A recently proposed piece of legislation that would block off large sections of the ocean from trawling gear is being met with opposition from more than 50 seafood organizations across the U.S.
House Resolution 8507, commonly known as the Bottom Trawl Clarity Act, which was introduced in May by U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola (D-Alaska) would mandate that each of the eight Fisheries Management Councils in the U.S. that permit the use bottom trawl gear to define the terms “substantial” versus “limited” bottom contact.
But more importantly, it would also require the designation of Bottom Trawl Zones, limiting the areas where gear that scrapes the seafloor is allowed. Once the zones are established, bottom trawling would only be permitted within them, potentially mitigating the environmental impact of this fishing method.
“Limiting the areas where bottom trawling is allowed will help enhance marine health, diversity and resilience, strengthening the ocean ecosystem that Alaska fishermen depend on,” Peltola said in a statement at the time the legislation was introduced.
“Bottom trawling is…the cause of one of the most widespread human impacts on the seabed and is relevant globally,” the Congresswoman said. “The net rolls over the ocean floor as it is pulled, destroying complex habitats, kicking up sediment, and wounding or killing any other animals in the way.”
“The consequences of intensive bottom trawling are severe, leading to the harm and death of nontarget species,” she stated.
In the time since the proposed legislation was unveiled, it has become a point of contention due to what some say is the harm that it could cause the seafood industry.
In a letter to Peltola dated June 20, 53 organizations—including the Alaska Whitefish Trawlers Association, West Coast Seafood Processors Association, City of Unalaska and At-sea Processors Association—expressed “deep concern” about the legislation, saying that it would “create sweeping new federal mandates constraining the effective management of our nation’s fisheries.”
H.R. 8507, they said, “compels (Fisheries Management) Councils to adopt the archaic and counterproductive approach of creating permanent area-based closures that cannot be evaluated and modified as necessary over time.”
“As fish stocks and other marine biota shift, the static area closures mandated by this legislation would leave managers hamstrung in their response. It is the wrong way to approach fisheries management in an era of changing ocean conditions,” the letter states.
The businesses and organizations also argue in the letter that Regional Fishery Management Councils have more important work to do than fulfill the proposed legislation’s requirements.
“(RFMCs) are currently undertaking myriad important analyses and actions to achieve critical conservation and management goals for the benefit of the marine environment and the people who rely on it. Your legislation would require them to deprioritize that vital work to meet new and poorly designed federal mandates,” the seven-page letter states.
The introduction of H.R. 8507 “shakes the confidence of seafood buyers and consumers in U.S. seafood,” according to the letter’s authors, and casts “a long shadow of uncertainty” over the future opportunities of fishery-dependent communities and businesses at the worst possible time.
“With that critical context in mind, we once again urge you to withdraw your bill, and to redirect your policymaking to initiatives that will assist rather than harm this proud American industry,” the letter concludes.
Peltola, however, has given no indication that she intends to pull the proposed legislation or even modify it to appease some of its detractors. Fishermen’s News will monitor the situation and update you if and when there’s any movement toward the bill possibly becoming law.
Managing Editor Mark Nero can be reached by phone at (619) 313-4351
or via email at mark@maritimepublishing.com.