Renee Larson
*This post is the first of three entries, each of which were winners of the Environmental and Law Use Law Section’s award for the best law review notes or articles related to environmental or land use law. This post includes an abstract and introduction; for the entirety of the article, please visit the Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental & Innovation Law.
This article addresses the need for permanent protections that insulate sustainable fisheries in the United States from outsider exploitation, like industrial development, that could cause irreparable harm to a fishery’s environment. While there are laws in place to regulate the fisheries themselves, there are not regulations that protect the fisheries from external threats that do not require years of litigation and procedural labor. The article offers a solution to these threats: establish federal laws that protect sustainable fisheries by enjoining action that would harm the fisheries or indicting officers of an entity threatening the fisheries. The article also offers a way for fisheries to thrive: create incentives for the management teams of sustainable fisheries to reach out and support other fisheries who may be struggling to become sustainable. If sustainable fisheries are not bothered by external threats, they have more time and resources to spend in helping others reach their sustainability goals.
I. INTRODUCTION
Now, more than ever, we need stability: the things we rely upon should remain reliable, and traditionally available resources should continue to be available. Salmon is one of the crucial resources that must continue to remain available for humans and other species. People living in the Pacific Northwest regularly take access to salmon (and other types of seafood) for granted, expecting salmon to be available. Therefore, in order to ensure the continuous availability of salmon, regulated fisheries are key. Generally, fisheries are industries that commercially harvest fish—the type of fish and method of harvest vary by each fisheries’ environment. The current regulations may no longer be sufficient to sustain the seafood supply consumers expect. If fishery regulations are not reformed to keep up with the threats that seafood industries face, we may see a day where salmon is no longer on the menu.
In the United States, some fisheries have functional sustainability schemes, and some fisheries do not. Even the fisheries with functional schemes are often still at risk of losing their resources. There is no shortage of economic interests that, if fulfilled, would have adverse effects on fishing communities. Ideally, sustainable fisheries would help other fisheries create a more sustainable industry. Instead, sustainable fisheries dedicate time and money to other causes, such as warding off external threats. If there were permanent protections to insulate sustainable fisheries from outside interference, such as assigning penalties to outside companies that attempt to endanger fish run habitat, these fisheries could support their unsustainable counterparts in creating a more sustainable management model before it is too late. One way to permanently protect sustainability is to enact federal legislative protections that prohibit any conduct that threatens the fish runs or the resources on which the fish runs rely. Further, these federal legislative protections should include incentives for fisheries that support other fisheries’ sustainability, which would be in line with public policy that encourages good samaritan behavior, like the awards offered for salvaging a distressed vessel.
Most United States fisheries are struggling with sustainability,1 but Alaska’s fishery management has kept its seafood industry relatively sustainable.2 It is logical to protect successful systems that can act as a rudder for other systems. Alaskan fisheries like Bristol Bay, which will be discussed at length later in this article, should have permanent protections so they may thrive as examples and role models instead of struggling to defend themselves. Ideally, United States fisheries struggling with sustainability could observe Alaska’s management strategies, consult with Alaska’s management councils, and implement the concepts they take away to form their management blueprint. Unfortunately, Alaska’s fishing regions are not insulated from external exploitation, which threatens their ability to set an example and educate others.
This article will begin by addressing the legal background of fishery management schemes in the United States. Although relevant to U.S. fishery management, the article will not address any involvement with, or regulations related to, international fisheries. Second, this article will describe the state of current fishery management in the United States, the role the courts play in fishery management, and what federal administrative assistance might look like. Next, it will explain why management schemes matter, what they look like, and how they can fall short of achieving sustainability goals. Then, the article will explore the example of Bristol Bay and the threats its fisheries continue to face. After that introduction, the article will propose federal protections, including incentives and enforcement strategies, to resolve the issue in Bristol Bay and explain how such protections could benefit all U.S. fisheries. Finally, the article concludes with a reminder of why fisheries matter and why they deserve permanent protection from exploitation.
II. LEGAL BACKGROUND
[For the rest of this article, please visit the Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental & Innovation Law.]
- Brooke Glass-O’Shea, Watery Grave: Why International and Domestic Lawmakers Need to Do More to Protect Oceanic Species From Extinction, 17 HASTINGS W.N.W. J. ENV’T L. & POL’Y 191, 192 (2011), https://perma.cc/GY5AVFJ9. ↩︎
- Id. at 231. ↩︎
WSBA ENVIRONMENTAL & LAND USE LAW SECTION 