Featured

ACTION ALERT! Contact House and Senate Conferees to Remove COMPETES Act Section 71102.

The Senate and House of Representatives have identified conferees (members from both chambers) to reconcile the differences between the Senate’s legislation, S1260 U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) and the House’s legislation HR4521 America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology, and Economic Strength Act of 2022 (COMPETES).
 
The House bill HR4521 includes Section 71102, Lacey Act Amendments.  The National Aquaculture Association has posted an analysis of the potential impact of Section 71102 which can be found here: NAA-COMPETES-Act-Section-71102-Analysis-and-Recommendations.pdf (thenaa.net).

The National Aquaculture Association recommends that members contact their Senators and House members identified as conferees to communicate your opposition. 

  1. Prior to calling
    1. Plan exactly what you want to say before you call – Message short and simple — tell them you are also sending written materials.
    2. Never assume the Senator or their staff understands or knows about this specific issue.
    3. Best to prepare written comments or notes to make sure you get key points mentioned.
    4. Be short, clear, polite and to the point.
  2. When you call (DC and the District Office)
    1. Ask to speak with the staff assistant handling this issue — S1260 USICA and HR 4521 COMPETES Act Reconciliation.
    2. Make sure to state if you are constituent – if not identify why calling mentioning any link you have with their state, such as work in their state.
    3. End by asking that the Senator or House Member to not support inclusion of any amendments to Lacey Act without appropriate Committee hearings to evaluate the pros and cons of amending long standing provisions of the Lacey Act’s addressing injurious wildlife issues.
    4. Always be courteous, polite and do not vent.
  3. Follow up
    1. Mail or send letter via email – letters have the most impact. Ask for an email address to attach letter or ask for FAX information. If you can only send an email, then format it so it looks like a letter.
    2. Keep you written comments targeted on one or two pages at most.
    3. Always keep in mind that the person you are communicating with very unlikely to be well-versed on the issue(s) and is overloaded and has limited time – so make sure they understand importance of letting the Senator or Representative know that your issue is extremely important.

When discussing with District Office also request an opportunity to meet with the Senator or the House member next time they are in your state, preferably at the District Office –AND if your request is granted – round up 3-6 like-minded individuals to accompany you.

U.S. SENATE
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Chair, Sen. Maria Cantwell, WA
Ranking Member Sen. Roger Wicker, MS
 
Finance Committee
Chairman Sen. Ron Wyden, OR
Ranking Member Sen. Mike Crapo, ID
 
Foreign Relations Committee
Chairman, Sen. Robert Menendez, NJ
Ranking Member Sen. Jim Risch, ID
 
Health, Ed, Labor, and Pensions Cmte
Chairman Sen. Patty Murray, WA
Ranking Member Sen. Rob Portman, OH
 
Judiciary Committee
Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley, IA
 
Appropriations Committee
Vice Chair Sen. Richard Shelby, AL
 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee
Chairman, Sen. Sherrod Brown, OH
Ranking Member Sen. Pat Toomey, PA
 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Ranking Member Sen. John Barrasso, WY
 
Environment and Public Works Committee
Ranking Member Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, WV
 
Veteran’s Affairs
Chairman, Sen. Jon Tester, MT
 
Select Committee on Intelligence
Chairman, Sen. Mark Warner, VA
 
Homeland Security and Government Affairs
Chairman, Sen. Gary Peters, MI
 
Sen. John Cornyn, TX
Sen. Todd Young, IN
Sen. Jerry Moran, KS
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, WI
Sen. Martin Heinrich, NM
Sen. Mark Kelly, AZ
Sen. John Hickenlooper, CO
Sen. Raphael Warnock, GA
 
U.S. House of Representatives
Science, Space, and Tech Committee
Chair Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, TX
Rep. Lofgren, CA
Rep. Bonamici, OR
Rep. Bera, CA
Rep. Stevens, MI
Rep. Bowman, NY
Rep. Foster, IL
Rep. Lucas, OK
Rep. Weber, TX
Rep. Babin, TX
Rep. Waltz, FL
Rep. Garcia, CA
 
Energy and Commerce Committee
Chair Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Rep. Eshoo, CA
Rep. Schakowsky, IL
Rep. Matsui, CA
Rep. Tonko, NY
Rep. Blunt-Rochester, DE
Rep. Soto, FL
Rep. McMorris Rodgers, WA
Rep. Bucshon, IN
Rep. Carter, GA
Rep. Duncan, SC
Rep. Crenshaw, TX
 
Foreign Affairs Committee
Chair Rep. Gregory Meeks, NY
Rep. Deutch, FL
Rep. Bass, CA
Rep. Castro, TX
Rep. Houlahan, PA
Rep. Jacobs, CA
Rep. Kinzinger, IL
Rep. McCaul, TX
Rep. Chabot, OH
Rep. Wagner, MO
Rep. Green, TN
Rep. Kim, CA
 
Ways and Means Committee
Chair Rep. Richard Neal, MA
Rep. Blumenauer, OR
Rep. Davis, IL
Rep. DelBene, WA
Rep. Chu, CA
Rep. Kildee, MI
Rep. Gomez, CA
Rep. Brady, TX
Rep. Buchanan, FL
Rep. Smith, NE
Rep. LaHood, IL
Rep. Miller, WV
 
Agriculture Committee
Chair Rep. David Scott, GA
Rep. Pingree, ME
Rep. Thompson, PA
 
Armed Services Committee
Rep. Norcross, NJ
Rep. Escobar, TX
Rep. Moore, UT
 
Education and Labor Committee
Chair Rep. Bobby Scott, VA
Rep. Morelle, NY
Rep. Foxx, NC
 
Financial Services Committee
Chair Rep. Maxine Waters, CA
Rep. Garcia, TX
Rep. Barr, KY
 
Homeland Security Committee
Rep. Titus, NV
Rep. Demings, FL
Rep. Guest, MS
 
Judiciary Committee
Chair Rep. Jerry Nadler, NY
Rep. Scanlon, PA
Rep. Tiffany, WI
 
Natural Resources Committee
Chair Rep. Raul Grijalva, AZ
Rep. McEachin, VA
Rep. Yvette Herrell, NM
 
Oversight and Reform Committee
Chair Rep. Carolyn Maloney, NY
Rep. Khanna, CA
Rep. Comer, KY
 
Small Business Committee
Chair Rep. Nydia Valazquez, NY
Rep. Davids, KS
Rep. Fitzgerald, WI
 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
Chair Rep. Peter DeFazio, OR
Rep. Malinowski, NJ
Rep. Crawford, AR
 
Veterans Affairs Committee
Chair Rep. Mark Takano, CA
Rep. Pappas, NH
Rep. Bost, IL

If you have questions, please contact the NAA Office at 850-216-2400 or naa@thenaa.net.

Suggested Section 71102 Talking Points for House and Senate

The National Aquaculture Association suggests the following talking points for when you are speaking to House and Senate members about COMPETES Act, Section 71102, Lacey Act Amendments.
 
Talking Points:
There is no need to amend the Lacey Act. The goals of Section 71102 are currently achieved through existing authorities provided by the Act:

  • Tribes and states regulate or restrict nonnative species. Under the Lacey Act it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of federal, state or tribal law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law.
  • For 120 years the Lacey Act has provided the Secretary of Agriculture, and now the Secretary of Interior, with the power to ban importation of animals “injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States.”

Talking points for each of the three provisions within Section 71102 are:
 
Section 71102(a) Regulating Interstate Trade
We oppose the Section 71102 for empowering the Secretary of Interior (Secretary) to prohibit the interstate movement of nonnative or native animals within the continental United States. This provision does not provide any flexibility to the Secretary to allow interstate trade of species in regions of the country where these animals pose little to no risk. The proposed federal prohibition in Section 71102 is a blanket prohibition nationwide.
 
The United States is composed of a mosaic distinct ecoregions. As a practical outcome, policies and regulations to manage native and non-native animals are and can be very different for New Mexico versus Delaware as appropriate to their natural and social environments. States, Tribes, territories and possessions should be supported in their efforts to manage native and nonnative species as appropriate to their distinct biotic and abiotic differences. Please click here to access an ecoregion map created and maintained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
 
We recommend the Lacey Act be amended to improve the capability and capacity for the Secretary to assess the risk to the continental United States as a whole or any particular ecoregion to inform State and Tribal identification and listing of Injurious Wildlife by collaboratively assessing risk with national resource managers, ecologist, biologists and affected stakeholders as recommended in the 2009 National Research Council publication Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment.
 
Section 71102(a) Emergency Rule
We oppose Section 71102 for empowering the Secretary to list a species under emergency rule for a three-year period without due process involving advance notice, opportunity to comment, public hearings, etc.
 
Section 71102(d) Presumptive Prohibition on Importation
We oppose Section 71102 for empowering the Secretary to create, with public comment, an approved list of species for importation. Approved lists, commonly known as “White Lists,” are unusual for the federal government as a regulatory body or signatory or participant to international agreements and organizations predicated on prohibiting or restricting species trade for at-risk animals. A White List may be challenged by World Trade Organization members.

  • Recent analysis for a 10-year period reported animal imports consisted of 12,924 unique species names within more than 2 million shipments consisting of more than 3.2 billion live organisms. A White List will increase the numbers of individual animal identifications by 28 times the current responsibility of inadequately staffed ports of entry personnel.
  • The Secretary cannot assess which animals, amongst the estimated 204,614 nonnative species required to be assessed in Section 71102, are traded in minimal quantities to include on a White List. The Secretary does not maintain animal quantity information for ornamental fish and certain large related groups of birds (i.e., Family taxon). Nor does the Secretary possess interstate trade animal quantity data.
  • The responsibility placed upon the Secretary’s port and border crossing inspectors to rapidly and accurately distinguish all of these species for animal health and welfare reasons is impracticable. The currently required 785 Injurious Wildlife species, 628 Endangered Species Act listed species, 5,945 CITES listed species and the 204,614 species potentially required by Section 71102 is beyond the ability of experienced taxonomists. This unreasonable burden should not be forced upon inspectors and would certainly result in an extremely high turnover in staff and loss of expertise.

We anticipate with the implementation of a White List, then by Secretarial action or public litigation, those species not included on this list will be de facto treated as Injurious Wildlife, whether or not specifically published on an Injurious Wildlife list, and banned for interstate transport as well as importation as provided in Section 71102.

  • Current, publicly posted analyses by the Secretary points to an import and interstate trade prohibition of many of the aquatic animals commonly farmed in the United States as seafood, fish for recreational stocking, control of nuisance aquatic plants and aquarium and water gardening hobbies.

To access the in-depth analysis by the National Aquaculture Association that supports these talking points, please visit and share: NAA-COMPETES-Act-Section-71102-Analysis-and-Recommendations.pdf (thenaa.net).

Comment on National Organic Program Regulatory Priorities

The USDA National Organic Program recently hosted a national listening session for comments on the prioritization of their rule development.  Attached is the Federal Register notice describing the listening session and an opportunity to comment.

An aquaculture organic rule has been in process for 16 years! Attached is the NAA’s comment letter submitted this morning.  We strongly encourage you to submit a letter requesting the highest priority for the aquaculture organic rule.  Comments are due Wednesday, March 30th.

If you have questions, please do not hesitate.

Request for help with Piper Redux, aka Revision of Fish Hatchery Management book

Hi, fish culture folks!

I am writing to solicit input for the establishment of a Steering Committee to guide Piper Redux, a project funded by the Multistate Conservation Grant Program to modernize Fish Hatchery Management for current and future generations of fish culturists. 

THE BACKGROUND:  Fish Hatchery Management (1st edition – FHM-I), also known as the ‘Piper Manual’, ‘Black Book’, or simply the fish culturist’s bible, is an invaluable resource that provides practical, ‘how-to’ guidance related to fish culture and hatchery operation.  FHM-I captured what was known about the art and science of fish culture and—using look-up tables, real-world examples, and an approachable style—distilled it into actionable information for the practicing fish culturist.  A second edition—FHM-II—was published in 2002, but lost some of the practicality that made FHM-I so valued and widely used among fish culturists. 

THE PROJECT:  Piper Redux is the working title for a 3rd edition that modernizes FHM-I for new generations of fish culturists.  “Redux” means to revive, bring back, and present in a new way.  This is precisely what Piper Redux intends to do—to recapture the practical tone and everyday insight of FHM-I, infuse it with contemporary knowledge, and make this fundamental information readily accessible to all fish culturists. 

THE STEERING COMMITTEE (SC):  The fish culture community is diverse in terms of the species raised, the methods used, and the purpose for which the cultured fish are ultimately intended.  To ensure Piper Redux meets the needs of this broad constituency, a SC representing state and federal agencies, indigenous peoples, and private stakeholders will be appointed. Working under the oversight of the Editor and other members of the Project Management Team, the SC will identify needed revisions and subject matter experts and oversee the process of creating Piper Redux.  The SC will be comprised as follows: 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (2 seats)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (1 seat)

US Department of Agriculture (1 seat)

Indigenous Peoples (e.g., tribes, first nations, aboriginal peoples) (2 seats)

State Agencies (2 seats)

Private Aquaculture Industry (2 seats)

Instructors of Coldwater Fish Culture Course (1 seat)

THE ASK:  We are asking aquaculture organizations to nominate individuals for consideration as members of the SC.  Specifically, we are looking for nominees to represent the private aquaculture industry and their respective interests in fish culture in the Piper Redux effort.  Individuals with hands-on fish culture experience and knowledge of FHM-I are ideally suited to this role, but the most important criteria are that SC members appreciate the importance of Piper Redux as a source of practical ‘how-to’ information and be able to think broadly in serving the needs of the fish culture ‘constituency’ they have been appointed to represent.  We encourage you to review the Contributor Expectations document that provides some additional context for the Piper Redux project.  We recognize that the interests of the aquaculture industry are not homogeneous, and that this distribution list is almost certainly incomplete.  Please feel free to forward this request for nominations to those who may not have received it directly. 

To submit a nomination, please send the nominee’s name, affiliation, contact information, the seat for which they should be considered (i.e., private industry), and a brief biosketch or statement of their qualifications to PiperRedux@fisheries.org with “SC Nomination” in the subject line.  Sooner is better, but please submit your appointments no later than April 5. 

Nominees will be evaluated by the Piper Redux Project Management Team.  SC members will be selected based on their relevant skillsets and in the interest of creating a productive, inclusive SC that is balanced with respect to subject matter expertise, geography, and so forth.

Piper Redux has been granted 12 months of support through the Multistate Conservation Grant Program, but it is anticipated that the project may extend to an 18- or 24-month timeframe.  SC members will be expected to participate in virtual meetings held quarterly (or as needed) throughout the duration of the project.  Action items arising between these meetings will be handled by email or similar means.  Originally, we intended for the SC members to meet in person at least once, and resources are in place to help defray the associated travel costs.  Although we are hopeful that such an event can take place, plans for an in-person meeting are currently on hold due to the ongoing COVID pandemic.  SC members will not be compensated for their service, but their and their organization’s contributions will be appropriately acknowledged in the final publication.  

Thank you for your help with Piper Redux!

Jesse

Editor, Piper Redux

Senate Moving on Resolving
USICA and COMPETES Acts

The US Senate is starting to work on resolving the differences between two very different bills focused on strengthening US competitiveness in the global market. The bills are:

• The Senate passed S1260 U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) in June 2021.

• The House passed HR4521 America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence in Technology, and Economic Strength Act of 2022 (COMPETES) in early February 2022.

The COMPETES Act includes Section 71102, Lacey Act Amendments, which radically changes the way that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has been regulating importation and interstate movement of wildlife species – a regulatory activity spanning 120 years — by:

• Creating a “White List” of species that could remain in trade if and only if the species has been determined by the FWS to be in more than “minimal quantities” in trade (a standard to be determined by regulation) and not “injurious.” If an animal is not on the new “White List,” the species is by default “banned” as an invasive/injurious species and banned from importation or interstate movement.

• White lists are unusual for the federal government as a regulatory tool and signatory or participant to international agreements and organizations predicated on prohibiting or restricting species trade for at-risk animals (i.e., Endangered Species Act or Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), noxious plants (i.e., International Plant Protection Convention), pathogens that may infect US agricultural animals (World Organization for Animal Health) and imported animals and animal products capable of causing human disease (Center for Disease Control and Prevention).

• Providing the FWS with new emergency listing authority of species in trade as well as species not yet in trade – a process that denies basic due process involving advance notice, opportunity to comment, public hearings, etc. While potentially appropriate for a species “not in trade,” this approach leaves US aquaculture at-risk for emergency listing for thousands of native and non-native aquatic species produced and sold to stock farms for grow-out, as farmed seafood, bait, recreational fish, biological control of nuisance aquatic plants or for aquarium and water gardening.

• Interstate movement of animals could be severely impacted if an animal does not make it onto the “White List.” The proposed amendment and the current Lacey Act does not provide any flexibility to the FWS to allow trade of species in portions of the country where they pose little to no risk (e.g., a tropical species in Alaska does not pose a similar risk as a tropical species in South Florida).

• A “White List” is an impossible task for port inspectors or law enforcement to rapidly distinguish, for animal health and welfare reasons, the variety of animals entering the United States. The NAA estimates the FWS would have to assess over 204,000 fish, reptiles, molluscs, crustaceans, birds, amphibians and mammals.

• Section 71102 was included in the COMPETES Act without a hearing by the House Committee on Natural Resources. This Committee is responsible for Congressional oversight of the Lacey Act.

Next Steps:

1. Contact Senators within the following Subcommittees that will be resolving the differences between USICA and COMPETES to introduce yourself, what you do, and why you are opposed to COMPETES Act, Section 71102.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee

• Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife

Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee

• Subcommittee on Oceans, Fisheries, Climate Change and Manufacturing

2. Reach out an alert your U.S. Senators and Representative the COMPETES Act, Section 71102, Lacey Act amendments, must be rejected. Contact your Senator’s and Congressman’s Washington, DC office AND their District Office via phone calls and written materials (letters preferred) and inform them that you oppose Section 71102.

You can find:

• U.S. Senator’s DC and District office information at https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm.

• U.S. House Representative’s DC and District office information at

https://www.house.gov/representa…/find-your-representative.

Prior to calling

a. Plan exactly what you want to say before you call – be short and simple — tell them you are also sending written materials.

b. Never assume your Representative or Senator or their staff understands or knows anything about this specific issue.

c. Best to prepare written comments or notes to make sure you get key points mentioned.

d. Be short, clear, polite and to the point.

When you call (DC and the District Office)

a. Ask to speak with the staff assistant handling this issue — S 1260 USICA and HR 4521 COMPETES Act Reconciliation.

b. Make sure to state if you are constituent – if not identify why calling mentioning any link you have with their state, such as work in their state.

c. End by asking that the Senator or Representative to not support inclusion of any amendments to Lacey Act without appropriate Committee hearings to evaluate the pros-and-cons of amending long standing provisions of the Lacey Act’s addressing injurious wildlife issues.

d. Always be courteous, polite and do not vent.

Follow up:

a. Mail or send letter via email – letters have the most impact. Ask for an email address to attach letter or ask for FAX information. If you can only send an email, then format it so it looks like a letter.

b. Keep you written comments targeted on one or two pages at most.

c. Always keep in mind that the person you are communicating with is very unlikely to be well-versed on the issue(s) and is overloaded and has limited time – so make sure they understand importance of letting the Senator or Representative know that your issue is extremely important.

d. When discussing with District Office also request an opportunity to meet with the Senator or the Representative the next time they are in your state, preferably at the District Office –AND if your request is granted – round up 3-6 like-minded individuals to accompany you.

For written communications use the following format:

The Honorable [first and last name]

U.S. Senate

[Office number and building]

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator [last name]:

or

The Honorable [first and last name]

U.S. House of Representatives

[Office number and building]

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative [last name]:


For questions and suggestions, please contact the NAA.

Thank you,

Paul

NOAA Fisheries Releases Guide to Permitting Marine Aquaculture In The United States (2022)

Today, NOAA Fisheries has released the Guide to Permitting Marine Aquaculture in the United States. This 29 page document outlines the process for acquiring federal permits for marine aquaculture of finfish, shellfish, invertebrates, and seaweed. It is intended to help make the process more streamlined by explaining rules and regulations as well as requirements for permitting.

The document was prepared with the Subcommittee on Aquaculture (SCA) under the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). 

The Facts About the Lacey Act Amendments in the COMPETES Act of 2022 (H.R.4521)

There has been considerable conversation, and unfortunately also some incorrect interpretations, over the past days concerning amendments to the Lacey Act that are included in the COMPETES Act of 2022, and we want to set the record straight. The fact is that these amendments are still included in the legislation that will be considered by the Senate, they were not removed prior to H.R. 4521 passing in the House. And the more important fact is that these amendments pose a significant threat to everyone who owns, breeds, raises, transports, sells, or provides products and services to care for all animals other than cats and dogs. 

What we do know is that these amendments would: authorize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to prevent interstate transport of species listed as injurious; create a white list of import-approved species and any animal not listed would be considered injurious and banned by default; and enable the Secretary of the Interior to use an “emergency declaration” to prohibit importation of a species suspected to be injurious to humans, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, wildlife, or wildlife resources for up to three years with no public or Congressional input.

What this means is that importing or transporting across state lines animals would immediately become unlawful, should those species not have cleared the complex and lengthy process of being deemed “not injurious”. And at any time, a species could be banned on short notice for years via a variety of factors that cause it to be considered injurious. This would trigger a domino effect across the live animal economy, devastating not only those businesses and farms that sell those species, but also manufacturers, distributors and retailers who produce and sell products to grow or care for them.

The COMPETES Act is now in the Senate after passing the House on February 4, 2022. What we do not yet know is whether the Senate will take up the House bill for consideration or opt to reconcile it with their own bill that passed this past summer, the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) (S. 1260).

Our call to action is this: Please watch closely for communication from the organizations that have signed this letter and monitor their websites. When the time comes to act there will be a very short period during which we can effectively counter this effort.

Sincerely,

Mike Bober, CAE
President/CEO, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council

Jim Parsons
President, National Aquaculture Association

Phil Goss
President, United States Association of Reptile Keepers

Andrew Darmohraj, CAE
Interim CEO, American Pet Products Association

Make the Most of Aquaculture 2022!

From Aquaponics to Zebrafish, it’s all here at Aquaculture 2022.  Make the most of your time in San Diego! Sharpen your pencil and mark up the presentations you will not want to miss.

To “get the lay of the land,” print out the overall conference grid, posted here.  Then do a deep dive for presentation titles and speakers using the “blue pages,” posted here.

And don’t forget the Trade Show with 150 exhibitors excited about sharing the latest technology, services, and products.  Hint:  If you can’t make the conference, then visit the Aquaculture Suppliers Association business directory by clicking here.

All the best,

Paul W. Zajicek, Executive Director

Take A Kid Fishing with
Certified Arkansas Bait!

Carlton Wing, via his “Live Bait” TV series seen nationally on the World Fishing Network (WFN), has edited a highlight reel taken from a season’s worth of television shows.  The series features Certified Arkansas Baitfish, a product of Arkansas fish farmers. The certification process goes through the Arkansas Department of Agriculture ensuring all bait is disease-free and free of invasive species before shipping all over the country.

Click here to visit Arkansas baitfish farms, learn about bait farming, the certification process, and watch the young and young-at-heart catch their first fish with US farmed bait. 

SNP Leading the Charge to Fund a National Seafood Marketing Campaign

The Seafood Nutrition Partnership (SNP), a nonprofit working to inspire a healthier America through partnerships, outreach and awareness about the essential nutritional benefits of eating seafood, is working to galvanize the US seafood to secure $25 million from Congress for a National Seafood Marketing Campaign

Their campaign is designed to raise awareness of the importance of a seafood promotion program, by using the stories of America’s seafood industry. That means using the voices of fishers, farmers, harvesters, importers, processors, retail workers, health influencers, and others up-and-down the supply chain who can talk about how a national seafood marketing campaign will provide a boost to our jobs and the industry. Through meetings with Congressional offices, video testimonials, op-eds, member visits, and more, our voices will be our best asset.

Given the importance of our voice, SNP is making their first real ask of you, as valued member of the seafood industry and friends.

  1. Please officially sign up at seafoodcampaign.org and join our cause. In addition to signing up yourself and lending your voice, SNP highly encourage you to share this ask with your networks.
  2. SNP’s second ask is to sign onto their letters to Congress, asking the House and Senate to support funding for a national seafood marketing campaign. These letters touch on SNP’s ‘comeback story’ narrative in the wake of the pandemic and include details on why seafood is so culturally and economically important to each state.

SNP asks that you only sign the letter of the State where you are based by March 15. Getting these letters signed and presented to key Congressional delegations is a crucial early step in creating momentum for our funding goal.

Select Your State Letter Where You Are Based to Sign

AlabamaAlaskaArizona
ArkansasCaliforniaColorado
ConnecticutDelawareDistrict of Columbia
FloridaGeorgiaHawaii
IdahoIllinoisIndiana
IowaKansasKentucky
LouisianaMaineMaryland
MassachusettsMichiganMinnesota
MississippiMissouriMontana
NebraskaNevadaNew Hampshire
New JerseyNew MexicoNew York
North CarolinaNorth DakotaOhio
OklahomaOregonPennsylvania
Rhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth Dakota
TennesseeTexasUtah
VermontVirginiaWashington
West VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Thank you for lending your voice in support of the essential seafood industry in our great country. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or suggestions to the SNP Campaign Director Matt McAlvanah.

All the best,

Paul W. Zajicek, Executive Director

National Aquaculture Association (USA)

Office: 850-216-2400