Give Thanks for Sharks, and Jared Huffman for telling NOAA- NO! to shark fins

Why is NOAA amending shark conservation regulations to kill more sharks and open a US shark fin trade?  After a decade of strengthening our fisheries regulations, from the 2000 Federal Shark Finning Prohibition Act to State shark fin trade bans, we have dramatically increased shark protection from illegal fishing and the shark fin trade.  The United States has demonstrated that we are leaders in shark conservation. Until now.  Tell NOAA NO! to Shark fins

This summer, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service added language to the Shark Conservation Act, or “pre-emptions” that would undermine state laws protecting domestic sharks and sharks that are threatened internationally through illegal fishing and shark finning.

The Shark Conservation Act amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to enhance federal fisheries enforcement capabilities to better detect and deter the already unlawful practice of cutting the fins off sharks and discarding the carcasses at sea. The amended Magnuson-Stevens Act currently prohibits the removal of any of the fins from a shark at sea and requires that sharks be landed with their fins naturally attached.

Separately, Hawaii, California, and several other states have enacted laws which prohibit one or more of the possession, transportation, sale, or distribution of shark fins in their respective states.

In a narrow interpretation of the term “Conservation and Management”  NMFS has stated that  state statutes combating shark finning by prohibiting possession, sale, and distribution of shark fins are preempted by the Magnuson Stevens Act if they are inconsistent with that Act, as amended by the Shark Conservation Act. However, in a letter by Senator John D. Rockefeller, Co Sponsor of the Shark Conservation Act of 2010, that “federal imposition on the States' prerogative to adopt legitimate laws regulating intrastate commerce for the protection of public health and living marine resources within their boundaries was neither contemplated nor intended by Congress.”

The Magnuson-Stevens Act states clearly that "nothing in this Act shall be construed as extending or diminishing the jurisdiction or authority of any State within its boundaries."

 Concurrently, NOAA has filed a brief supporting a lawsuit filed by merchants and the shark fishing industry seeking to turn over the California Shark Conservation Act. This lawsuit filed by the Chinatown Neighborhood Association calls the California state law discriminatory, a claim rejected in Federal Court and now under appeal.

California and other states have enacted shark fin trade laws in response to concerns over the demand for shark fins, which is driving shark finning and the depletion of shark populations.  Until the passage of the California law AB 376 (Fong, Huffman), shark fins harvested from threatened and endangered species legally flowed through California ports, and were sold in our markets and restaurants. The Justice Department and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration argue that the Shark Conservation Act of 2010, designed to afford shark populations more modest fisheries protections, conflict with California’s shark fin ban and 7 other states with similar legislation. Many lawmakers disagree.

 This summer, a bipartisan group of 62 House members, led by U.S. Reps. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., and Grace Meng, D-N.Y, sent a letter to the Obama Administration urging it to revise the proposed federal rule that could undermine state bans on buying or selling shark fins. While a state Assemblyperson, Congressman Huffman led the efforts with Assemblyperson Paul Fong (D, Santa Clara) to ban the trade in shark fin products in California.

The federal Shark Conservation Act of 2010 signed by President Obama was intended to close loopholes in the original 2000 law. The language NOAA proposes adding was never intended to be part of the legislation proposed by Congress.

By preempting our state law, sharks harvested illegally or unsustainably would again be allowed to flow through California ports. During the public comment period, scientists, NGOs such as Shark Stewards, and the public have voiced strong objections to NOAA’s pre-emptions.

Although there is no official time limit, the final rule could be expected anytime, but NOAA has given no indication how they intend to proceed. Sharks are important for the health of the ocean and shark populations are suffering. One third of oceanic shark species are threatened with extinction.  Nearly 90% of some populations have been fished out of the ocean.

We should not allow industry pressure on our fisheries managers to undo important laws intended to protect shark and fish populations and the health of our oceans.

Join us calling on our representatives and NOAA to remove this language and put the teeth back into shark conservation.

Tell NOAA NO! to Shark fins.