Seattle, WA – Nearly 200,000 square miles of U.S. Arctic waters north of Alaska have been put off-limits to industrial fishing. Yesterday's vote by the North Pacific Fisheries Council in Seattle posts a "no fishing" sign on the largest body of water ever to be closed.

Environmentalists say Arctic waters are warming twice as quickly as the rest of the planet, and the closure is needed to give scientists time to determine how climate change is impacting fish and other marine life.

Marilyn Heinman, with the Pew Environment Group, says various species of fish are moving to the warmer northern waters and science needs time to determine the effect on the ecosystem.

"As those fish move northward, as the ice melts, we need this closure. It ensures there is no fishing until science can prove that it can be done sustainably."

Much of the Arctic food web relies on only a handful of species, says Heinman, such as Arctic cod. That makes it critical to protect them from potential threats like over-fishing.

"The species up there; polar bear, walrus, seals are really facing some serious declines because of the lack of ice. And, with that happening at the same time, it’s important no increased development take place without a science-based precautionary approach."

Arni Thomspon, with the Alaska Crab Coalition in Seattle, says the industry backs the precautionary ban, saying it is sensible to delay large-scale fishing until scientific surveys have been completed.

"It’s a good long-term business plan: good for the environment, the marine resources, and the local indigenous population. You can’t just run roughshod over the native peoples up there."

Supporters believe the closing sets a valuable precedent for other countries that border the Arctic Ocean.

The ban only applies to very large fishing operations and does not impact local fishing within three miles of the coastline.




get more stories like this via email

Marine biologists conducting deep dives near five California islands are collecting data they hope will strengthen the case for ending gillnet fishing within a three-mile radius. The Channel Islands often are called the "Galapagos of North America" - due to their diverse ecosystem.

Caitlynn Birch, a marine scientist with the group Oceana, is part of a dive team collecting environmental DNA water samples and said they're analyzed in a lab to detect virtually all the animals and plants there, through the "footprint" they leave behind in the water column.

"This is important because the Channel Islands is an extremely biodiverse region, due to the topography of the sea floor, due to the oceanographic currents - and so, it creates a really unique habitat for many animals," she explained.

Fisherman use invisible gillnets along the seafloor to catch profitable halibut and white sea bass. But whales, sea lions and sharks can also be trapped. The method is banned off the coasts of Central and Northern California, but still used in federal waters, offshore banks, and around the Channel Islands. A bill before California lawmakers would end those exemptions.

About 30 fishermen still have active set gillnet permits in Southern California, but the state has stopped issuing new permits. Those who fish the waters say it would threaten their livelihoods, while Birch believes it would help protect critical habitat for vulnerable and recovering animals.

"Each island is so diverse and different from one another - different rocky substates, and different animal and plant life on the physical islands. And then, it's interesting to see how that's correlated below and what sorts of different species and assemblages that we're seeing at each of the islands," Birch continued.

This month, divers have collected samples on Santa Barbara, Anacapa, Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa islands. The waters there provide feeding areas and migratory routes for large whales - including endangered humpback whales - nurseries for great white shark pups, breeding and foraging habitat for California sea lions and giant seabass, cold-water corals, and giant kelp forests.

Critics of a conservative plan to expand offshore oil drilling said it endangers coastal communities who rely on a healthy ocean.

Project 2025, written by the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, aims to dramatically reshape U.S. energy policy, opening millions of acres to new oil and gas production.

Angelo Villagomez, ocean director at the Center for American Progress, said it prioritizes short-term profits over long-term climate sustainability.

"It's going to prohibit the United States from even including the word climate change in any of our government documents," Villagomez pointed out. "You can't deal with these real threats just by closing your eyes and pretending that it's not there."

While offshore drilling is illegal in New Hampshire, Villagomez noted operations elsewhere spread toxins far and wide, harming marine life and vital habitats. Supporters of the plan said offshore drilling releases fewer emissions and gets America closer to being energy independent.

Project 2025 also promotes the dismantling and privatization of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The federal agency handles the vast majority of climate, weather and marine science research as well as commercial fishing regulations. Villagomez argued breaking up the agency could lead to chaos on the water and economic instability for vital industries throughout New England.

"NOAA manages all of our fisheries," Villagomez explained. "So are we going to let all of the states have different rules for how we manage fisheries?"

Former President Donald Trump has claimed he has no knowledge of Project 2025, however many parts of the plan were written by members of his former administration. The plan would undo much of President Joe Biden's executive order to protect at least 30% of American land and ocean areas by 2030.

Florida's saltwater anglers are increasingly frustrated by sharks swooping in and taking their catch in what is known as shark depredation.

The resurgence of shark populations is affecting recreational fishing across the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast.

Marcus Drymon, associate extension professor at Mississippi State University and marine fisheries specialist for the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium, said the issue has become particularly pronounced in the Sunshine State, where anglers report losing more fish to sharks than ever before.

"For recreational fishermen in Florida, this is causing a lot of anger and frustration over lost fishing opportunities," Drymon observed. "Anglers are saying when they used to be able to catch fish without sharks biting them and they can no longer do that."

A recent panel at ICAST, the world's largest sportfishing trade show, focused on shark depredation, which took place in Orlando last month. Experts said the issue affects the broader fishing industry, particularly charter fishermen who depend on successful trips for their income.

Some are calling attention to the bipartisan SHARKED Act, which passed unanimously in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year, intended to assemble a task force to explore solutions to the problem.

Chris Macaluso, director of the Center for Marine Fisheries for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, said the increase in shark depredation is partly due to the success of shark conservation efforts over the past few decades. He is hoping to see the final passage of the SHARKED Act to help guide any actions taken based on science.

"Ramp up the amount of scientific knowledge and the sharing of knowledge and the gathering of scientific data when it comes to shark populations," Macaluso urged. "To see if there are some management changes that could take place that would reduce these negative encounters with sharks. "

As shark populations recover and more anglers take to the water, the conflict between sharks and anglers will likely intensify. However, experts are hopeful with continued research and legislative support, effective solutions can be found to balance anglers' needs with the ongoing success of shark conservation efforts.