Saving Seafood

Fishermen seek to sink grouper limit at 11th Circuit

Two Florida-based fishermen asked the 11th Circuit Thursday to strike down a regulation limiting commercially caught gag grouper, arguing a regional fishery management council did not have the constitutional authority to implement the restrictions.

In 2024, Dominick and James Russo, who own FFC Seafood in Sarasota, Florida, sued the U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries in Alabama federal court over Amendment 56. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council — a regional body made up of state-level appointees — crafted the rule, which cut quotas for gag group by 85%. The federal agencies approved and promulgated the regulation.

The 1976 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act created eight regional fishery councils responsible for submitting management plans to the commerce secretary to set catch limits and prevent overfishing in federal waters. The statute gives the councils, made up of members appointed at the state level, the power to veto certain decisions by the secretary that change catch limits or reject the councils’ management plans.

The brothers contend that despite exercising “significant” federal control of the fisheries, the members of the council are not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate, making their decisions unconstitutional under the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Read the full article at Courthouse News Service

ALEX RILEY: The Shark Fin Ban That Should Be Banned

September 23, 2016 — Every year, fishers haul up to 73 million sharks onto boats across the world’s oceans and trim their fins. In many cases, the rest of the body is thrown overboard to swim without propulsion. And without propulsion, no life-giving water flows over the sharks’ gills. They drown.

This is shark finning, a cruel practice that feeds the demand for the Chinese delicacy of shark fin or fish wing soup. From boat to bowl, it is tasteless.

To curb the death toll [of sharks], the US Congress plans to introduce the Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2016. The bill was originally outlined to Congress by the advocacy organization Oceana* as part of a growing movement to outlaw all shark fins across the US. If passed, to sell or possess shark fins would be a punishable offense. It’s the ultimate protection from being made into soup.

Strange, then, that people who dedicate their lives to protecting sharks are vehemently opposed to the bill.

In a letter to Senator Bill Nelson, Bob Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at the Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, outlines his objections. At best, it’s unnecessary, he says. At worst, it harms rather than helps shark populations.

For one, shark finning is already illegal in the United States (as well as in Canada, Australia, and Europe). Returning to shore with fins that have no corresponding body is like docking straight into a court hearing. According to Lindsay Davidson, a PhD candidate from Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, this fins-attached policy “is the gold standard for ensuring finning is not occurring.”

But fishing for sharks within a set quota is completely legal, at least for now. This allows commercial fishers to sell the meat just like any other fish, as well as the skin, liver oil, and, yes, the fins. It’s not finning, it’s heavily managed fishing; a practice that is sustainable and makes use of the entire shark rather than just its most coveted cuts.

The proposed ban would change that. The meat could still be eaten or sold, but any fins would have to be tossed overboard, thrown into the trash, or used for display or research purposes by a museum, college, or university, to avoid breaking the law. “It’s going in the opposite direction from the goal of any fishery,” says Hueter. That is, to “utilize as much as you can, and throw away as little as you have to.”

Read the full opinion piece at Hakai Magazine