Fishermen upset over creation of Atlantic's first monument


PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) – Fishermen in New England say President Barack Obama needlessly dealt a big blow to their industry when he created the Atlantic Ocean’s first marine national monument and circumvented the existing process for protecting fisheries.

The coal companies, fishermen, what business will Obama go after next?


From the article:

“The new Northeast Canyons and Seamounts Marine National Monument consists of nearly 5,000 square miles of underwater canyons and mountains off the New England coast. The designation will close the area to commercial fishermen, who go there primarily for lobster, red crab, squid, whiting, butterfish, swordfish and tuna.”

Fishermen say that the restricted area will cost jobs, reduce supply, and increase prices.


So now other countries will supply the market for those wanting “lobster, red crab, squid, whiting, butterfish, swordfish, and tuna”. Who knows maybe all the fishermen can get jobs in the Government sector.


It’s going to need a lot of bureaucrats to enforce all the new regulations.


The fisherpersons could work for the government.


I have mixed feelings about the further limiting of fishing in the Atlantic. On the one hand I’ve read, and heard from one friend involved in the fishing industry that over fishing has been occurring. Modern fishing techniques have been able to bring in enormous amounts of fish without allowing restocking.

On the other side, I’ve read that previous effects to restrict over fishing have been helping. As this article mentions, this new ruling could be over kill. I know it has been disputed for a few years.

Overall though I’m not all that surprised at the new announcement. With political parties I view them more as businesses. In order to generate money for their employees, new ideas need to be rolled out. With unions and blue collar jobs diminishing due to out sourcing and robotics, the former main source of donations and votes for the Democratic party, further environmental ideas or green ideas is the direction the Democratic party is heading. On the one hand It makes running a business more expensive in America. On the other it helps with the environment and live stock.


They have discovered large numbers of monster squid.

Real maneaters.

Should be tasty.


I don’t understand why it always has to be either protection or production. You can have both. It seems like people either swing to one side or the other, instead of recognizing that you can have production (whether it be fishing, oil, gas, mining, etc.) while at the same time doing it responsibly to allow for sustainable fisheries, clean water, protection of wildlife, etc. We have this battle in my state regularly, despite the fact that numerous industries have proven that you can have both and it doesn’t have to be one or the other.


If Obama dared, I think he would declare the whole U.S. a national park and all oceans surrounding the U.S. maritime monuments.

Hillary Clinton might be no better. After all, her husband nationalized more land than any other president, including a lot of natural resource land.


Hationalized “parkified” U.S. coal on behalf of the Riady family.


Well done, Obama. Pick on an area that has been “praised by environmentalists” as safe and healthy, and take that over. Not an UNHEALTHY area that needs to be stopped or fixed or protected. Anyone else morbidly amused at the irony of his willingness to create jobs with one hand and take them with the other?


That’s how conservation works. Healthy areas are more important to protect as they’re more productive.


But what is “healthy”? Do we even know? Humans have been part of the “ecosystem” for an immensely long time. Certainly, it’s possible for people to overfish, overhunt, overcultivate, etc. But that does not mean complete absence of human exploitation is somehow perfection or even a “state of nature”.

If no fishing of any kind occurs in that area, does anybody really know what the outcome will be, or that it will even be stable? Will certain species take over and exclude others that have been there or migrated through for centuries?

I’m not very familiar with how things work in the sea, but on land if you completely remove the hand of man, it often turns unproductive, diseased or even desertified. Much of the nationalized lands in the west have become deserts precisely because grazing is prohibited there. Some semi-arid place require hooved animals to fill a niche in the ecosystem or it goes off kilter, or at least the “kilter” it has had for millennia. What it would have been like before hooved animals, no one knew until it turned into a desert in recent years.

And one thing we certainly don’t know is the degree to which human intervention replaces something that was there before and needed but is now gone; like cattle replacing buffalo on some semi-arid parts of the west.

That’s not to say the government could not improve anything by, say, limiting endangered catches. It could, all but for the migratory species like swordfish and tuna. Setting aside a reserve will do nothing for those kinds of species. And some of the protected species are predators. Can an overabundance of predators perhaps cause some food species to disappear entirely?

I recall reading that there is not a single place in the habitable zone of the earth that has not been forever altered by humans. One would think it would be less so in the oceans, but again, humans have fished the oceans for centuries, if not millennia. What’s “natural”, then?


Absolutely positively MUST maintain that blisteringly fast 1.5% annual economic growth rate. [sarcasm]

Other presidents got 4% or 5%.

Reagan even got 8% for a while.

But the best Obama could do was 1.5%. … as in … “the price of electricity will necessarily skyrocket”.]

Trump thinks with tax cuts and regulation cuts, he can get 4% or 5%.


If Donald Trump wins the election, this is one of the things he will do away with.
Of course–we will have to wait and see.


If Donald Trump wins the election, this is one of the things he will do away with.
Of course–we will have to wait and see who wins.




Obama has created 23 national monuments, in addition to expanding an already existing one, more than any previous president.

Scroll down for the list.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit