Saving Seafood

Latest stab at Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization excludes stickiest provision

July 15, 2019 — The Magnuson-Stevens (MSA) reauthorization bill that Alaska Republican Don Young and New Jersey Democrat Jeff Van Drew introduced last week in the US House of Representatives may have a higher mountain to climb in the 116th Congress than it did in the 115th, but it’ll be doing the hike with at least one major weight off its back.

The Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act (H.R. 3697)  does not contain controversial language that would assert that MSA is the top federal statutory authority over the management of the fisheries, giving it power over the Antiquities Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act, confirms a review of the bill by Undercurrent News with the help of sources.

That was the language originally contained in HR 200, the bill introduced by Young in January 2017. Following much consternation, especially by ocean conservation groups, the Alaska lawmaker put forth an amendment to have it stricken before receiving a final 222- 93 vote to approve the legislation in July 2018.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Big group of seafood distributors join opposition to Magnuson-Stevens update

June 28, 2018 — Opponents to representative Don Young’s bill to update the Magnuson-Stevens Act are continuing to make noise as the bill waits its turn for a vote on the floor of the US House of Representatives. The latest to sound off: Sea Pact, a coalition of 10 large US and Canadian seafood distributors, including Fortune Fish & Gourmet, in Chicago, Illinois, and Santa Monica Seafood, in Los Angeles, California.

The group called on Congress Tuesday to reject Young’s bill, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, HR 200, saying it “risks the United States’ competitive advantage in the marketplace and weakens the sustainability of our fisheries”. It is urging lawmakers instead to “focus on supporting new market opportunities for sustainable U.S. seafood”.

Sea Pact does not say which particular provisions it takes issue with in the bill. Other opponents, including several advocacy groups, have noted their dislike of the flexibility HR 200 would give regional fishery management councils in following the acceptable catch limits recommended by their scientific advisory panels  and the top statutory authority the bill would give MSA over other laws, including the Endangered Species Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Marine Sanctuaries Program is Bad for Fishermen, California Fishing Captain Tells Senate Subcommittee

WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — July 10, 2017 — Marine sanctuaries are hurting commercial and recreational fishermen and overruling the fisheries management process created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, said Capt. Jeremiah O’Brien, vice president of the Morro Bay Commercial Fishermen’s Organization, at a Senate hearing June 27.

Speaking before the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard at a hearing convened by chairman Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Mr. O’Brien criticized marine sanctuaries for their “weak science capabilities” and “poor, self-serving public process.” He said that policymakers are interpreting the National Marine Sanctuaries Act in a way that steadily limits human uses of marine resources, violating the principles of ecosystem-based management and the law’s mandate for comprehensive and coordinated management.

“For fishermen and fishery managers, the fact that sanctuaries can overrule the Regional Fishery Management Councils, with eight National Standards serving as the council’s guide, is disconcerting, and not in the best interest of ocean health,” Mr. O’Brien said. “I hope Congress will make it clear that the Magnuson-Stevens Act is the nation’s law for fisheries and habitat management.”

Read the full testimony here

WESTPAC Calls For End To Monument, Sanctuary Fishing Restrictions

June 14, 2017 — The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council has requested that the federal government consider reviewing the continued need for existing monument and sanctuary fishing restrictions, given the availability of federal regulations which manage fisheries in the US Pacific Islands.

The request was made in a recent letter signed by Council Chairman Edwin A. Ebisui Jr., and Council Executive Director Kitty M. Simonds to US Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur L. Ross, with copies of the letter sent to President Trump, leaders of two federal departments, and Governors of American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

The letter claims that the establishment of National Marine Sanctuaries and Marine National Monuments (MNM), under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) and the Antiquities Act, “are being hard-pressed by environmental activist groups to displace processes” under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) “that provide for the sustainable use of fishery resources while conserving vital marine resources.”

Read the full story at the Pacific Islands Report

MAFMC Overwhelmingly Rejects Hudson Canyon Sanctuary Proposal

Image courtesy of Hudson Canyon Cruise 2002

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full story at The Fisherman

Read a press release from ABTA here

Read a letter from ABTA to the MAFMC here

Fishermen say sanctuary status a risky proposition for them

February 16, 2017 — Some fishermen are relieved the nomination of the Baltimore Canyon as a national marine sanctuary was pulled from consideration, saying that designation could have restricted fishing in the rich area about 73 miles southeast of Delaware Bay.

“It’s in the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and that is what has always been a concern for us as users of the area,” said John Depersenaire, Fisheries Researcher at the Recreation Fishing Alliance in New Gretna. “It says unlawful acts include injuring or harming any sanctuary resource.”

The sanctuary program is set up to protect resources, said Reed Bohne, regional director of the sanctuary program for the Northeast and Great Lakes for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Read the full story at the Press of Atlantic City

NOAA Fisheries releases final acoustic guidance

August 8, 2016 — The following was released by NOAA Fisheries:

NOAA Fisheries has released final guidance to help predict how human-made underwater sounds affect marine mammal hearing.

Sound is critical to the survival of marine mammals. It is a primary means of marine mammal communication, orientation and navigation, finding food, avoiding predators, and mate selection.

NOAA will use the guidance in its assessments and authorizations of activities that generate underwater sound. The guidance also allows federal agencies, industries, and other applicants to more accurately predict effects of their proposed projects and help inform decisions about appropriate mitigation and monitoring. NOAA Fisheries also created online tools to help applicants use the new guidance.

“We recognize that growing levels of ocean noise are affecting marine animals and their habitats in complex ways,” said Eileen Sobeck, assistant NOAA administrator for fisheries. “The guidance is one part of NOAA’s holistic approach to addressing effects of ocean noise on marine life.”

NOAA’s authorities to address the effects of ocean noise on marine resources fall primarily under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act. These authorities allow NOAA to recommend or require mitigation in order to reduce or eliminate their predicted noise impacts to species and the places they rely on. NOAA shares this responsibility with a number of other federal agencies.

NOAA released its a broader draft Ocean Noise Strategy Roadmap less than two months ago. The technical document is one example of a step the agency is taking to address increasing levels of ocean noise.