Saving Seafood

Trump ends Obama-era restrictions on commercial fishing in protected area off New England

February 9, 2026 — President Donald Trump issued a proclamation on Friday reopening a huge swath of protected sea in the Atlantic Ocean to commercial fishing.

Trump said the move would reestablish fishing in Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument off the New England coast, a nearly 5,000-square-mile preserve east of Cape Cod that was created by former President Barack Obama. Trump rolled back protections in the area in 2020 and President Joe Biden later restored them.

Commercial fishing groups have long sought the reopening of the protected area and voiced support on Friday.

“We deserve to be rewarded, not penalized,” said John Williams, president and owner of the New Bedford, Massachusetts-based Atlantic Red Crab Company. “We’re demonstrating that we can fish sustainably and continue to harvest on a sustainable level in perpetuity.”

Read the full article at the Associated Press

Trump Opens Marine National Monument in Atlantic to Commercial Fishing

February 9, 2026 — President Trump moved on Friday to allow commercial fishing in the only marine national monument in the Atlantic Ocean, an area the size of Connecticut that is home to dolphins, endangered whales, sea turtles and ancient deep-sea corals.

Mr. Trump signed a proclamation opening up the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, which lies 130 miles off the coast of Cape Cod. President Barack Obama created the monument in 2016, and Mr. Trump tried to lift the ban on commercial fishing there during his first term, but President Joseph R. Biden Jr. reinstated the restrictions.

“I find that appropriately managed commercial fishing would not put the objects of historic and scientific interest that the monument protects at risk,” Mr. Trump wrote in the proclamation.

This was the second time that Mr. Trump opened a marine national monument to commercial fishing. In April 2025, he ended protections for the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument, which lies about 750 miles west of Hawaii and was established by President George W. Bush in 2009.

Fishing industry groups praised the move and rejected the notion that their activities in the area would cause environmental damage.

“America’s commercial fishermen are among the world’s most responsible ocean stewards,” Bob Vanasse, the executive director of the industry group Saving Seafood, said in a statement. “Their work is tightly regulated, environmentally conscious and vital to the economies and food security of coastal communities.”

Read the full article at The New York Times

Trump Restores Commercial Fishing Access to Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument

“By reopening the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts to commercial fishing, fairness, transparency, and science-based governance has been restored to the affected fisheries.” — Bob Vanasse, Executive Director of Saving Seafood

February 6, 2026 — WASHINGTON (Saving Seafood) — Statement from Bob Vanasse, Executive Director of Saving Seafood, on President Trump’s Action to Restore Commercial Fishing Access to the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument:

This afternoon, President Trump revoked President Biden’s Proclamation 10287 and removed the restrictions on commercial fishing within the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument.

This decision reflects a clear understanding of a simple truth: commercial fishing in the United States is already governed by the most comprehensive, science-based, and publicly accountable regulatory system in the world. Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, fishing activities in federal waters must meet strict sustainability standards, undergo rigorous scientific review, and follow a transparent process that includes stakeholder input and council oversight. Restoring access to the monument area under this framework reaffirms—not undermines—our commitment to conservation.

In stark contrast, President Obama’s 2016 designation of the monument excluded commercial fishermen from a region they had sustainably fished for generations. It was imposed unilaterally through executive order—without public hearings, without a cost-benefit analysis, and without input from those whose livelihoods were affected. It was a top-down decision that ignored the proven success of the fishery management system already in place. And in a striking display of hypocrisy, while working fishermen were forced out, the uber-wealthy with yachts large enough for spearfishing adventures 130 miles offshore were not banned.

President Trump restored the rights of fishermen once before in 2020. This followed both Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Interior Secretary David Bernhardt agreeing to meet with fishing groups in Boston, in meetings I had the honor to chair.

Unfortunately, President Biden repeated the undemocratic actions of President Obama in 2021, reimposing the ban on commercial fishing with no meaningful engagement. Our industry reached out to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland in good faith—we wrote letters, made phone calls, and requested meetings. We received no response.

All eight regional fishery management councils formally opposed the Biden administration’s reimposition of the ban. President Biden and Interior Secretary Deb Haaland actively disregarded the voices of the very councils and communities entrusted with managing our marine resources. Their closed-door approach and lack of transparency sent a message: facts and stakeholders were not welcome in their decision-making process. This is not how democratic governance or environmental policy should be conducted. But it is not surprising, as there is a history of monument creation via secretive alliance between certain environmentalists and sympathetic Administration staff, as described in this 2015 E&E News story.

We fully expect the usual environmental advocacy groups to respond as they did in 2020, with misleading rhetoric and predictions of catastrophic overfishing. So let’s be absolutely clear: any fishing that resumes in the monument will remain subject to the full force of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a law these same groups routinely hail as a global benchmark for sustainable fishery management.

Their objection is not about protecting the ocean—it is about controlling American commercial fishermen and pushing a broader, extremist agenda that seeks to deny citizens the ability to responsibly use our resources, regardless of science or sustainability.

The truth is that America’s commercial fishermen are among the world’s most responsible ocean stewards. Their work is tightly regulated, environmentally conscious, and vital to the economies and food security of coastal communities. When managed through the regional fishery management councils and NOAA Fisheries, commercial fishing supports biodiversity and conservation while feeding the nation.

Westerman-Golden Bipartisan SPEED Act draws backing from industry groups

October 28, 2025 — A bipartisan proposal to revise federal environmental review procedures is drawing support from technology companies, trade associations, local officials, and utilities, according to statements released by the House Natural Resources Committee.

H.R. 4776, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, was introduced by Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine). The measure targets the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a procedural statute that set the framework for assessing environmental impacts of major federal actions and created the Council on Environmental Quality. NEPA’s requirements apply broadly to federally linked activities, including construction of roads, bridges, highways, ports, irrigation systems, forest management projects, transmission lines, energy developments, broadband, and water infrastructure.

NEPA was enacted to ensure that federal agencies consider environmental consequences before taking major actions. Over time, the process has become increasingly complex, extending permitting timelines and increasing costs for public and private projects. Critics of the current system argue that it has evolved into a cumbersome process that special interest groups sometimes use to delay or block infrastructure projects through litigation. The SPEED Act seeks to address those concerns by streamlining review procedures and reducing the frequency of lawsuits while maintaining the requirement that environmental impacts be considered.

Supporters from sectors such as advanced computing and data centers point to power and transmission needs; energy producers and public power entities cite grid reliability and long planning horizons; construction and electrical contractors emphasize predictable schedules; and forestry and logging groups link delays to slower forest management and wildfire risk. Commercial space and conservation-policy organizations also register support, citing modernization and clearer processes.

Commercial fisheries are among the sectors affected by NEPA’s procedural requirements. Fishery management actions under the Magnuson–Stevens Act—such as plan amendments, quota specifications, and implementing regulations—are treated as major federal actions and typically require environmental assessments or impact statements. Standardizing timelines and simplifying documentation could reduce uncertainty in the council and agency decision process without altering the substantive conservation standards that govern federal fisheries.

Litigation is another recurring factor in fishery management. NEPA claims are often filed alongside Magnuson–Stevens Act claims when stakeholders challenge plan amendments or annual specifications. Even when agencies prevail, litigation risk can slow implementation and absorb staff resources. The SPEED Act’s provisions to clarify what constitutes a “major federal action,” set limits on judicial review periods, and streamline documentation are presented by supporters as measures that could help agencies move science-based fishery decisions to implementation more predictably.

 The SPEED Act would update NEPA by: 

– Shortening review timelines and reducing litigation frequency.

– Simplifying analyses required in NEPA documents to lessen agency workload.

– Clarifying when NEPA applies by refining the definition of “major federal action.”

– Setting judicial review limits for NEPA claims, including a 150-day filing deadline, a new standard of review, and constraints on procedural maneuvers that can halt projects.

Organizations listed as supporters include Google; OpenAI; the AI Supply Chain Alliance; the American Forest Resource Council; Associated General Contractors of America; Associated Oregon Loggers; the Commercial Space Federation; ConservAmerica; the Huerfano County (Colo.) Board of County Commissioners; the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association; Minnesota Forest Industries; Missouri River Energy Services (which also backs a related bill, H.R. 4503); the National Electrical Contractors Association and several of its regional chapters; and the Utah Rural Electric Cooperative Association.

Press release: https://naturalresources.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=BB6YBW3BL6RVCAERSA4FZWNLFQ

Trump opens swath of pristine Pacific Ocean to commercial fishing

April 18, 2025 — President Donald Trump on Thursday issued a proclamation saying he is easing federal restrictions on commercial fishing in a vast protected area of the central Pacific known as the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument.

Trump said he will allow U.S.-flagged vessels to fish within 50 to 200 nautical miles of the landward boundaries of the monument, which covers some 490,000 square miles of open ocean, coral reef and island habitats. Located south and west of Hawaii, the area is home to seven national wildlife refuges. It includes some of the Earth’s last pristine maritime environments, serving as a sanctuary for species such as endangered sea turtles, sharks and migratory birds, according to marine wildlife experts.

In a separate executive order Thursday, Trump also said he would reduce regulations on commercial fishing more broadly and asked his secretary of commerce to “identify the most heavily overregulated fisheries” and take action to “reduce the regulatory burden on them.”

Trump’s directives, which are likely to attract legal challenges, seek to weaken protections initially set up by his predecessors. President George W. Bush in 2009 established the monument and restricted oil exploration and commercial fishing within it. In 2014, his successor Barack Obama, expanded the protected area to more than 490,000 square miles.

Trump, in the proclamation, said existing environmental laws provide sufficient protection for marine wildlife in the area and that many of the fish species in the monument are migratory.

“I find that appropriately managed commercial fishing would not put objects of scientific and historic interest [within the monument] at risk,” he said.

Bob Vanasse, executive director of the commercial fishing trade group Saving Seafood, said in an email that the shift in policy “does not create a commercial fishing free-for-all in the monuments.”

“Commercial fishing in the monuments will be allowed only under fishery management plans that manage the fisheries sustainably under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,” Vanasse said, referring to the law that governs fishing in federal waters.

Read the full story at The Washington Post

New ‘Salmon Wars’ Book Is Full of Fictions. Here Are the Facts.

July 28, 2022 — Earlier this month, Macmillan Publishers released Salmon Wars, by Douglas Frantz and Catherine Collins, which the publisher describes as a “deep dive” into the farm-raised salmon industry. After extensively reviewing the book, Saving Seafood has identified numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Aquaculture farming of finfish, shellfish, and seaweed is a key industry in many U.S. states that operates within strict regulations to provide good jobs locally and healthy, sustainable protein for the world. Maine, for example, has active ocean salmon farming operations, with Atlantic salmon raised in coastal net pens since the 1970s. Maine farms comply with clean water and pollution discharge regulations, do not use antibiotics or hormones as growth promoters, conduct and report environmental effects, and have not experienced an escape of fish since 2003. All farms are monitored by multiple regulatory and management agencies and are certified by third-party environmental programs that establish standards above those required by law. The industry has been represented by the Maine Aquaculture Association since 1978.

Farm-raised salmon operations off Black Island, Maine.

Governor Janet Mills has expressed strong support for Maine’s growing aquaculture sector. “Aquaculture represents a promising opportunity to create new jobs, strengthen and diversify our economy, and expand Maine’s reputation as a premier destination for seafood,” Governor Mills said at a roundtable in May. “I have been proud to support Maine sea farmers as they overcome the pandemic, and my Administration will continue to support the responsible growth of this industry as it creates new jobs and builds on the strong foundation of our marine economy.”

Consumers have the right to choose what foods they eat. They also have the right to make informed decisions based on unbiased facts. Here are 10 fictions spread by Salmon Wars and the real facts behind them.

FICTION: Farmed salmon are crammed into cages.

FACT: Salmon occupy less than 4 percent of a typical marine cage. Farmers intentionally keep stocking densities low so fish have room to swim, grow, and mimic natural schooling patterns.

Farmers take great care to ensure the well-being of their salmon. Fish are vaccinated against several diseases, and pristine marine cage conditions are ensured with proper siting, regular fallowing (leaving sites unused), underwater cameras, and diver inspections.

FICTION: Farmed salmon are doused with pesticides and antibiotics.

FACT: Antibiotic use on salmon farms is far lower than that of any other agricultural animal producing industry in the world. In the rare instances when treatment is necessary, it is prescribed and overseen by licensed veterinarians under the oversight of government regulators.

FICTION: Farmed salmon contain dangerous levels of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other contaminants.

FACT: Farm-raised salmon contain lower PCB levels than other common foods like beef, chicken, eggs, and butter, as well as most species of wild salmon. The trace amounts of PCBs in farm-raised salmon do not pose a threat to human health, and meet or exceed standards set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and the World Health Organization. A 2007 study concluded that “regular consumption of these fish would not cause tolerable [PCB] daily intakes to be exceeded.”

The 2004 study cited repeatedly in the book has been heavily criticized for errors including flawed sampling, improper application of EPA guidelines, and failing to compare contaminant levels in salmon of the same species. But even that flawed study showed PCB levels well-below regulated levels. Citing that study also ignores nearly 20 years of progress as PCB levels — already low — have only continued to decline with the introduction of new feed ingredients.

Because farm-raised salmon is a fast-growing fish, there is little accumulation of other contaminants like mercury that can affect some types of seafood.

FICTION: Farms create toxic stews underneath them that drive away marine life.

FACT: Farmers know that pristine marine conditions are essential for high-quality salmon. When salmon farms are properly sited in deep, fast-moving waters, the massive ocean space quickly assimilates organic fish waste. Natural assimilation of organic waste is known to be a best solution from an environmental perspective. Lobsters thrive around salmon farms and catch landings remain strong in Canada and the U.S.

Farmers also use underwater cameras to properly disperse feed, carefully monitor the ocean bottom, and fallow sites (leave them unused) — all best practices that help ensure pristine marine conditions. Regulations do not allow salmon farms to continue operating if the space beneath them has been significantly impacted.

FICTION: Farmers pillage wild fisheries to create marine ingredients used in salmon feeds. For example, “overfishing” from the Gulf of Mexico to the Chesapeake Bay endangers a forage fish called menhaden.

FACT: Wild marine ingredients in salmon feed are critical to delivering high quality protein and indispensable nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids. However, marine ingredients comprise as low as 20 percent of salmon feed, and that number continues to drop. Today, a pound of wild marine ingredients produces more than a pound of farm-raised salmon, ensuring the sector is a net producer of fish.

The wild marine ingredients that are used are sourced from reputable fisheries certified by third-party organizations and/or actively participating in Fishery Improvement Projects. For example, contrary to the book’s claims, U.S. menhaden is “not overfished or experiencing overfishing,” according to fishery managers, and is certified sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.

FICTION: Between 15 and 20 percent of all farmed salmon die each year before being harvested, while the average mortality rate of chickens is 5 percent.

FACT: This data ignores the return rate of Atlantic salmon in the wild, which is as low as 5 percent. That means farm-raised salmon have a survival rate 17 times higher than wild salmon over the two-year period in which they are raised. Broiler chickens typically live for less than 2 months, making this an apples to oranges comparison at best.

FICTION: Farmed salmon spread sea lice to wild salmon, killing young wild salmon in large numbers.

FACT: Salmon farms were not found to influence levels of sea lice on wild fish, according to a 2021 report. Farmers are required, under regulation, to manage sea lice to low levels. They employ a strategic approach to combatting sea lice, combining preventative farming practices like fallowing and low stocking densities with approved treatments when necessary. They are also investing millions into research and development of “green” sea lice treatment technologies, including freshwater well boats, warm water and water pressure systems, broodstock development, and “cleaner” fish.

FICTION: Farmed salmon introduced Infectious Salmon Anemia (ISA) and Piscine Orthoreovirus (PRV) to wild sockeye salmon in the Pacific Northwest.

FACT: Neither ISA nor PRV were introduced to the Pacific Northwest by farm-raised salmon. In 2011, tests conducted by government researchers concluded there were no cases of ISA in Pacific Northwest salmon. Cases of PRV in wild salmon predate the arrival of farm-raised salmon, with a 2015 study finding PRV in Pacific Northwest salmon as far back as the 1970s. PRV and ISA do not affect human health in any way.

FICTION: Farmed salmon and wild salmon frequently interbreed, producing hybrids that weaken wild salmon populations.

FACT: Farmers are highly motivated to prevent their stock from escaping, and today escape events are rare. There are many reasons that farm-raised salmon are unlikely to interbreed with wild salmon, or generally compete with them for resources should they escape their enclosures. Farm-raised salmon, being domestic animals, are poorly suited to a wild environment and generally do not survive long enough in the wild to breed or learn to seek prey. On the west coast of the U.S. and Canada, farm-raised Atlantic salmon are genetically distinct from wild Pacific salmon, making them extremely unlikely to interbreed.

For context, over 5 billion salmon are purposely released from aquaculture facilities around the world — a practice known as “enhancement” or “ocean ranching” — and do share ocean space with wild salmon.

FICTION: Like “Big Tobacco” and “Big Agribusiness,” “Big Fish” employs counter-science and public relations campaigns to undermine challenges.

FACT: Farmers participate in studies because it is their salmon and nutritional data that help power them, and because they are committed to adhering to best science in their practices. Cherry picking science to support a narrative is not a best practice. Farmers consider all reputable scientific findings to guide their operations.

Biden pitches Atlantic coast ‘Grand Canyon’ as marine sanctuary

June 8, 2022 — The White House today endorsed designating the Atlantic coast’s largest undersea canyon as one of the nation’s next underwater parks, but stopped short of enacting immediate protections that could guard the “ecological hotspot” from commercial fishing, energy development or other threats.

The Biden administration announced it will begin the process for safeguarding the Hudson Canyon — which sits 100 miles off the coasts of New York and New Jersey and rivals the Grand Canyon in scale — in a series of actions to mark today’s World Oceans Day.

In addition to kicking off the designation of a new national marine sanctuary, the White House vowed to develop a “whole-of-government Ocean Climate Action Plan” on ocean-based climate mitigation and adaptation strategies.

NOAA will oversee the designation process for the Hudson Canyon, which would become part of an existing group of 15 underwater parks that includes both freshwater and ocean sites.

But that process, which includes public comment, the drafting of environmental impact statements and management plans, and potential rulemaking, is not a swift one, with a final decision taking two to three years.

Bob Vanasse, executive director of industry group Saving Seafood, praised the decision to utilize the sanctuaries act rather than take executive action.

“I appreciate that they are using the Marine Sanctuaries Act to do this, which allows input from affected ocean users and will allow for actual science to be considered, which is exactly why we objected to and continue to object to the marine monument designation,” Vanasse said, referring to the ongoing legal battle over the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts site (E&E News PM, Oct. 8, 2021).

Last fall, Biden restored commercial fishing prohibitions to the Atlantic Ocean monument that former President Donald Trump had struck down in 2020.

Read the full story at E&E News

 

Local Fishing Industry Upset Over Biden Restoring Marine National Monument

October 12, 2021 — President Biden re-established an area off of the coast of Cape Cod as a marine national monument Friday, a move that has the local fishing industry angry.

The Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument was originally created during the Obama administration to preserve the sea life in that region. During the Trump administration, restrictions in the area were scaled back, which allowed for commercial fishing.

Under the new executive action from President Biden, commercial fishing in the area is banned but recreational fishing is allowed. The monument is more than 100 miles southeast off the shore of Cape Cod.

Bob Vanasse of Saving Seafood told WBZ’s Karyn Regal (@karynregal) the trip to the area is one only a chartered fishing boat or mega yacht could make.

“The privileged few are going to allowed to go out and spearfish on the same species that working families in the swordfish and tuna industry will not be able to do,” Vanasse said.

Read the full story at WBZ News

 

Biden expands Bears Ears and other national monuments, reversing Trump cuts

October 8, 2021 — President Biden on Friday restored full protections to three national monuments that had been slashed in size by former president Donald Trump, including Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante in Utah — known for their stunning desert landscapes and historical treasures of Native American art and settlements, as well as a rich fossil record.

Biden used an executive order to protect 1.36 million acres in Bears Ears —slightly larger than the original boundary that President Barack Obama established in 2016 — while also restoring the 1.78 million-acre Grand Staircase-Escalante monument. Biden also reimposed fishing restrictions in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New England that Trump had opened to commercial fishing.

Biden signed the proclamations in a ceremony outside the White House, in front of tribal leaders and others. He used his authority under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

Bob Vanasse, of Saving Seafood, a seafood industry advocacy group, called Biden’s designation an “unfortunate decision.”

“Anyone who likes fresh local swordfish, tuna, lobster and crabmeat should be very angry with the Harris-Biden administration today,” he said. “And I know some environmental advocates will claim that the statistics show that no harm has been done to the fisheries from this closure. They think that because they don’t understand fisheries and misunderstand the statistics.”

Read the full story at the Washington Post

Protect species? Curb warming? Save money? Biden’s big conservation goal means trade-offs

February 3, 2021 — President Joe Biden last week unveiled an ambitious conservation goal, unprecedented for the United States: conserving 30% of the country’s lands and waters by 2030, which would require more than doubling the area of public and private holdings under heightened protections.

Conservation scientists welcomed the so-called 30-by-30 goal, announced in an executive order on climate released 27 January. “The ambition is fantastic,” says ecologist Joshua Tewksbury, interim executive director of the nonprofit Future Earth.

But Biden’s order also raises a thorny practical question: Which swaths of land and sea should be the top targets for enhanced protection or management? The order says the effort should aim for a number of outcomes, including preserving biodiversity, curbing climate change, and even creating jobs and reducing social inequality. But researchers warn that difficult trade-offs lie ahead, because few chunks of territory are likely to provide all of the desired benefits. “The balancing act [will be] the hardest part of this work,” Tewksbury says.

Observers say the Biden administration could make rapid progress and contain costs by enhancing protections for territory already owned by the federal government. “We can make really huge gains on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands,” says Jacob Malcom, a conservation biologist with Defenders of Wildlife. That could mean reducing logging, mining, drilling, and grazing. “There will be vested interests who are not happy about that,” Malcom notes. “So I don’t want to make it seem like it’s going to be easy.” Fishing associations, for example, have already reacted with concern to proposals to ban commercial fishing in 30% of U.S. waters. “Thirty-by-thirty is a campaign slogan, not a scientific proposal,” Robert Vanasse, executive director of Saving Seafood, wrote last year.

Read the full story at Science Magazine