Not all fishing gear are the same!
Executive Order 14008 – 30% of US Waters protected by 2030
The recent Executive Order (EO) treats recreational fishing gear, bottom trawls, and pelagic longlines the same when it comes to designating Marine Protected Areas (MPA). The EO, signed by Biden, calls for closing 30% of U.S. ocean waters to fishing, including recreational fishing, by 2030 through the MPAs.
This is not the first time such a strategy has been raised, very large marine protected areas in various regulatory forms (marine monuments, wildlife refuges, sanctuaries, marine reserves, etc) have preceded the current initiative. Both the Bush and Obama Administrations created two large protected areas in the Pacific – (the Northwest Hawaiian Islands National Monument and the Marianas Trench National Marine Monument). These remote locations in the Pacific Ocean have minimal impacts on recreational fishing. But closing 30% of US waters to all fishing will negatively impact thousands upon thousands of recreational fishing trips, the associated economic expenditures, and, thus, related businesses and jobs.
Unfortunately, the current EO lumps all gear types together when prohibiting fishing regardless of habitat destructiveness or excessive resource extraction capacity of each gear type. In other words, recreational fishing, bottom trawls, and pelagic longline gear will be treated equally.
No evaluation will be given to negative impacts to public users and supporting economies, which is a major mistake. The recreational fishing community is a long-standing and stalwart steward of marine resources and should not be penalized with a blanket strategy. Most recreational fishing organizations oppose this EO, as well as the commercial fishing industry.
Please review, edit (how you see fit), and sign your name to this letter provided to make sure the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration knows how important we are and hears how devasting this EO would be to our community.
Copy the email below
Recipient
Subject
Body
Dear Grace Bottitta-Williamson,
As an active member of the U.S. recreational fishing community and/or the U.S. marine industries, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the request for comments on the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2021, titled Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, as specified in Section 216. Considering steps to minimize negative impacts to marine resources due to climate change is honorable, but I concur with The Billfish Foundation’s (TBF) position that the proposed method dismisses the human factors. Implementing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that close out all fishing from 30% of U.S. waters would generate significant negative economic impacts to people, communities and related businesses.
The EO treats recreational fishing gear, bottom trawls, midwater trawls, gillnets, bottom longlines, pelagic longlines, buoy gear, harpoons, FADs, purse seines, green sticks, traps, and dredges all the same as if each gear type generates the same impact on marine resources, they do not. Clearly, the blanket suggestion to suffocate all fishing by 30% of waters closed as MPAs must be the idea of one who does not fish, but talks and writes about fishing, without evaluating whether U.S. fishing activities even add to climate change. Since climate change impacts the oceans and their resources, would it not be prudent to place meaningful restraints on industrial activities generating climate change, rather than suffocating fishing, which is not the cause. Consideration is also needed of impacts from divers and boaters. I know this is not the first proposal or possible implementation of very large MPAs, but those implemented by the Bush and Obama Administrations were in very remote waters of the Pacific Ocean. Closing 30% of all U.S. waters to all fishing will generate a large negative impact on people, communities and businesses.
Evaluating the harvest capacity and habitat impact of each gear type is essential before making a decision to implement 30% closures, even if spread over 9 years. Evaluation of recreational fishing using hook and line gear will document that far fewer fish are extracted by anglers than by the above listed commercial fishing gear and with negligible habitat impacts. Forty miles of longlines kill a large variety of species as bycatch and bottom trawls plow the ocean habitat and kill. A decision to use blanket closures without evaluating gear impacts and making quantifiable decisions would disregard the negative impacts on humans wanting to fish with family and friends and negative impacts to jobs and businesses dependent upon access to fishing waters. Consideration for replacing lost revenue should also be given.
The recreational fishing community is a long-standing and stalwart steward of marine resources and should not be penalized with a blanket strategy. Do the hard work and evaluate extractive capacity and negative impacts to habitat that flow from each gear type before making a decision to close 30% of US waters to all fishing.
It is ironic the call for comments comes from the National Recreation and Tourism Office, which should know recreational fishing is a strong component of recreation and tourism, upon which 30% closures would cause excessive damage in the U.S. economy. Greater thought and evaluation are needed of larger industrial actions that generate much greater negative impacts on the climate than does fishing.
Sincerely,
Copy the email below
As an active member of the U.S. recreational fishing community and/or the U.S. marine industries, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the request for comments on the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2021, titled Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, as specified in Section 216. Considering steps to minimize negative impacts to marine resources due to climate change is honorable, but I concur with The Billfish Foundation’s (TBF) position that the proposed method dismisses the human factors. Implementing Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) that close out all fishing from 30% of U.S. waters would generate significant negative economic impacts to people, communities and related businesses.
The EO treats recreational fishing gear, bottom trawls, midwater trawls, gillnets, bottom longlines, pelagic longlines, buoy gear, harpoons, FADs, purse seines, green sticks, traps and dredges all the same, as if each gear type generates the same impact on marine resources, they do not. Clearly the blanket suggestion to suffocate all fishing by 30% of waters closed as MPAs must be the idea of one who does not fish, but talks and writes about fishing, with environmentalist as their guide. Consideration is also needed of impacts from divers and boaters. I know this is not the first proposal or possible implementation of very large MPAs, but those implemented by the Bush and Obama Administrations were in very remote waters of the Pacific Ocean. Closing 30% of all U.S. waters to all fishing will generate a large negative impact on people, communities and businesses.
Evaluating the harvest capacity and habitat impact of each gear type is essential before making a decision to implement 30% closures, even if spread over 9 years. Evaluation of recreational fishing using hook and line will document far fewer fish are extracted by the above listed commercial fishing gear and with negligible habitat impacts. Forty miles of longlines kill a large variety of species as bycatch and bottom trawls plow the ocean habitat and kill. A decision to use blanket closures without evaluating gear impacts and making quantifiable decisions would disregard the negative impacts on humans wanting to fish with family and friends and negative impacts to jobs and businesses dependent upon access to fishing waters. Consideration for replacing lost revenue should also be given.
The recreational fishing community is a long-standing and stalwart steward of marine resources and should not be penalized with a blanket strategy. Do the hard work and evaluate extractive capacity and negative impacts to habitat that flow from each gear type before making a decision to close 30% of US waters to all fishing.
It is ironic the call for comments comes from the National Recreation and Tourism Office, which should know recreational fishing is a strong component of recreation and tourism, upon which 30% closures would cause excessive damage in the U.S. economy. Greater thought and evaluation are needed of larger industrial actions that generate much greater negative impacts on the climate than does fishing.
Sincerely,
Click the link below to open your email client.
Sign up for TBF’s Newsletter
Your membership helps ensure the future of billfish and billfishing.
Where Anglers can take action. Let your voice be heard.
Help conserve and protect billfish and sport fishing interests around the world.