LARGE-MESH DRIFTNET BILL BECOMES LAW

 

On Friday, the House of Representatives approved a $1.66 billion federal spending bill, and sent it on to President Biden to sign into law.  There is no question that the President will do so.

Despite the substantial monies appropriated by that bill, the legislation wasn’t all about spending.  A number of other pending bills were incorporated into it, bills which ranged from legislation that would protect presidential election results from the sort of political tampering that was attempted two years ago to a provision that would ban the installation or use of Tik-Tok on government computers.

While many of the included, non-spending items received substantial press coverage, one provision that will further marine conservation efforts flew largely under the radar.  That was the inclusion of S. 273, the so-called Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act, which was sponsored by Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV).

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act currently defines “large-scale driftnet fishing” as

“a method of fishing in which a gillnet composed of a panel or panels of webbing, or a series of such gillnets, with a total length of two and one-half kilometers or more is placed in the water and allowed to drift with the currents and winds for the purpose of entangling fish in the webbing.”

Such large drift gillnets are recognized as a non-selective gear type that can lead to substantial bycatch of non-targeted species, sea turtles, and marine mammals.  The United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization notes that

“Because abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded drift gillnets have the potential to continue catching fish and [endangered, threatened, and protected] species, effective measures are needed to reduce their impact.

“While drift gillnets are usually size selective, its species selectivity is poor, often catch non-target species, including [endangered, threatened, and protected] species.”

Particularly with respect to sea turtles and marine mammals, the National Marine Fisheries Service advises that

“Turtles encountering a gillnet can quickly become entangled around their head or flippers as they try to escape.  Entangled turtles will drown if held under the water but have a higher chance of survival if they can reach the surface to breathe.  The nylon can tighten around the turtle’s soft body parts and cause deep cuts potentially leading to infection, limited movement, or complete loss of the limb.  Limited use of appendages can impair a turtle’s natural feeding, breathing, and swimming behavior…

“Gillnets can entangle a wide variety of marine mammals.

“Depending on the gillnet mesh size, animals can become entangled around their necks, mouths, and flippers.  Entanglement can prevent proper feeding, constrict growth, or cause infection after many months.  Marine mammals…entangled in drift gillnets can drag gear for miles as they migrate and forage, leading to extreme fatigue.”

In 1990, responding to actions taken by the United Nations and a group of South Pacific nations the previous year, to ban the use of drift gillnets on the high seas, Congress amended Magnuson-Stevens to include a national policy that supports such ban, and also to direct the Secretary of State to seek international agreements that would further such goal.  Such agreements would, among other things, provide for satellite monitoring of fishing vessels, require fisheries observers to document the nature and levels of bycatch, and permit such vessels to be boarded by United States’ personnel on the high seas.

The amendments to Magnuson-Stevens also deny United States port privileges to any vessels of any nation engaged in drift gillnet fishing, or other forms of illegal, unreported, or unregulated fishing on the high seas.  The President of the United States is also directed to engage in consultations with any nation, if such nation’s vessels or nationals engage in such illegal fishing and, if such consultations does not achieve a satisfactory result, to prohibit the importation of such nation’s fish, fish products, and sportfishing equipment into the U.S.

Finally, amendments to Magnuson-Stevens made it unlawful

“to engage in large-scale driftnet fishing that is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including use of a fishing vessel of the United States to engage in such fishing beyond the exclusive economic zone of any nation.”

While the prohibition on large-scale driftnet fishing reduced the gillnet bycatch issue, it did not eliminate it.  The problem was particularly acute off the West Coast of the United States, where deep water comes close to shore, and large-mesh drift gillnets, not long enough to fall under the “large-scale driftnet fishing” definition, were used to target sharks and swordfish, but ensnared substantial numbers of non-target animals, up to and including humpback whales.

As explained by Senator Feinstein,

“Large mesh drift gillnets, which are between a mile and a mile-and-a-half long and can extend 200 feet below the ocean surface, are left in the ocean overnight to catch swordfish and thresher sharks.  However, at least 60 other marine species, including whales, dolphins, sea lions, sea turtles, fish, and sharks are also regularly entangled in the large mesh net ‘walls,’ injuring or killing them.  Most of these animals, referred to as bycatch, are then discarded.

“The use of large mesh drift gillnets by a single fishery based in California is responsible for 90 percent of the dolphins and porpoises killed along the West Coast and Alaska.

“In 2018, California passed a four-year phase-out of large mesh drift gillnets in state waters to protect marine life.  A majority of the driftnet fishermen have voluntarily participated in that phaseout.  The Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act would extend similar protections to federal waters…”

S. 273, as incorporated into the recent funding bill, would accomplish such goals by first amending the definition of “large-scale driftnet fishing” to include any drift gillnet

“with a mesh size of 14 inches or greater,”

regardless of the length of the net.  It also provides for a five-year phaseout of such large-mesh gillnets, during which time NMFS may provide assistance, including cash grants, to help transition current driftnetters into other gear types.

One particularly promising gear type, known simply as “deep-set buoy gear,” appears to be particularly promising.  It employs baited hooks on individual lines to attract swordfish, and provides fishermen with an immediate indication when a fish has taken the bait, allowing them to land a higher-quality product that has not been soaking, dead, in the sea for many hours.  The buoy gear appears to be far less-bycatch prone than the driftnets, with studies suggesting that up to 98% of such gear’s catch consists of swordfish, a striking improvement over the drift gillnets, where bycatch comprises, on average, 50% of the catch.

Congress passed similar legislation in 2020, then designated S. 906.  However, that bill clashed with then-President Donald Trump’s philosophy of monetizing natural resources regardless of conservation concerns.  Trump thus predicably vetoed the bill, and attempted to justify his actions by saying,

“By forcing the West Coast drift gillnet fishery to use alternative gear that has been proven to be an economically viable substitute for gillnets, the Congress is effectively terminating the fishery.

“As a result, an estimated 30 fishing vessels, all of which are operated by family-owned small businesses, will no longer be able to bring their bounty to shore.  At a time when our nation has a seafood trade deficit of nearly $17 billion, S. 906 will exacerbate this imbalance.”

Including S. 273 in the omnibus funding bill would help to prevent such a veto from recurring, although there is absolutely no reason to believe that President Biden would have opposed the legislation, even if it arrived on his desk as a stand-alone bill.’

While the intent of S. 273 was primarily to protect sea turtles, marine mammals, and other protected species, it would be a mistake to believe that its benefits won’t also accrue to recreational fishermen.  Even here on the East Coast, gillnets take their toll, as exemplified by this sandbar shark, caught off Fire Island, New York, that apparently escaped—or perhaps was released—from such an entanglement alive, although with deep cuts that almost encircle its body.

While that shark was probably caught in a net with mesh just a little too small to fall under S. 273’s prohibition, it demonstrates the sort of damage that large-mesh gillnets can do.

So the recent passage of legislation containing S. 273 definitely represents a step forward.