Good afternoon. I'm Sam Anderson, director of legislative and government affairs at Mass Audubon, and I'm here to express our organization's strong support for House Bill 8 98, which would end the practice of harvesting horseshoe crabs for bait in Massachusetts.

Why it matters: conservationists said the Atlantic horseshoe crab underpins coastal food webs and supports long-distance migratory shorebirds such as the red knot. Dr. Nathan Senner, a shorebird biologist, told the committee that shorebirds undertake flights of thousands of miles and “the food resources in Massachusetts are critical for the success of not only a shorebird's next flight, but also their remaining migration and their breeding season.” He said horseshoe-crab eggs are “soft, easy to digest, and found in high densities” and therefore uniquely effective at refueling birds after long flights.

Mass Audubon and other conservation witnesses described biological and population concerns. Mass Audubon noted state survey data showing low local populations and pointed to successful local protections — for example, Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, where researchers have observed higher crab and shorebird numbers following harvest restrictions.

Supporters also pointed to biomedical alternatives. Multiple witnesses noted that non-animal test reagents and synthetic alternatives exist for many tests that historically used horseshoe-crab blood (limulus amoebocyte lysate, LAL). Some proponents said the biomedical industry is increasingly able to use animal-free methods.

Opposition and economic concerns: fishermen, dealers and a Massachusetts biomedical manufacturer said a bait ban would be economically damaging. Brett Hoffmeister, manager of sustainability initiatives at Associates at Cape Cod (an LAL manufacturer), told the committee his company is 1 of only a few global suppliers of LAL and that “eliminating the source of raw material would put the public health at risk.” Local conch and whelk fishers said horseshoe crabs are essential bait and that a statewide bait ban would effectively end their fishery and related shore-side businesses.

A panel of commercial fishermen described the bait use as integral to their operations and urged the committee to rely on the state fishery's science. Brett Hoffmeister and commercial harvesters noted the Division of Marine Fisheries' monitoring results showing increases in some index surveys; they argued those data do not support an immediate coastwide ban and urged relying on fisheries managers to balance uses.

What the bill would do: H.898 would prohibit the taking of horseshoe crabs for bait while preserving narrow scientific and educational exceptions. Supporters said the change would conserve a slow‑reproducing species (maturity can take about a decade) and would boost shorebird recovery and coastal ecosystem health. They also pointed to neighboring actions: New Jersey and Connecticut have adopted stronger protections and New York recently passed restrictions.

Committee context and next steps: testimony was mixed. Conservation organizations, shorebird biologists and coastal-rescue advocates urged a favorable report; biomedical and fishing representatives urged caution and further study to avoid unintended public-health and economic impacts. The committee accepted written follow-up from witnesses and asked that the division of marine fisheries and biomedical manufacturers provide the latest monitoring and production-availability data.

Ending note: proponents characterized H.898 as a practical step to protect an ecologically and medically important species; opponents urged the legislature to work with fisheries managers and biomedical companies to design any transition in ways that protect livelihoods and medical supply chains.