Fishing, Commercial

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares179 Views

    Trump Opens Marine National Monument to Commercial Fisheries

    by

    President Trump on Thursday said he was allowing commercial fishing in one of the world’s largest ocean reserves, introducing industrial operations for the first time in more than a decade to a vast area of the Pacific dotted with coral atolls and populated by endangered sea turtles and whales.Mr. Trump issued an executive order opening up the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument, which lies some 750 miles west of Hawaii. President George W. Bush established the monument in 2009 and President Barack Obama expanded it in 2014 to its current area of nearly 500,000 square miles.A second executive order directed the Commerce Department to loosen regulations that “overly burden America’s commercial fishing, aquaculture, and fish processing industries.” It also asks the Interior Department to conduct a review of all marine monuments and issue recommendations about any that should be opened to commercial fishing.“The United States should be the world’s dominant seafood leader,” Mr. Trump wrote.The marine monument, a chain of islands and atolls amid more than 160 seamounts, is a trove of marine biodiversity. Environmentalists said opening the area to commercial fishing would pose a serious threat to the area’s fragile ecosystems.Mr. Trump, accompanied in the Oval Office by a fisherman from American Samoa and Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, the territory’s delegate to the House of Representatives, said his predecessors had deprived Pacific island communities of “fertile grounds.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Maine Lobster Industry Can Sue Seafood Watchdog for Defamation, Judge Rules

      by

      A group of fishermen says that it lost business after Seafood Watch, a program run by the Monterey Bay Aquarium, advised consumers not to buy lobster from the state.Maine’s lobster industry can proceed with a defamation lawsuit that it brought against a seafood watchdog group, which had placed a do-not-buy designation on the crustaceans because of the dangers it said that the industry’s fishing nets posed to an endangered whale species.A federal judge last month denied a motion to have the case dismissed, drawing an appeal on Thursday from the group Seafood Watch, a nonprofit run by the Monterey Bay Aquarium that publishes seafood sustainability ratings.It has been nearly two years since the Maine Lobstermen’s Association and several other plaintiffs sued the nonprofit after it downgraded the sustainability rating for American lobsters caught off Maine from yellow to red in 2022. The nonprofit advised consumers to avoid those lobsters, saying that endangered North Atlantic right whales were at significant risk of becoming entangled in fishing gear.The fishermen blamed Seafood Watch in the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Maine, for damaging the reputation of the billion-dollar industry and prompting some of their customers to cancel contracts.“Reputation and goodwill cannot be adequately replaced through awarding damages and this injury lingers as long as the ‘red listing’ does,” Judge John A. Woodcock Jr. wrote in the 137-page order denying the motion to dismiss the case.The fishermen applauded the judge’s ruling in a statement, having argued in the lawsuit that the average price per pound of lobster dropped by 40 percent after Seafood Watch changed its sustainability rating.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      My 500-Mile Journey Across Alaska’s Thawing Arctic

      by

      Flames were leaping out of the forest beneath the float plane taking us deep into the remote interior of northern Alaska. Our destination was the glacial Walker Lake, which stretches 14 miles through Gates of the Arctic National Park.Nearly 100 miles from the nearest dirt road, Walker Lake is within an expanse of uninhabited tundra, scraggly boreal forests and the seemingly endless peaks of the Brooks Range in a wilderness bigger than Belgium. Once we arrived, we saw wide bear trails bulldozed through alder thickets and plentiful signs of moose and wolves.We had come here to begin a 500-mile journey that would take us in pack rafts down the Noatak River, believed to be the longest undeveloped river system left in the United States, and on foot, slogging the beaches of the Chukchi Sea coastline. Our goal was to get a close-up look at how warming temperatures are affecting this rugged but fragile Arctic landscape. Worldwide, roughly twice the amount of the heat-trapping carbon now in the atmosphere has been locked away in the planet’s higher latitudes in frozen ground known as permafrost. Now that ground is thawing and releasing its greenhouse gases.The fire we flew over was our first visible sign of the changes underway.While wildfires are part of the landscape’s natural regenerative cycle, they have until recently been infrequent above the Arctic Circle. But now the rising heat of the lengthening summers has dried out the tundra and the invasive shrubs that have recently moved north with the warmth. This is a tinderbox for lightning strikes. The fires expose and defrost the frozen soil, allowing greenhouse gases to escape into the atmosphere.I have slept more than 1,000 nights on frozen terrain while exploring the Far North. My first Arctic venture was in 1983, with a fellow National Park Service ranger in a tandem kayak on the Noatak River in Gates of the Arctic. We awoke one morning, startled by the sounds of a big animal running through low willows. It jumped into the river straight toward our tent — a caribou chased by a wolf. We were relieved it wasn’t a bear.I couldn’t help but feel unsettled, even reduced, by the immense sky and landscape. While the scale of it all seemed too much to process, the Arctic had captured my soul and I set out on numerous other trips across different places in the North.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Coast Guard Suspends Search for 5 People Missing in Alaska Waters

      by

      The Coast Guard received a mayday call from a fishing boat on Sunday just after midnight. Search crews looked for its passengers for almost 24 hours.The U.S. Coast Guard said on Monday that it had suspended a search for five people who made a mayday call from a fishing boat off Alaska just after midnight on Sunday.The Coast Guard spent almost a full day covering over 100 square nautical miles searching for the 50-foot fishing vessel, which was called Wind Walker, and its crew, according to a news release from the military branch. Search crews reported finding seven cold-water immersion suits and two strobe lights but no remnants of the boat or anyone onboard. The boat reportedly capsized near Couverden Point, Alaska, in the Icy Strait, according to the Coast Guard.The crew said they were evacuating onto an emergency life raft during their mayday call, according to Travis Magee, assistant public affairs officer for the Coast Guard. Emergency marine responders who answered the call attempted to get more information from the crew but got no response, Mr. Magee said.A nearby ferry vessel, AMHS Hubbard, heard the emergency call over a broadcast and arrived first to help. A helicopter and a boat were also deployed from the Coast Guard.“We stand in sorrow and solidarity with the friends and family of the people we were not able to find over the past 24 hours,” Chief Warrant Officer James Koon, a search and rescue mission coordinator at Coast Guard Sector Southeast Alaska, said in a statement.There were six-foot seas, heavy snow and winds of up to 60 miles per hour when the boat was lost, officials said. Alaska was under winter weather warnings over the weekend, and some have been extended through Tuesday, according to the National Weather Service.The search was called off for now “pending the development of new information,” the Coast Guard said in a statement. The names of those missing have not been released. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Klamath River Dam Removal Should Allow Salmon to Thrive

      by

      The Klamath River was once so flush with fish that local tribes ate salmon at every meal: flame-roasted filets on redwood skewers, stews flavored with fish tails, strips of smoky, dried salmon. In the language of the Yurok, who live on the river among California’s towering redwoods, the word for “salmon” translates to “that which we eat.”But when hydropower dams were built on the Klamath, which wends from southern Oregon into far northwest California, the river’s ecosystem was upended and salmon were cut off from 420 miles of cooler tributaries and streams where they had once laid their eggs. For decades, there has been little salmon for the tribes to cook, sell or use in religious ceremonies. The Yurok’s 60th annual Salmon Festival this summer served none of its namesake fish.But tribal members hope the situation is about to dramatically change.Four giant dams on the Klamath are being razed as part of the largest dam removal project in U.S. history, a victory for the tribes who have led a decades-long campaign to restore the river. This week, as the final pieces are demolished, a 240-mile stretch of the Klamath will flow freely for the first time in more than a century — and salmon will get their best shot at long-term survival in the river.“The salmon are going to their spawning grounds for the first time in 100 years,” said Ron Reed, 62, a member of the Karuk tribe who has been fighting for dam removal for half his life. “There’s a sense of pride. There’s a sense of health and wellness.”Juvenile chinook salmon before being released into the Klamath River near Hornbrook, Calif.Salmon play an outsize role in nourishing and holding together ecosystems, scientists say, and their plight has fueled a growing trend of dam removals nationwide. Of the 150 removals on the West Coast in the past decade — double that of the previous decade, according to data from American Rivers, an environmentalist group — most have benefited salmon. Chinook salmon, or king salmon, in the Klamath are predicted to increase by as much as 80 percent within the next three decades.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Plan to Protect Oceans Has a Problem, Some Say: Too Much Fishing

      by

      An effort to protect 30 percent of land and waters would count some commercial fishing zones as conserved areas.New details of the Biden administration’s signature conservation effort, made public this month amid a burst of other environmental announcements, have alarmed some scientists who study marine protected areas because the plan would count certain commercial fishing zones as conserved.The decision could have ripple effects around the world as nations work toward fulfilling a broader global commitment to safeguard 30 percent of the entire planet’s land, inland waters and seas. That effort has been hailed as historic, but the critical question of what, exactly, counts as conserved is still being decided.This early answer from the Biden administration is worrying, researchers say, because high-impact commercial fishing is incompatible with the goals of the efforts.“Saying that these areas that are touted to be for biodiversity conservation should also do double duty for fishing as well, especially highly impactful gears that are for large-scale commercial take, there’s just a cognitive dissonance there,” said Kirsten Grorud-Colvert, a marine biologist at Oregon State University who led a group of scientists that in 2021 published a guide for evaluating marine protected areas.The debate is unfolding amid a global biodiversity crisis that is speeding extinctions and eroding ecosystems, according to a landmark intergovernmental assessment. As the natural world degrades, its ability to give humans essentials like food and clean water also diminishes. The primary driver of biodiversity declines in the ocean, the assessment found, is overfishing. Climate change is an additional and ever-worsening threat.Fish are an important source of nutrition for billions of people around the world. Research shows that effectively conserving key areas is an key tool to keep stocks healthy while also protecting other ocean life.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      A Potentially Huge Supreme Court Case Has a Hidden Conservative Backer

      by

      The case, to be argued by lawyers linked to the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch, could sharply curtail the government’s regulatory authority.The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday that, on paper, are about a group of commercial fishermen who oppose a government fee that they consider unreasonable. But the lawyers who have helped to propel their case to the nation’s highest court have a far more powerful backer: the petrochemicals billionaire Charles Koch.The case is one of the most consequential to come before the justices in years. A victory for the fishermen would do far more than push aside the monitoring fee, part of a system meant to prevent overfishing, that they objected to. It would very likely sharply limit the power of many federal agencies to regulate not only fisheries and the environment, but also health care, finance, telecommunications and other activities, legal experts say.“It might all sound very innocuous,” said Jody Freeman, founder and director of the Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law Program and a former Obama White House official. “But it’s connected to a much larger agenda, which is essentially to disable and dismantle federal regulation.”The lawyers who represent the New Jersey-based fishermen, are working pro bono and belong to a public-interest law firm, Cause of Action, that discloses no donors and reports having no employees. However, court records show that the lawyers work for Americans for Prosperity, a group funded by Mr. Koch, the chairman of Koch Industries and a champion of anti-regulatory causes.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?  More

    • 63 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Hurdles Facing Offshore Wind Farms

      by

      More from our inbox:Pope’s Blessing for Gay Couples Isn’t EnoughThe Problem With the ‘Bidenomics’ BrandThe Financial Complexities of Employing Caregivers Chang W. Lee/The New York TimesTo the Editor: Re “Projects for Offshore Wind Stall as Supply and Funding Sputter” (front page, Dec. 12):Offshore wind projects need to be reconsidered in both scale and financing.The Times accurately identifies the causes for delays and cancellations of ambitious offshore wind projects in the Northeast Atlantic. But the success of the recent launch of the South Fork Wind project may underscore another reason so many of the huge projects have been stymied.The South Fork Wind project, 35 miles off the coast of Montauk, N.Y., when fully operational, will produce electricity to fuel 70,000 homes on eastern Long Island and will offset tons of carbon emissions each year.The scale of the project — 12 turbines — is appropriate to its siting in an area close to densely populated neighborhoods and in waters trafficked by commercial fishing and recreational boating activities.By contrast, the huge projects now being stymied by delays and cancellations would site hundreds of turbines in an even busier Atlantic corridor. These projects should be scaled back to a more appropriate size and, if costs remain prohibitively high, should be subsidized by federal and state governments.Climate change and the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions justify public financial support, which has long been extended to the fossil fuel industry.Judith HopeEast Hampton, N.Y.The writer is the founder of Win With Wind, a nonprofit local citizens group.To the Editor:This article illuminates the mountain of hurdles faced by the offshore wind industry and, importantly, the response by developers and state legislators.The focus on course correcting is spot-on. We cannot and should not lessen our resolve to develop offshore wind as a solution to the growing instability of our climate. You need only look at the stark ocean events happening faster than expected — marine heat waves, bleaching coral reefs, disappearing species — to see the need for renewables.Yet, a reset for offshore wind should not come without a renewed commitment to responsible development that considers the environment and people. If offshore wind is to be successful, beyond overcoming the financial hurdles, it must avoid, minimize and mitigate negative impacts to our marine ecosystems, Native American tribes and the fishing industry.Through early and robust engagement with these affected communities and investments in marine mitigation technology and strategies, we can avoid more stumbling blocks in the future, and ensure that offshore wind is able to do what it needs to in the long run: protect us, the ocean and marine species from the worst effects of climate change.Emily WoglomWashingtonThe writer is executive vice president of Ocean Conservancy.To the Editor:Re “New York Turns On Wind Farm in Atlantic” (news article, Dec. 6):As New York’s first offshore wind turbine begins delivering electricity to homes, New York State has cemented itself as a nationwide leader in clean energy. New Yorkers deserve to take a moment to celebrate this achievement.South Fork Wind will be the largest offshore wind farm in North America. And, it’s just the first of eight planned offshore wind projects in New York State.New York has navigated many obstacles to bring its residents the reliable, local energy of offshore wind, and with it, good-paying jobs and cleaner air. New Yorkers know that the climate crisis is already on our doorstep, so we are leading the charge to switch to clean energy, propelled by the innovation of offshore wind. Let’s remain steadfast in our commitment to being the nation’s offshore wind leader.Julie TigheNew YorkThe writer is president of the New York League of Conservation Voters.Pope’s Blessing for Gay Couples Isn’t EnoughGuglielmo Mangiapane/ReutersTo the Editor: Re “Same-Sex Pairs Can Be Blessed, Francis Affirms” (front page, Dec. 19):I’m not a practicing Catholic, but I have always admired Pope Francis and his efforts to move his church toward a more timely way of thinking. His actions are unprecedented and must be acknowledged and appreciated.But, as a 69-year-old gay man, I don’t need a priest’s blessing in the dark of night, out of sight, in a ceremony that must not even remotely resemble a wedding.My partner and I were together for 20 years. We were supportive and devoted to each other that entire time, including during his 12-year battle with five bouts of cancer, which he lost at the age of 52. (And which, by the way, was not God’s retribution for our lifestyle. My dear mother, a devout Catholic, died of the same cancer at almost the same age.)What my partner and I would have welcomed is an acknowledgment that our relationship was as valid as any heterosexual marriage.Thank you, Pope Francis. May you reach your goal of having your church acknowledge all God’s people equally.Charlie ScatamacchiaOssining, N.Y.The Problem With the ‘Bidenomics’ BrandTo the Editor: Re “Democratic Governors Offer Campaign Tips for a Struggling Biden” (news article, Dec. 5):I would add this to the list of advice: Stop using the term “Bidenomics.” Polls clearly show that Americans are disturbed by inflation, high interest rates and their personal struggles to just get by.“Bidenomics” may be well intentioned but ties President Biden personally to voters’ economic woes, making him a target for ridicule. Mr. Biden must get out there to tout his successes, acknowledge the disconnect between strong macroeconomic numbers and people’s perceptions, and lay out his vision for making their lives better over the next four years. He will have to channel his inner Harry Truman to avoid defeat and the disaster of another Trump presidency.Mark McIntyreLos AngelesThe Financial Complexities of Employing Caregivers Desiree Rios/The New York TimesTo the Editor: Re “Desperate Families Seek Affordable Home Care” (“Dying Broke” series, front page, Dec. 6):This article about how difficult it is for families to find affordable home care will ring true to many readers. However, it should have also mentioned the problems families have in complying with tax and regulatory responsibilities if they hire aides directly (as is common) rather than through an agency.As employers, they must keep accurate payment records, prepare W-2 statements, pay the employer share of employment taxes, and often file and fund quarterly state tax reports. Simply finding out about the requirements is challenging.In my own case, I learned about one financial requirement only after a year of employing a caregiver — and I had been a C.P.A. with decades of experience with family financial matters!Some simple changes would help. First and foremost, every state should prepare and publicize a guide to regulatory and tax responsibilities when the family employs aides instead of using an agency. Second, allow annual reporting rather than quarterly reporting. Third, allow families to submit paper reports rather than making online submission mandatory. Finally (though I could go on), eliminate quarterly withholding requirements.Bob LykeWashington More