“Within 180 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of
Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, shall review all
existing marine national monuments and provide recommendations to the President
of any that should be opened to commercial fishing. In making these recommendations, the Secretary
of Commerce will consider whether the opening of the monuments to commercial
fishing would be consistent with the preservation of the historic landmarks, historic
and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific
interest originally identified in the proclamations establishing the marine
national monuments.”
Until very recently, commercial fishing was banned in all five
marine national monuments. As a result of the executive order, it appears that
commercial fishing is now going to be allowed in all of them.
The first one to open to commercial fishing was Northeast
Canyons and Seamounts.
Commercial fishing was not allowed there when the monument
was initially established, a prohibition that probably had a minimal economic
impact on the commercial fishing industry.
In
2017, the Natural Resources Defense Council published a brief impact study
which asserted that
“The monument’s deep and rugged canyon and seamount areas
were historically some of the least fished in the U.S. Atlantic and not
unusually important for any fishery. The
six to eight red crab and lobster vessels active in the monument area have been
provided a seven year grace period.
Because the monument does not affect catch limits or allocations, other
types of fishing effort, such as the small amount of trawling that occurred in
the shallowest portion of the monument, have likely been relocated to other
areas. The canyon and inter-canyon area
in the original monument proposal was also reduced by almost 60 percent to
leave out the relatively more active trawling areas.”
Despite the minimal economic impact of the commercial
fishing prohibition, Trump
opened the monument to commercial fishing on June 5, 2020, near the end of
his first term. Then the
Biden administration outlawed commercial fishing in the marine national
monument again, with NOAA Fisheries issuing the final rule in early 2024. After returning to office for his second
term, Trump
reopened the monument to commercial fishing, issuing a new executive order, “Unleashing
American Commercial Fishing in the Atlantic,” on February 6, 2026. The executive order alleged that
“appropriately managed commercial fishing would not put the
objects of historic and scientific interest that the monument protects at risk,”
as the fish species identified in the proclamation creating
the marine national monument are adequately protected under existing laws and
agency actions, and that many of those species are highly migratory, “and not
unique to the monument.:
“This latest attempt to undermine the monument is not only
unlawful, but demonstrates a blatant disregard for the health of our oceans,”
while Brad
Sewell, Managing Director of Oceans at the Natural Resources Defense Council,
stated that
“Northeast Canyons and Seamounts is a truly special place; a
living scientific laboratory, a refuge for creatures as varied as cold-water
corals and sperm whales. Trump’s move to
dismantle those protections is unlawful, and we’re confident that it won’t
stand.”
Such comments suggest that litigation challenging the reopening
might be forthcoming.
Such rulemaking had to begin at the Western Pacific Fishery
Management Council, which has jurisdiction over the waters in all four of the
Pacific marine national monuments. Historically,
the Western Pacific Council has looked askance at marine sanctuaries and marine
national monuments, with one Council document observing that
“The islands in the Western Pacific Region were inhabited for
millennia prior to Western contact.
Today the indigenous communities comprise between 20 and 90 percent of
the population, depending on the island.
With little land and terrestrial resources, the communities have in the past,
and continue today, to depend on fishing for sustenance and cultural purposes.
“Ensuring continued opportunities for fishery-related
livelihoods and cultural practices is challenging. Marine protected areas and military
activities have increasingly marginalized fisheries and displaced
fishermen. Today, nearly 25 percent of
the region’s EEZ has been designated as either a national marine sanctuary or a
national marine monument.”
A
2025 article in the Hawaiian news outlet, Honolulu Civil Beat, noted that
“[The Western Pacific Fishery Management Council] has for
years opposed commercial fishing bans in the Pacific. A brewing legal battle leaves it unclear whether
[the Council] backed by the Honolulu-based longline industry and other seafood
interests, will ultimately prevail [in opening the national marine monuments to
commercial fishing].
“Kitty Simonds, [the Council’s] longtime executive director,
told Civil Beat…that the group considers it a priority to resume bottomfishing
and trolling in Papahanaumokuakea’s waters that extend 50 miles out from shore,
and to restart longline fishing in the waters 50 to 200 miles out from shore.
“’We haven’t changed what we’d like to see from the time of
(establishing) the monument, right?
Simonds said. ‘We made our
arguments.’”
At the same meeting, the Council also voted to allow
commercial fishing in waters 12 to 50 nautical miles from Rose Atoll in the
Rose Atoll Marine National Monument and from shore out to 50 nautical miles in
the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument, while also allowing fishing for
bottom fish and pelagic species in parts of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine
National Monument. However, those
changes will not go through normal agency rulemaking, but will instead be
referred to the White House for further action pursuant to the April 2025
executive order, which could mean that they will face the same sort of legal
action that delayed opening the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National
Monument to commercial fishing last year.
In
her justification of the Council’s actions, Ms. Simonds said,
“This is not about removing monument protections—it’s about
restoring sustainable fishing in limited areas under fishery regulations the
Council has developed over decades.
Those regulations were built to balance access and conservation, and
that remains the Council’s guiding principle under the Magnuson-Stevens
[Fishery Conservation and Management] Act.”
Council
Chair Nathan Ilaoa made similar comments, saying
“This action does not remove the monument; it supports local
fishermen, the cannery and the small businesses that depend on a viable fishing
economy.”
But
an article in the National Fisherman notes that others
“raised concerns about impacts to protected species,
ecosystems, and the cultural significance of monument areas—particularly in
Papahanaumokuakea.”
So, how much real harm will be caused by allowing commercial
fishing in the marine national monuments?
It’s not easy to say.
Opening up any area to longlining is always going to create some threats
to marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, billfish, and other incidentally
caught fish species. And allowing the
use of bottom-tending gear, whether lobster and/or red crab pots off New
England or other gear types in the Pacific creates threats to corals and other
sessile animals, while also creating the risk of entanglement for marine
mammals.
And in Papahanaumokuakea, there may be additional risks to
the endangered
Hawaiian monk seal.
But the question that no one has satisfactorily answered is
whether opening the commercial fishery in the marine national monuments is creating
additional risk for a host of marine species, or whether it is merely shifting existing
risk into the monuments.
That is, if lobster and red crab traps are allowed in the
Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument, to use one example,
will that increase the likelihood that a whale might become entangled? Or does the likelihood remain the same,
because traps previously banned from the monument would still be fished somewhere,
and so their exclusion from the monument would only create an entanglement risk
somewhere else.
Similarly, if a longline is fished within the boundaries of
the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument, would endangered
turtles, or perhaps seabirds, face greater risks than they would if the same
longline was fished somewhere on the high seas?
The answer might well depend on whether concentrations of protected
species were higher in the marine national monuments, resulting in more
interactions with fishing gear than would occur elsewhere. But, again, it’s not clear that there is enough
reliable data to provide a conclusive answer.
And in the absence of data, it is only sensible to take a
precautionary approach.
If you don’t know whether an action will cause harm, assume
that it will until evidence to the contrary appears.
Unfortunately, the administration’s current efforts to open
up marine national monuments to commercial fishing takes the opposite approach,
and assumes, in the lack of clear evidence to the contrary, that the fishing
will do no harm. It is the more risk-prone
approach.
And it is thus the wrong way to proceed.
No comments:
Post a Comment