Fishing, Commercial

Subterms

    Latest story

    113 Shares109 Views

    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

    More stories

    • 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

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      What’s In (and Not In) the $1.7 Trillion Spending Bill

      by

      A big boost for the military, more aid for Ukraine, a preference for the lobster industry over whales and an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act are among the provisions in the 4,155-page bill lawmakers expect to pass this week.WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in emergency aid to war-torn Ukraine and communities ravaged by natural disasters. A bipartisan proposal to overhaul the archaic law at the heart of former President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. And a divisive oceanic policy that will change federal protections for whales in an effort to protect the lobster industry in Maine.In compiling the roughly $1.7 trillion catchall spending package that will keep the government open through September, lawmakers inserted several new funding and legislative proposals to ensure their priorities and policies become law before the end of the year.It includes funding that will guarantee the enactment of policies first authorized in bipartisan legislation approved earlier in this Congress, including money for innovation hubs established in the semiconductor manufacturing law and projects in the infrastructure law. The package also includes a round of earmarks, rebranded as community project funding, that allow lawmakers to redirect funds to specific projects in their states and districts.Here is a look at some of the provisions that would go into effect if enacted.Military spending is the big winner.The Defense Department would see an extraordinary surge in spending when adding its regular 2023 fiscal year budget together with additional funds being allocated to help respond to the war in Ukraine.All together, half of the $1.7 trillion in funding included in the package goes to defense, or a total of $858 billion. It comes after lawmakers bucked a request from President Biden and approved a substantial increase in the annual defense policy bill passed this month.The 2023 budget just for the Defense Department would total $797.6 billion in discretionary spending — a 10 percent increase over last year’s budget — representing an extra $69.3 billion in funds for the Pentagon, which is $36.1 billion above the president’s budget request.Sprinkled throughout the spending bill are hundreds of high-ticket add-ons that Congress wants to make to the president’s original Defense Department budget, such as an additional $17.2 billion for procurement that the Pentagon can largely distribute to military contractors to buy new ships, airplanes, missile systems and other equipment. The overall Pentagon procurement budget with these additional funds would be $162 billion.One of the biggest chunks of that extra money is for shipbuilding — an extra $4 billion that brings the Navy’s overall shipbuilding budget to $31.96 billion. That will allow it to buy 11 new ships, including three guided missile destroyers and two attack submarines.But that is just the start. There is $8.5 billion to buy 61 F-35 fighter jets made by Lockheed Martin and another $2.5 billion to buy 15 of Boeing’s new aerial refueling planes known as KC-46 tankers.There is also an extra $27.9 billion to help cover Defense Department costs associated with the war in Ukraine, as part of an emergency aid package to the country. That includes an extra $11.88 billion to replenish U.S. stocks of equipment sent to Ukraine — money that again will largely be used to purchase products from military contractors. That supplemental appropriation also includes $9 billion to assist Ukraine with training, equipment and weapons, as well as an extra $6.98 billion to cover U.S. military operations in Europe.— Eric Lipton and John IsmayMaking it easier (for some) to save for retirement.The package also includes a collection of new rules aimed at helping Americans save for retirement. The bill would require employers to automatically enroll eligible employees in their 401(k) and 403(b) plans, setting aside at least 3 percent, but no more than 10 percent, of their paychecks. Contributions would be increased by one percentage point each year thereafter, until it reaches at least 10 percent (but not more than 15 percent). But this applies only to new employer-provided plans that are started in 2025 and later — existing plans are exempt.Another provision would help lower- and middle-income earners saving for retirement by making changes to an existing tax credit, called the saver’s credit, now available only to those who owe taxes. In its new form, it would amount to a matching contribution, from the federal government, deposited into taxpayers’ retirement accounts.People struggling with student debt would also receive a new perk: Employees making student debt payments would qualify for employer matching contributions in their workplace retirement plan, even if they were not making plan contributions of their own.What to Know About Congress’s Lame-Duck SessionCard 1 of 5A productive stretch. More

    • 100 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      How Rules Fuel Populist Anger in Rural America

      by

      ROCK HALL, Md. — When Dave Harden decided to run for Congress as a Democrat on Maryland’s conservative Eastern Shore, a friend gave him a piece of free advice.“Democrats lose on three things: abortion, guns and regulations,” the friend said. “If you keep one, you have to give up the other two.”Abortion and gun rights have both inspired passionate activism and countless front-page news articles. Regulations — not so much. Yet nitpicky government rules remain a potent and underappreciated source of populist anger against Democrats, especially in rural areas.On the campaign trail, Mr. Harden has gotten an earful from voters about maddening and arbitrary restrictions: Why are wineries in Maryland limited to serving only 13 kinds of food? Why does a woman who sells her grandmother’s cobbler have to cough up tens of thousands of dollars to build a commercial kitchen? Why does a federal inspector have to be on hand to watch wild catfish get gutted — but not other kinds of seafood? The short answer is that restaurant associations tend to wield more political clout than wineries, and catfish farmers in Mississippi are more powerful than seafood harvesters in Maryland. Big businesses can afford to hire lawyers to help them cut through red tape and lobbyists to bend government rules to their will. Small businesses, especially in rural places, get slammed.Dave Harden campaigning during the annual fireman’s parade in Ocean City.“The claim of overregulation is especially animating on the political right,” Joshua Sewell of Taxpayers for Common Sense told me. He said misleading rumors that the Environmental Protection Agency planned to regulate farm dust or that President Biden’s Build Back Better plan would have taxed belching cows played right into the stereotype of Democrats as city folk who were infuriatingly eager to regulate almost anything in rural America.In 2006, Democrats and Republicans had similar views on government regulation of business: About 40 percent of Republicans said there was too much, compared to about 36 percent of Democrats. But the percentage of Republicans who felt that way climbed steadily under President Barack Obama, who enacted more economically significant rules than his predecessors. By the end of his first term, 84 percent of Republicans thought that government meddled too much in business, while only 22 percent of Democrats agreed, according to Gallup. Democrats were more likely to say that the government doesn’t regulate businesses enough.With business owners more likely to be Republicans and government workers more likely to be Democrats, you have the makings of a yawning partisan divide. Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to remove two rules for every new one that was put in place.Can Democrats flip the script and win over conservative districts, particularly small- business owners in those areas, by speaking out against government red tape? Mr. Harden, a 59-year-old former Foreign Service officer who is running for Congress in Maryland’s First District, is trying. He hopes to replace Andy Harris, the sole Republican in Maryland’s congressional delegation. (Mr. Harris voted to overturn the results of the presidential election in 2020 and reportedly once tried to bring a gun onto the House floor.)Mr. Harden greets Bobby Higgins, the owner of an all-you-can-eat crab house in Ocean City.Crabs are Maryland’s iconic cuisine.Mr. Harden must first win a July 19 primary against Heather Mizeur, a progressive herb farmer who once represented Montgomery County, a much more urban area, in the state legislature. Ms. Mizeur has more money and name recognition than Mr. Harden, but he believes he has a chance because she seems out of step with the conservative district, which is considered a safe Republican seat.Mr. Harden is trying to chart an alternative path for Democrats in rural areas. He’s no fan of Donald Trump. He left a 22-year career in the Foreign Service in 2018 because he didn’t want to serve the Trump administration. But when it comes to regulations, Mr. Harden doesn’t sound all that much different from Mr. Trump.“The regulations in rural economies are ridiculous,” he told me.Mr. Harden is trying to walk a difficult line, appealing to voters who are angry about government overreach without turning off the Democratic base. He says he doesn’t oppose reasonable environmental regulations, but he rails against rules that make it harder for small businesses to survive.It’s a message that comes naturally to him. He spent years trying to improve the business environments in Iraq and the Palestinian territories as a senior U.S.A.I.D. official. He led a program in the West Bank town of Jenin that opened up a border crossing with Israel and prevailed on the Israeli government to allow more Israeli cars into Jenin so that Israeli Arabs could shop there, helping to start an economic revival.Mr. Harden’s campaign manager, Marty Lostrom, on Chris Lingerman’s lawn. Lingerman’s shop, Chester River Seafood, is behind his house.Ford’s Seafood in Rock Hall, Md., is family-owned.Mr. Harden is now trying to bring those lessons home to Maryland, where he grew up. On a recent Saturday, he squinted out at Chesapeake Bay, riffing about how to promote local economic development with Capt. Rob Newberry, the head of the Delmarva Fisheries Association, which represents licensed watermen in the area. Captain Newberry is a Republican who once hung a sign cursing Joe Biden on his boat. But he supports Mr. Harden, who listens patiently to his complaints about regulations.Captain Newberry represents people who harvest crabs, Maryland’s iconic cuisine, from the Chesapeake Bay, and he complains that excessive regulations are putting watermen like him out of business. He contends that the roughly 1,800 fishermen, clammers, crabbers and oystermen in his association are among the most highly regulated workers in the state.Captain Newberry, right, listened as Mr. Harden spoke to Chris Lingerman, the owner of Chester River Seafood, about regulations that hurt watermen.A Maryland blue crab.“When you get halfway to work and you pull up at a stoplight, does a policeman pull you over?” he asked. “When you get into work, does he come in and bother you two or three times and ask you what are you doing, do you have a license? That happens to me every time I go out on the harbor.”Captain Newberry has grievances with people across the political spectrum: with the environmentalists who lobby for more restrictions on the watermen; with the cities and companies responsible for faulty wastewater treatment systems and runoff that pollutes the bay; and with Mr. Harris, the incumbent.He told me that Mr. Harris refused to speak out against a nonsensical regulation that stipulated that catfish had to be treated like meat under federal law. The rule, which advantages catfish farmers in states like Mississippi at the expense of foreign fish farmers and Maryland fishermen, requires federal inspectors to be on site when catfish get gutted, even though there’s little evidence of a risk to public health.The rule is so outrageous that the Government Accountability Office once called for it to be repealed. Yet it remains in place. When the watermen complained to their congressman, Mr. Harris arranged for the government to pay for the inspectors. But inspectors still have to be called in whenever a fisherman brings in catfish for processing. (Mr. Harris’s office said he’s still working on it.)Captain Newberry says he has become disillusioned with the political sausage-making behind government rules. But he still works within the system to try to change them. He testifies before lawmakers and serves on committees, hoping that it will make a difference.On the campaign trail, Mr. Harden has gotten an earful from voters about maddening and arbitrary restrictions.However, those same frustrations have led some other watermen to fall under the sway of the “sovereign citizens” movement, which preaches that the federal and state governments have no right to require licenses for hunting, driving or owning a gun. Some adherents believe that the local sheriff is the only legitimate authority under the Constitution. Beliefs about the illegitimacy of the federal government appeared to be at the root of an armed standoff between federal authorities and cattle ranchers in Nevada in 2014.Maryland’s Eastern Shore hasn’t seen anything like that, Somerset County’s sheriff, Ronald Howard, told me. But he said he has faced mounting pressure to defy state rules and allow watermen to harvest oysters from sanctuaries that have been declared off limits. He refused. “I said, ‘Look, if I interfere, that’s obstruction of my duties; I can be charged criminally,’” he told me. “I had one waterman tell me, ‘That’s a chance you’ve got to take.’”Sheriff Howard doesn’t blame the watermen; he blames the rigid rules made by politicians who rarely take the time to listen to rural people. That’s where Dave Harden sees an opening for himself, however slim.Democrats have to find a way to reconnect with rural America, Mr. Harden told me. Frank talk about regulations is a good place to start.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More