 10, 2018 — WASHINGTON — New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy is asking the federal government for more time to analyze the potential impacts of offshore wind development, specifically on the state’s important commercial fishing industry.

In a letter last week to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, Gov. Murphy wrote that the 45 days allotted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for comments on wind development in the New York Bight “is simply not enough time” for New Jersey to conduct the extensive outreach to fishermen it needs. Citing the year of stakeholder outreach conducted by New York, Gov. Murphy requested a 180-day extension of the public comment period.

“New Jersey and its fishing industry need ample time to collect and provide to BOEM more detailed information to enable BOEM to do a responsible job during the next stage of its wind energy leasing process,” Gov. Murphy wrote.

Gov. Murphy called input from New Jersey fishermen “particularly critical” because the state’s main fishing grounds are in areas that New York has submitted to BOEM for potential wind energy development, including two vital areas that are closest to New Jersey’s coast.

“While New Jersey believes that wind energy and the fishing industry can coexist productively, it is critical that potential conflicts from these multiple uses be identified and planned for early in the process,” Gov. Murphy wrote.

According to the letter, New Jersey is “only now beginning [its] review and stakeholder process,” in contrast to New York, which has had four years to conduct studies of offshore wind areas. It pointed out that New York did not effectively engage with New Jersey fishermen or other stakeholders as part of this process.

Gov. Murphy was also critical of BOEM’s own lack of engagement with New Jersey’s fishing industry, stating that they have “not yet been meaningfully involved in the process.” He pointed to two letters from New Jersey to BOEM late last year, which highlighted the lack of stakeholder outreach and requested meetings between fishermen and BOEM before moving forward with a public comment period.

However, BOEM scheduled just one fisheries-based meeting on the New York Bight in one location after its call for comments.

“This minimal level of outreach and limited time frame for response from New Jersey’s stakeholders are simply not adequate or equitable,” Gov. Murphy wrote.

Gov. Murphy’s letter is the latest effort to ensure that the concerns of fishing communities are properly considered in the development of offshore energy projects. In April, members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities wrote to Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker, expressing their concerns over several proposed offshore projects and calling for more robust stakeholder engagement.

 

U.S. Shark Fin Ban “Will Not Work,” Would Likely Hurt Shark Conservation Efforts, Expert Tells Rep. Doug Lamborn

May 2, 2018 — WASHINGTON — In response to a question from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), shark expert Dr. Robert Hueter wrote that a U.S. ban on the trade of shark fins would not work and would potentially lead to more unsustainable or finned shark fins in the global market.

Dr. Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, previously testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans on April 17 in favor of a sustainable shark trade bill and against a fin ban. His most recent comments came in response to a follow-up question from Rep. Lamborn about the message a fin ban would send to other nations.

“U.S. fishers do not fin their sharks,” Dr. Hueter wrote. “So the consequences of this action will be to punish the fishers doing it right—U.S. shark fisheries—and reward the foreign fisheries doing it wrong. That is a terrible message to send the world.”

John Polston, a fisherman and representative of the Sustainable Shark Alliance, also testified in April in support of the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act and in opposition to the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act. The Sustainable Shark Alliance is a member of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities.

The full text of Rep. Lamborn’s question and Dr. Hueter’s response is reproduced below:

Question from Rep. Doug Lamborn for Dr. Robert Hueter, Director of the Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory

  • Supporters of H.R. 1456 have argued that such a ban on shark fin sales would send a message to other countries. What message do you think this ban would send?

RESPONSE FROM DR. HUETER [emphasis added by Saving Seafood]:

The supporters of H.R. 1456 are hoping the message the U.S. will send to other nations with a domestic fin ban is that shark fins should no longer be tolerated as a consumable product.  This U.S. leadership, they hope, would end the global fin market, eliminate all shark finning, and recover shark populations worldwide.  Analogies are made to past U.S. leadership in the elephant ivory trade and in commercial whaling.  But as explained in Dr. David Shiffman’s and my 2017 peer-reviewed paper in the journal Marine Policy, this approach is flawed and will not work, for several reasons.  Unlike in the case of elephant ivory where the U.S. was the world’s major consumer, we are only a 1% player in the world shark fin market, and thus our withdrawal from that market will not have the same type of direct effect on world trade of fins as happened with the ivory trade.  In fact, it’s reasonable to conclude that the small market share of shark fins that U.S. fishers currently supply will be taken up by nations fishing sharks unsustainably, probably even finning the sharks.  Recall that U.S. fishers do not fin their sharks—that is, they do not remove the fins and discard the rest of the animals at sea, because American fishers are required to land all their sharks with the fins still “naturally attached” (with the exception of the northeast dogfish fishery, which is allowed to remove the fins at sea to begin processing the meat and fins on the fishing boat).  So the consequences of this action will be to punish the fishers doing it right—U.S. shark fisheries—and reward the foreign fisheries doing it wrong.  That is a terrible message to send the world.

Furthermore, our position at the international negotiating table where shark conservation issues are discussed will be compromised if we withdraw from the fin market.  The message we will be carrying to that forum is, no matter what other nations do to create sustainability in their shark fisheries, it will never be enough to allow them to harvest the fins, in our view.  This loss of leverage will backfire for U.S. attempts to advance shark conservation around the world.  In addition, consider today’s realities with elephants and whales: elephants are still being poached as the ivory trade has been driven underground, meaning we can no longer track this commodity through world trade routes, and elephants are still declining.  And whales are still being hunted commercially by those nations who do not share our preservationist beliefs about marine mammals.  Along these lines, a domestic fin ban also sends a message to Asian cultures that even if they are using the entire shark, even if the sharks are not being finned and the level of fishing for them is sustainable, their use of fins to make soup is unethical.  This creates a clash of cultural values, both internationally and domestically, and our moral position will be difficult to defend.

Finally, by focusing our legislative efforts solely on the fin trade in the U.S., we send a message to American citizens that we are solving the worldwide problem in shark depletion by banning the fins here. Conservation groups then declare victory to their supporters, Congress moves on to other issues, and the U.S. public thinks the problem has been solved.  Nothing could be further from the truth, as sharks will continue to be caught by other nations for their meat and fins and suffer unsustainable levels of bycatch mortality in foreign fisheries.  This is where H.R. 5248 represents an evolution of thinking in how to address the issue, by not simply focusing on the fins and also including the rays, which are in as serious trouble as the sharks worldwide.

Therefore, in my view the message we will be sending the world if we implement a nationwide, domestic ban of the shark fin trade is this:  The U.S. does not believe in sustainable fishing for sharks, we do not subscribe to the full use doctrine for marine resources as laid out by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, we condemn Asian cultures for their consumption of shark fins even from sustainable shark fisheries, and we are okay with damaging our own domestic fisheries to construct a purely symbolic but misguided and ineffective message for shark conservation.