Saving Seafood

Republicans eye top spot on Natural Resources panel

January 14, 2020 — Several House Republicans are eyeing a run for the top GOP seat on the Natural Resources Committee, which will be vacant after the retirement at the end of this Congress of Rep. Rob Bishop (Utah).

More than four members on the panel have voiced interest in taking over the powerful position. The possible contenders include Reps. Bruce Westerman (Ark.), Doug Lamborn (Colo.), Tom McClintock (Calif.) and Paul Gosar (Ariz.).

The role comes with a broad portfolio to oversee energy and mineral resources, water, oceans and wildlife, as well as Puerto Rico’s debt restructuring, making it an attractive position for members representing states with rich natural resources.

One member who is already gearing up for the contest is Westerman, whose office recently sent out a note to GOP media contacts asking for them to reach out if they have previously “helped a current or former boss with a committee chairmanship run” before, according to a screenshot obtained by The Hill.

When asked whether he intends to throw his name in the ring, Westerman told The Hill: “I am looking at it.”

Read the full story at The Hill

U.S. Shark Fin Ban “Will Not Work,” Would Likely Hurt Shark Conservation Efforts, Expert Tells Rep. Doug Lamborn

May 2, 2018 — WASHINGTON — In response to a question from Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO), shark expert Dr. Robert Hueter wrote that a U.S. ban on the trade of shark fins would not work and would potentially lead to more unsustainable or finned shark fins in the global market.

Dr. Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, previously testified before the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans on April 17 in favor of a sustainable shark trade bill and against a fin ban. His most recent comments came in response to a follow-up question from Rep. Lamborn about the message a fin ban would send to other nations.

“U.S. fishers do not fin their sharks,” Dr. Hueter wrote. “So the consequences of this action will be to punish the fishers doing it right—U.S. shark fisheries—and reward the foreign fisheries doing it wrong. That is a terrible message to send the world.”

John Polston, a fisherman and representative of the Sustainable Shark Alliance, also testified in April in support of the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act and in opposition to the Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act. The Sustainable Shark Alliance is a member of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities.

The full text of Rep. Lamborn’s question and Dr. Hueter’s response is reproduced below:

Question from Rep. Doug Lamborn for Dr. Robert Hueter, Director of the Center for Shark Research, Mote Marine Laboratory

  • Supporters of H.R. 1456 have argued that such a ban on shark fin sales would send a message to other countries. What message do you think this ban would send?

RESPONSE FROM DR. HUETER [emphasis added by Saving Seafood]:

The supporters of H.R. 1456 are hoping the message the U.S. will send to other nations with a domestic fin ban is that shark fins should no longer be tolerated as a consumable product.  This U.S. leadership, they hope, would end the global fin market, eliminate all shark finning, and recover shark populations worldwide.  Analogies are made to past U.S. leadership in the elephant ivory trade and in commercial whaling.  But as explained in Dr. David Shiffman’s and my 2017 peer-reviewed paper in the journal Marine Policy, this approach is flawed and will not work, for several reasons.  Unlike in the case of elephant ivory where the U.S. was the world’s major consumer, we are only a 1% player in the world shark fin market, and thus our withdrawal from that market will not have the same type of direct effect on world trade of fins as happened with the ivory trade.  In fact, it’s reasonable to conclude that the small market share of shark fins that U.S. fishers currently supply will be taken up by nations fishing sharks unsustainably, probably even finning the sharks.  Recall that U.S. fishers do not fin their sharks—that is, they do not remove the fins and discard the rest of the animals at sea, because American fishers are required to land all their sharks with the fins still “naturally attached” (with the exception of the northeast dogfish fishery, which is allowed to remove the fins at sea to begin processing the meat and fins on the fishing boat).  So the consequences of this action will be to punish the fishers doing it right—U.S. shark fisheries—and reward the foreign fisheries doing it wrong.  That is a terrible message to send the world.

Furthermore, our position at the international negotiating table where shark conservation issues are discussed will be compromised if we withdraw from the fin market.  The message we will be carrying to that forum is, no matter what other nations do to create sustainability in their shark fisheries, it will never be enough to allow them to harvest the fins, in our view.  This loss of leverage will backfire for U.S. attempts to advance shark conservation around the world.  In addition, consider today’s realities with elephants and whales: elephants are still being poached as the ivory trade has been driven underground, meaning we can no longer track this commodity through world trade routes, and elephants are still declining.  And whales are still being hunted commercially by those nations who do not share our preservationist beliefs about marine mammals.  Along these lines, a domestic fin ban also sends a message to Asian cultures that even if they are using the entire shark, even if the sharks are not being finned and the level of fishing for them is sustainable, their use of fins to make soup is unethical.  This creates a clash of cultural values, both internationally and domestically, and our moral position will be difficult to defend.

Finally, by focusing our legislative efforts solely on the fin trade in the U.S., we send a message to American citizens that we are solving the worldwide problem in shark depletion by banning the fins here. Conservation groups then declare victory to their supporters, Congress moves on to other issues, and the U.S. public thinks the problem has been solved.  Nothing could be further from the truth, as sharks will continue to be caught by other nations for their meat and fins and suffer unsustainable levels of bycatch mortality in foreign fisheries.  This is where H.R. 5248 represents an evolution of thinking in how to address the issue, by not simply focusing on the fins and also including the rays, which are in as serious trouble as the sharks worldwide.

Therefore, in my view the message we will be sending the world if we implement a nationwide, domestic ban of the shark fin trade is this:  The U.S. does not believe in sustainable fishing for sharks, we do not subscribe to the full use doctrine for marine resources as laid out by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, we condemn Asian cultures for their consumption of shark fins even from sustainable shark fisheries, and we are okay with damaging our own domestic fisheries to construct a purely symbolic but misguided and ineffective message for shark conservation.   

 

Congressman Jones: Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act Levels the Playing Field for Domestic Producers

April 17, 2018 — The following statement was released by Congressman Walter B. Jones:

I would like to thank Chairman Lamborn and Chairman Bishop for holding this hearing today. I am pleased to join my friend, Congressman Dan Webster, in cosponsoring H.R. 5248 – the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act. It is very important that America’s fishermen have a level playing field with foreign producers. The bill would hold other nations to the same conservation and management standards that America has adopted in our shark fisheries.

Under H.R. 5248, any nation seeking to export shark products to America must receive certification from the Secretary of Commerce that it has an effective ban on the practice of “shark finning,” and that it has a similar conservation and management program for sharks, skates, and rays. The bill also increases traceability of imported shark products.

If foreign countries are failing to manage their shark populations appropriately, they should change their ways. They shouldn’t be allowed to dump unsustainably harvested shark product on our market, and our legal, sustainable American harvesters should not be penalized for the shortcomings of foreign fishermen.

America has been a global leader in protecting shark species while allowing a sustainable harvest.  In fact, U.S. federal law mandates that the domestic shark fishery be managed sustainably.

According to renowned shark scientist, Dr. Robert E. Heuter of Florida’s Mote Marine Lab, America has “one of the best systems in the world for shark fisheries management and conservation.”  The proof can be seen in NOAA Fisheries own data.  NOAA Fisheries’ 2015 coastal shark survey captured and tagged “more than 2,800 sharks, the most in the survey’s 29-year history.”  The leader of the survey stated that NOAA Fisheries has “seen an increase in the number of sharks in every survey since 2001,” and the agency called the survey results “very good news for shark populations.”

R. 5248 is supported by the North Carolina Fisheries Association, Southeastern Fisheries Association, Blue Water Fishermen’s Association, Sustainable Shark Alliance, Garden State Seafood Association, and the Louisiana Shrimpers Association. This bill is a reasonable, balanced approach to leveling the playing field for domestic producers, while trying to encourage other nations to raise their shark management practices to appropriate levels.

Other legislative options before the subcommittee, including banning the trade of legally, sustainably harvested American shark products, represent an unnecessary, short-sighted overreach that should be rejected.

 

US lawmaker rekindles talk of moving NOAA endangered species power to Interior

April 13, 2018 — WASHINGTON — Legislation that would have the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) hand its Endangered Species Act (ESA) authority over salmon and other fish to the Department of Interior (DOI) got a little dust kicked up around it on Thursday.

US representative Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican, suggested lawmakers take a fresh look at the Federally Integrated Species Health Act (FISH Act), HR 3916, at the beginning of a nearly two-hour hearing of the Natural Resources Committee’s panel on water, power and oceans that he chairs. The hearing was intended to discuss the fiscal 2019 budgets for NOAA and other agencies.

“Whether it comes to offshore fishing or management of fish species listed under the Endangered Species Act, NOAA has been a source of frustration for many of our constituents over the years,” Lamborn said. “… Both [Interior’s] Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA have direct jurisdiction over the ESA and have struggled to harmonize their views on protected species management. It’s time for a holistic approach on managing these species.”

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

House Natural Resources Committee Passes Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization

December 13, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Today, the House Committee on Natural Resources passed H.R. 200, the “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.” Introduced by Chairman Emeritus Don Young (R-AK), the bill reauthorizes and modernizes the Magnuson-Stevens Act by implementing regional flexibility, tailored management practices and improved data collection for America’s federal fisheries.

“It has been 11 years since the Magnuson-Stevens Act was reauthorized and when we first passed this law, we saw tremendous success for the fisheries nationwide. Alaska is considered the gold standard of fisheries management and this industry is crucial to our local economy. I am proud to see my bill pass out of Committee today. This legislation will improve the management process by allowing regional fisheries to develop plans that match the needs of their area. Ultimately, this bill updates the Magnuson-Stevens Act to ensure a proper balance between the biological needs of fish stocks and the economic needs of fishermen and coastal communities,” Rep. Young stated. 

“America’s fisheries are governed by an outdated regulatory scheme and inflexible decrees imposed by distant bureaucrats. Fishermen and biologists on the ground should be partners in the formation of management plans, not powerless onlookers,” Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) said. “This bill provides flexibility so we can better meet local needs, expand economic activity and conserve ecosystems. Rep. Young has delivered a win for local management and I look forward to moving this bill through the chambers in the coming year.” 

Click here to learn more about the bill.

The following was released by the Democrats of the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Ranking Member Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.) today highlighted the broad-based economic and environmental opposition to H.R. 200, today’s highly partisan rewrite of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which governs fisheries and fishing quotas across U.S. waters. The GOP bill is opposed by the Seafood Harvesters of America and a wide swathe of restaurants and individual commercial fisherman and by dozens of environmental groups, including the Alaska Wilderness League, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Audubon Society, Pew Charitable Trusts, the Ocean Conservancy and the Wilderness Society.

Opponents of the Republican bill have written a barrage of letters to Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) and other Republican leaders, including Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), who chairs the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans, urging them to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act and abandon today’s bill, which was written by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) on highly partisan lines. The letters are available at http://bit.ly/2nYuEin.

“Republicans’ plan is to deregulate our oceans and fish everywhere until there’s nothing left, and we’re not going to let that happen,” Grijalva said today. “Ocean management is about sustainable use and enjoyment, not just making environmentalists unhappy. Like most of the bills advanced by the leadership of this Committee, this bill is extreme and has no future in the Senate. Until my counterparts decide to take the issues in our jurisdiction more seriously, we’re going to keep wasting time on unpopular bills that have no chance of becoming law.”

Grijalva also underscored the deep opposition to H.R. 3588, Rep. Garret Graves’ (R-La.) bill deregulating red snapper fishing in the Gulf of Mexico. Many letter-writers who oppose H.R. 200 also oppose Graves’ effort, which an alliance of chefs and restaurateurs noted in a Nov. 7 letter “could inadvertently result in significant overfishing and deprive our customers of one of their favorite fish.”

 

House Natural Resources Committee Announces Markup on 16 Bills

December 8, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

On Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 5:00 PM in 1324 Longworth House Office Building, the Full Committee will hold a markup on the following bills:

  • H.R. 200 (Rep. Don Young), To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide flexibility for fishery managers and stability for fishermen, and for other purposes.  “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act”
  • H.R. 1157 (Rep. William R. Keating), To clarify the United States interest in certain submerged lands in the area of the Monomoy National Wildlife Refuge, and for other purposes
  • H.R. 1349 (Rep. Tom McClintock), To amend the Wilderness Act to ensure that the use of bicycles, wheelchairs, strollers, and game carts is not prohibited in Wilderness Areas, and for other purposes
  • H.R. 1350 (Rep. Richard M. Nolan), To modify the boundary of Voyageurs National Park in the State of Minnesota, and for other purposes;
  • H.R. 1675 (Rep. Suzan K. DelBene), To establish a national program to identify and reduce losses from landslides hazards, to establish a national 3D Elevation Program, and for other purpose.  “National Landslide Preparedness Act”
  • H.R. 2888 (Rep. Jason Smith), To establish the Ste. Genevieve National Historic Site in the State of Missouri, and for other purposes.  “Ste. Genevieve National Historical Park Establishment Act”
  • H.R. 3400 (Rep. Rob Bishop), To promote innovative approaches to outdoor recreation on Federal land and to open up opportunities for collaboration with non-Federal partners, and for other purposes.  “Recreation Not Red-Tape Act”
  • H.R. 3588 (Rep. Garret Graves), To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide for management of red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, and for other purposes.  “RED SNAPPER Act”
  • H.R. 4033 (Rep. Doug Lamborn), To reauthorize the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992.  “National Geologic Mapping Act Reauthorization Act”;
  • H.R. 4264 (Rep. Rob Bishop), To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain Bureau of Land Management land in Cache County, Utah, to the City of Hyde Park for public purposes.  “Hyde Park Land Conveyance Act”
  • H.R. 4266 (Rep. Bruce Poliquin), To clarify the boundary of Acadia National Park, and for other purposes.  “Acadia National Park Boundary Clarification Act”
  • H.R. 4465 (Rep. John R. Curtis), To maintain annual base funding for the Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs through fiscal year 2023, to require a report on the implementation of those programs, and for other purposes.  “Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017”
  • H.R. 4475 (Rep. Don Young), To provide for the establishment of the National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System.  “National Volcano Early Warning and Monitoring System Act”
  • H.R. 4568 (Rep. Raul R. Labrador), To amend the Geothermal Steam Act of 1970 to promote timely exploration for geothermal resources under geothermal leases, and for other purposes.  “Enhancing Geothermal Production on Federal Lands Act”
  • S. 825 (Sen. Lisa Murkowski), To provide for the conveyance of certain property to the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium located in Sitka, Alaska, and for other purposes.  “Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium Land Transfer Act of 2017”
  • S. 1285 (Sen. Jeff Merkley), To allow the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians, the Klamath Tribes, and the Burns Paiute Tribes to lease or transfer certain lands.  “Oregon Tribal Economic Development Act”
WHAT: Full Committee Markup on 16 bills
WHEN: Tuesday, December 12
5:00 PM
WHERE: 1324 Longworth House Office Building

On Tuesday December 12, 2017, the Committee will convene at 5:00 P.M. in 1324 Longworth House Office Building for opening statements only. The Committee will reconvene on Wednesday, December 13, 2017 at 10:00 A.M. until 12:00 P.M. in the 1324 Longworth House Office Building.

Visit the Committee Calendar for additional information once it is made available. The meeting is open to the public and a video feed will stream live at House Committee on Natural Resources.

Subcommittee Chairmen Respond to Antiquities Act Reform Legislation

October 10, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Tomorrow, the Committee will markup H.R. 3990, the “National Monument Creation and Protection Act” or “CAP Act.” Introduced by Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT), the bill protects archeological resources while ensuring public transparency and accountability in the executive’s use of the Antiquities Act.

“The Constitution gives to Congress alone the jurisdiction over public lands. While the executive should be able to move swiftly to protect small archeological sites from imminent threat of looting or desecration, the decision over whether to set aside vast portions of land in perpetuity should only be made after the lengthy debate, public input and accountability that are the unique attributes of the legislative branch,” Subcommittee on Federal Lands Chairman Tom McClintock (R-CA) said. 

“Our government works best when it works with the people it serves to accomplish objectives for the common good. For too long, our leaders have not adhered to these principles. The ‘National Monument Creation and Protection Act’ seeks to protect the public’s interests from executive overreach through collaboration with local stakeholders, comprehensive review of monument designations and congressional direction on any future presidential monument reductions. I thank Chairman Bishop for his leadership on this issue and look forward to passage of this important legislation,” Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) stated.

“When Teddy Roosevelt created the Antiquities Act, his intent was to set aside unique areas of land, not to cutoff millions of acres for the federal government to control that produces no revenue or benefit – all while hurting local governments. Through the years, the abuse of this power has snowballed to a point where President Obama designated more acreage during his Presidency than all other Presidents combined. This process unfairly eliminates local input altogether and severely limits the public’s access to hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities as well as reasonable resource development on their public lands. It is important that the decision to designate or expand national monuments is returned to Congress, where the local citizens and communities can have a say,” Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs Chairman Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) said.

“This legislation secures a future for locally supported national monuments, checked executive authority, and empowered local governments. The original intent of the Act is upheld and strengthened with measures that bring us into the twenty-first century. I firmly believe this will provide the accountability we need when it comes to protecting our lands,”Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) stated.

“Regardless of political affiliation, presidents on either side of the aisle shouldn’t be able to create massive new national monuments by executive fiat without local public input. It is, after all, the people living near these national monuments that are most affected by their creation. Our nation’s public resources are best managed when the people that use those lands are intimately involved in the process. Chairman Bishop’s ‘National Monument Creation and Protection Act’ protects private property rights and empowers local stakeholders while also including important clarifying definitions that should have been included in the original law. I am grateful for his strong leadership on this issue and am proud to be a cosponsor,” Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Chairman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) said.

Politicians call for more flexibility in Magnuson-Stevens Act

September 29, 2017 — During testimony at a Congressional hearing Tuesday, officials and lawmakers alike called for the next version of the Magnuson-Stevens Act to include greater flexibility to oversee the country’s regional fisheries.

The House Committee on Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans discussed three bills and a draft of another all focused on reauthorizing or amending the law that oversees the country’s fishery management programs in federal waters.

“It is my hope that we can use these bills in front of us today to produce a strong, bipartisan Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization that supports jobs and our fishermen by strengthening the science, data and process used in federal fisheries management,” said U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado), the subcommittee chairman.

U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman (D-California) welcomed the call for a bipartisan approach. In noting that it’s been more than a decade since the last reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, he said that partisan agendas have delayed important updates that would address flexibility and accountability issues.

“This process has focused on weakening fundamental environmental protections in place of making meaningful improvements to our important fisheries management framework,” said Huffman, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee.

Read the full story at Seafood Source

Rep Young’s Magnuson Bill to Move Ahead with Input from Calif. Rep Huffman; Aim is No Poison Pills

September 28, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Alaska’s Representative Don Young closed Tuesday’s hearing on four fisheries bills, by remarking to the panel, “We are going to use the vehicle of [HR] 200. I’m going to work with Mr. Huffman and see if we can’t come to some conclusion.

“The basic skeleton of the Magnuson Act … we’re going to keep the skeleton whole. Get those comments and suggestions to us, because we’re going to try to get something moving by October or November this year,” Young said.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) introduced a discussion draft called “Strengthening Fishing Communities through Improving Science, Increasing Flexibility, and Modernizing Fisheries Management Act.” The discussion paper includes sections on Council transparency, flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks, Saltonstall-Kennedy Act reform, red snapper cooperative research and others.

Rep. Jared Huffman said after the hearing Tuesday that Democrats and Republicans have many agreements when it comes to fishery regulations and management.

However, he said previous attempts in recent years to amend and reauthorize the law have stalled because of “poison pill” riders that would exempt fisheries from conservation policies such as the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection Act.

“Instead of making meaningful improvements to our most important fisheries statute, this process has focused on weakening fundamental environmental protections in place of making meaningful improvements to our important fisheries management framework,” Huffman (D-San Rafael) said in his opening statement at the committee hearing. “This partisan process does a disservice to hardworking fishermen across the country including those in my district.”

Members from both sides of the aisle were in agreement that the law — known as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 — has worked to prevent overfishing and replenish overfished stocks as was intended upon its passage.

Two other bills were discussed and commented on at the hearing by invited witnesses. HR 3588  and HR 2023 are focused on modernizing recreational fisheries and managing red snapper in regional ways, respectively.

The hearing was before the Water, Power, and Industry Subcommittee of the larger House Committee on Natural Resources.

Witnesses included Chris Oliver, Director of NOAA Fisheries; Mayor Johnathan Mitchell of New Bedford; Mike Merrifield, Southeastern Fisheries Association; Susan Boggs, co-owner of a charter operation out of Alabama, and others.

Chairman Doug Lamborn opened the hearing saying “Many of you here today probably consider this to be a fishery hearing, but I assure you it is much more than that. …whether we are talking about a commercial, recreational, or charter boat operation, the working waterfront that provides shore side support, a boat manufacturer or your local mom and pop bait and tackle shop, today’s hearing is about supporting American small business. It’s my hope today that we will create a strong, bi-partisan MSA that supports jobs and our fishermen, and that supports the science data and process used in federal fisheries management.”

Jonathan Mitchell, Mayor of New Bedford, pushed back on the concept of “flexibility.”

“The term “flexibility” should not be understood as a euphemism for deregulation,” Mitchell said. “The councils are in the business of finely calibrating decisions in light of relevant environmental and economic data, and their own experience and expertise.

“In the discharge of their duties, they tend not to win friends either in the fishing industry or in the conservation community, and given the goals of Magnuson-Stevens, that’s probably the way it should be,” Mitchell said.

Susan Boggs, co-owner in a charter boating operation in Alabama, supported the current MSA.

“I am here today to tell you that MSA is working. This law was written to bring fisheries back from collapse, to ensure long-term sustainability for future generations, and to provide a conduit for stakeholders to be a part of the management process.

“There are several species of fish that are critical to the charter/for-hire sector in the Gulf of Mexico, but perhaps none more than red snapper. Since 2007, when annual catch limits became a requirement, the recreational sector’s quota for red snapper has tripled. MSA has worked for us.

“A suggestion that I would offer to this committee that would have a meaningful impact on the management of this fishery would be a Federal Red Snapper angler license,” she said.

“No one can tell you how many anglers target Red Snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. This license does not have to be cost prohibitive. Even a $10 fee would provide better data on the number of anglers targeting this species and could generate millions of dollars that could be used for cost recovery, stock assessments and better landings data which should include more real-time reporting using current technology from private anglers.”

Chris Oliver listed challenges to NOAA, nationwide and how MSA can tackle them.  “We face formidable challenges managing recovering stocks to benefit both commercial and recreational user groups with fundamentally different goals and objectives, and who are experiencing increased fish interactions due to the strong management measures that have improved historically overfished populations.

“Together with our partners, it is essential that we continue to explore innovative, science-based management approaches and regional management tools. We must remain dedicated to exploring ways to maximize economic opportunities from wild-caught fisheries for commercial and recreational fishermen, processors, and communities. We are committed to working with Congress on the bills put forth by this subcommittee, to ensure that annual catch limits, accountability measures, stock rebuilding, and other aspects of our management construct are working, while protecting the overall, long-term conservation and sustainability of the nation’s fishery resources.”

This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.

Members Review Proposals to Modernize Federal Fisheries Management

September 26, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the House Committee on Natural Resources:

Today, the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans held a legislative hearing on a series of bills aimed at improving federal fisheries management for commercial and recreational fisherman.

“Many of you here today probably consider this to be a fishery hearing, but I assure you it is much more than that. Whether we are talking about a commercial, recreational, or charter boat operation, the working waterfront that provides shore-side support, a boat manufacturer, or your local mom and pop bait and tackle shop, today’s hearing is about supporting American small businesses,” Subcommittee Chairman Doug Lamborn (R-CO) said. 

H.R. 200, introduced by Chairman Emeritus Don Young (R-AK), reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Since the last reauthorization, fishermen’s access has been eroded by federal agencies that ignore public input and rely upon outdated science in management decisions. Existing implementation of the law has resulted in negative impacts to local economies and a greater regulatory burden on recreational and commercial fishermen.

“My bill works to strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Act by giving our nation’s regional fisheries councils the added flexibility they need,” Young said. “As a father of the original 1976 legislation, my goal is to reauthorize the MSA with a focus on maintaining the species; ensuring they’re healthy, can retain themselves and can continue to support coastal communities that rely on these fisheries.”

The Committee also discussed two bills from Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA), H.R. 2023, the “Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017,” and H.R. 3588, the “RED SNAPPER Act,” which looked more closely at systemic issues facing recreational fishers and more specifically red snapper management.

“It is my hope that we can use these bills in front of us today to produce a strong, bipartisan Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization that supports jobs and our fishermen by strengthening the science, data, and process used in federal fisheries management,” Lamborn added.

Chris Oliver, Assistant Administrator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), conveyed the administration’s support for the added flexibility for innovative, regional management plans.

“NOAA Fisheries stands ready to work with the Congress to craft a reauthorization bill that addresses current fishery management challenges and ensures the Nation’s fisheries are able to meet the needs of both current and future generations,” Oliver stated.

Click here for full witness testimony.