Saving Seafood

House votes to overhaul fishery management law

July 12, 2018 — The House on Wednesday passed controversial legislation that aims to overhaul how the federal government manages the nation’s fisheries.

The measure would make significant changes to a 1976 law that’s been credited with boosting fish stocks through restrictions on overfishing, among other successes.

The GOP-backed bill would give more authority to local fishery councils to set fishing standards such as limits and seasons. It would allow for longer timelines for species recovery, or no timelines at all in some circumstances, and let fishery councils use alternative standards for measuring the health of a fishery.

The legislation, which passed in a 222-193 vote, is supported by recreational fishing groups and opposed by conservationists and major commercial fishing organizations who argue that it would threaten sustainable fishing practices that have helped revitalize many important species.

“I’m proud to say that my bill protects our commercial and recreational fisheries’ interests and allow councils to do their jobs in a more streamlined and effective manner,” Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), the bill’s sponsor, said on the House floor.

“This legislation is written for fishermen, to ensure that they are able to catch sustainable yields of fish for the communities,” he added. “It is critical for the protection of coastal communities and for allowing the stakeholders to be part of the management of fisheries.”

While Republicans applauded the success of the existing law, they also said it is time to add more “flexibility” for local officials, and argued the bill wouldn’t threaten fisheries.

Read the full story at The Hill

Eleven of 27 Amendments Proposed for Magnuson Reauthorization Bill HR 200 Could Go to House Vote

June 28, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — An anticipated House of Representatives floor vote on H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, was delayed Tuesday. More than 25 amendments were proposed for the bill reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. It went to the Rules Committee instead.

The Rules Committee held a hearing Monday night and passed a rule to provide a structured amendment process for floor consideration. The rule included 11 of the 27 amendments.

H.R. 200, sponsored by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, was the primary bill proposed to re-authorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act. It garnered both strong support and strong opposition.

Opponents blanketed Capitol Hill offices and committees with reasons why the bill should not pass. At the same time, many Democratic lawmakers proposed amendments or changes, some that could fundamentally change Young’s original bill.

Outside supporters and lawmakers were also busy lining up votes and proposing amendments to the bill.

By Monday night, 27 amendments had been submitted: 16 from Democrats and 7 from Republicans; four were bi-partisan. Five were revised amendments and four were submitted late, after the 10 a.m. Monday deadline.

California Democrat Jared Huffman led the opposition to H.R. 200. Both he and Young were the invited witnesses to the Rules Committee hearing Monday evening.

Young, one of the creators of the first Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, said he recognizes the successes this bill and subsequent reauthorizations have made over the years and that he, better than anyone, understands what else is needed to protect fish stocks while helping communities. “This legislation is dear to my heart,” Young said during the Rules Committee hearing.

Young also referred to recent lawmakers proposing changes to the bill as “Johnny-come-latelys” who don’t understand the fundamentals of the language that protects the stocks while balancing communities’ needs. The proposed bill was made with the suggestions from regional Councils and scientists, Young said.

Huffman countered that several provisions in the bill would roll back fish stock protections and the current language doesn’t prevent overfishing. He also noted that all previous bills reauthorizing the Fishery Conservation and Management Act were bipartisan; this one isn’t he said. It passed out of committee on party lines, Huffman added.

To that end, Huffman proposed four amendments, one considered a substitution for the entire bill. That particular amendment was not included in the committee’s final rule

By the end of the hearing, the Rules Committee passed a rule that included 11 of the 27 amendments — also along party lines. If that rule also passes the House, only those 11 amendments can be considered when H.R. 200 comes up for a floor vote again.

Those amendments, in order, include:

1. A revised manager’s amendment by Young and Rep. Garret Graves, R-La. It revises some sections and adds a new section regarding the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program;

2. An amendment to create an industry-based pilot trawl survey for the New England and Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council regions (Reps. Joe Courtney, D-Conn. and Lee Zeldin, R-NY);

3. A provision for a voting representative from Rhode Island on the MAFMC (Reps. Jim Langevin and David Cicilline, D-RI);

4. An amendment ensuring rebuilding plans are successful in rebuilding overfished fish stocks (Reps. Jared Huffman, D-Calif., and Alcee Hastings, D-Fla.);

5. Waiving compensatory mitigation requirements for maintenance dredging projects in certain waterways (Reps. Lois Frankel, D-Fla., and Daniel Webster, R-Fla.);

6. Requiring the Comptroller General to report to Congress on the resource rent of Limited Access Privilege Programs in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council areas (Rep. Garret Graves, R-La.);

7. A plan to establish fully operational electronic monitoring and reporting procedures for the Northeast Multispecies Fishery (Rep. William Keating, D-Ma.);

8. A requirement for NOAA to conduct a study on all fees it charges the lobster industry and report those findings to Congress (Rep. Bruce Poliquin, R-Maine);

9. Lifting the ban on striped bass fishing in the Block Island transit zone between Montauk, NY and Block Island, RI (Rep. Zeldin, R-NY);

10. Directing the Secretary of Commerce to use funds collected from penalties and fines for monitoring, in addition to traditional enforcement activities (Rep. Keating); and

11. Rewarding the elimination of lionfish from US. waters by allowing individuals to exchange lionfish for tags authorizing fishing for certain species in addition to the number of such species otherwise authorized to be taken by such individuals (Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.)

Some of the amendments that didn’t pass muster in the Rules Committee included refinancing a Pacific Coast groundfish buyback loan; two amendments related to sharks and shark finning; a prohibition on offshore drilling In essential fish habitat areas on Atlantic and Pacific coasts; additional funding for stock assessments; two amendments related to aquaculture; and more.

The earliest the committee’s rule and H.R. 200, with the 11 amendments, is likely come up on the House floor for a vote is the week of July 11. However, it may be delayed again if appropriations bills are ready in the next week and a half.

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

Huffman Applauds Allocation of $29 Million in Fisheries Disaster Relief Funds

June 21, 2018 — North Coast Congressman Jared Huffman announced today that the federal government has allocated $25.8 million in disaster assistance to those affected by the 2015-2016 closure of California’s commercial Dungeness and rock crab fisheries and another $3.9 million to the Yurok Tribe stemming from the collapse of the fall Chinook fishery in 2016.

“For far too long, the North Coast has been waiting for this federal support to relieve the economic burden from several disastrous fishing seasons,” Huffman said in a statement. “I know that the path to recovery for our fishing communities is long but I’m grateful to see some help is finally on the way.”

The federal allocation from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross comes after Congress passed a bipartisan budget deal in February that provided $200 million in fishery disaster relief.

Read the full story at the North Coast Journal

Lori Steele: Flexibility with Choke Species Key Issue for Magnuson, Seafood News Missed the Mark

January 3, 2018 — SEAFOOD NEWS — The following is a letter form Lori Steele, the Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association, responding to the Seafood News story, “MSA Reauthorization Veers From Core Principles After House Committee Vote; Would Allow Overfishing,” originally published on December 19, 2017: 

Your story on Dec. 19, 2017, “MSA Reauthorization Veers From Core Principles After House Committee Vote; Would Allow Overfishing,” contains some questionable statements, particularly the suggestion that core principles of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) are being eroded by the changes proposed in the House bill, H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.

The assertion that, “changing words like ‘to the extent possible’ to ‘to the extent [practicable]’ when rebuilding stocks” will make the MSA weaker and less precise is incorrect and disingenuous. The West Coast Seafood Processors Association (WCSPA), along with the majority of the U.S. seafood industry, has supported this change through several MSA reauthorization bills over the last few years. The inclusion of this in H.R. 200 should be viewed as a success. This change will not compromise or weaken the effectiveness of the MSA; rather, it will help to truly fulfill one of the fundamental and original goals of the MSA, emphasized in National Standard 1, the Act’s guiding principle – to prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis the optimum yield from each fishery. From its beginning, the MSA has conserved, protected, rebuilt, and sustained our nation’s marine resources. As we move forward with this reauthorization, we have an opportunity to better conserve, protect, and sustain the people, the economies, the culture, and the communities that rely upon healthy and abundant fisheries.

Case in Point: The Pacific Fishery Management Council faced a situation like this in 2013 with rebuilding plans for two rockfish stocks. At that time, allowing 30-mt increase in the ACL of a single rockfish species while achieving rebuilt status in December of that year – vs. January of that same year – would have provided for another few hundred tons of associated rockfish landings. While the dockside landed value of those fish may not have been viewed as significant, the indirect value was enormous: Having more incidental species available would have provided additional opportunity for commercial, sport, and tribal harvesters to access abundant stocks of fish that currently go unharvested due to the choke species effect. In turn, local vessels would have had another few weeks on the water, processors would have had longer seasons, consumers would have had more healthy domestic seafood – all without any risk to the status of the rebuilding rockfish species. Yet, the interpretation of the law required selection of a rebuilding time that would be as short as possible, not as short as practicable.

Simply changing the terminology from “possible” to “practicable” in the rebuilding requirements of the MSA would provide Councils much needed flexibility and the option to choose between several rebuilding scenarios to achieve specified conservation and management objectives, not just the shortest and most harmful to fishing communities. This change could benefit coastal communities without undermining any conservation and stock rebuilding objectives. The Councils would be able to exercise some reasonable judgment so they could, for example, allow a fish stock to be rebuilt in December rather than January, which were the choices available for canary rockfish in the above example.

We certainly agree that there is a need to work towards a more bipartisan bill, but just as Rep. Huffman stated, the one sticking point is “how the bill dealt with annual catch limits and the rebuilding framework under Magnuson.” This is indeed a “big deal,” and it’s exactly why the industry must stand behind the elements of H.R. 200 that provide much-needed flexibility to the Councils to better meet the standards set forth in the Act while also better meeting the socioeconomic needs of regional fisheries and fishing communities.

I hope that seafoodnews.com will support the U.S. fishing industry with this effort. Thank you for your consideration of my perspective.

Sincerely,

Lori Steele

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

 

Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill advances in US House

December 14, 2017 — By a 22-16 vote on Wednesday, the US House of Representatives’ Committee on Natural Resources advanced HR 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, legislation introduced by representative Donald Young, an Alaska Republican.

The bill was one of 15 scheduled for markup Tuesday and Wednesday by the panel.

With just days to go before Congress breaks for the holidays, the bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act so far has not received much attention in the Senate. Chances are strong that the debate over the measure will continue well into 2018.

However, that didn’t stop the ocean conservation group Oceana from responding, issuing a statement that warned HR 200 “would weaken science-based conservation of U.S. fish populations and increase the risk of overfishing by removing annual catch limits for many species”.

Oceana campaign director Lora Snyder called the vote “a slap in the face to anyone who cares about ensuring the health of our nation’s fisheries, instead jeopardizing decades of progress in ocean conservation. … [It]  would roll back decades of progress, leading us back down the path to oceans empty of fish and fishermen losing their livelihoods.”

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

 

North Pacific Council Weighs in on MSA Reauthorization Bills

November 8, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — In response to a request from Alaska Senator Dan Sullivan, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council reviewed three bills related to the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, comparing them to the current law and practices used to manage the nation’s largest fisheries.

“The North Pacific Council believes that the current MSA already provides a very successful framework for sustainable fisheries management, and major changes are not necessary at this time,” wrote NPFMC chair Dan Hull.

“Nevertheless, we also recognize the potential benefits of increased flexibility in some circumstances, and amending the Act to provide for such flexibility could provide all the regional councils additional opportunities to optimize their fishery management programs, with appropriate cautionary notes and limitations.

“In order for the Council to provide for the continued conservation of our resources, any changes to the law providing additional flexibility must continue to ensure that fundamental conservation and management tenets based on sound science are upheld, and should not create incentives or justifications to overlook them,” Hull wrote.

Allowing more flexibility in fisheries management, particularly when stocks in a rebuilding phase, is a hot-button issue with many stakeholders, not just in the North Pacific but nationwide. Proponents of adding more flexibility to any new legislation say the current law is too protective of the resource at a cost to the fishery. They urge more flexibility so that each management council can optimize yield without jeopardizing the resource.

“Regarding potential changes and increased flexibility for stock rebuilding plans, the NPFMC believes that further flexibility, would appropriately increase the ability to maximize harvest opportunities while still effecting rebuilding of fish stocks,” noted Hull, referring to HR 200, the bill introduced by Alaska Congressman Don Young.

“The arbitrary 10-year requirement may constrain the Councils management flexibility with overly restrictive management measures, with unnecessary, negative economic impacts, with little or no conservation gain,” Hull wrote.

Another controversal issue is using annual catch limits (ACLs) to manage stocks, something opponents have said needlessly restricts a fishery. Hull defended the importance of ACLs as a foundational part of fisheries management.

“Annual catch limits (ACLs) have been used in the North Pacific for over 30 years, and such limits are a cornerstone of sustainable fisheries management. We also believe there are situations where some flexibility in the establishment of ACLs is warranted, particularly in the case of data poor stocks.

“Consideration of the economic needs of fishing communities is critical in the ACL setting process, and while the current MSA allows for such consideration, we recognize the desire for a more explicit allowance for these considerations.

“We must be careful however, not to jeopardize long term fisheries sustainability, and associated community vitality and resiliency, for the sake of short term preservation of all economic activity associated with a fishery,” he wrote.

“Accounting for uncertainty, articulating policies for acceptable risk, and establishing the necessary precautionary buffers, are all explicit outcomes of the ACL process, and we believe that the [Scientific and Statistical Committees] SSCs are the appropriate gatekeepers to establish the upper limits of ‘safe’ fishing mortality. This limit, which is established as the Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) level, appears to be consistent with the provisions of H.R.200,” Hull added.

Speaking to Rep. Garrett Grave’s (R-LA) S. 1520 Modernizing Recreational Fishing Management Act of 2017, Hull noted that “alternative measures” may not meet the standard in the current MSA.

“The bill provides the councils authority to use alternative measures in recreational fisheries including extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices.

“The NPFMC notes that it is unclear if alternative fishery management measures replace the requirement for ACLs. Nevertheless, fisheries managed under alternative measures should be accountable to the conservation and management provisions of the MSA, including prevention of overfishing. ACL’s serve as the primary conservation measure for fish stocks in the North Pacific, and have effectively prevented overharvesting in our fisheries. The NPFMC also notes that traditional or cultural practices are not normally considered as recreational fisheries,” Hull wrote.

Hull also addressed the section in the bill related to rebuilding overfished stocks that would mandate a rebuilding term to be “as short as possible” but in any case not to exceed ten years.

“The NPFMC believes that the arbitrary 10-year time period can be harmful to resource users and fishing communities if it prohibits even limited fishing activity under a scientifically sound rebuilding plan. Replacing the term ‘possible’ with ‘practicable’ provides the councils with more flexibility to incorporate the needs of fishing communities in maintaining economic stability during a rebuilding period,” Hull wrote.

The NPFMC took issue with sections of Rep. Jared Huffman’s Discussion Draft (also called “Strengthening Fishing Communities Through Improving Science, Increasing Flexibility, and Modernizing Fisheries Management Act”) in certain areas, while agreeing with others.

But a section requiring an assessment of conflict of interest of council members, triggered a lengthy comment on problems the NPFMC have faced and a solution they’ve offered to NMFS.

The current MSA conflict of interest language leaves a standard for recusal of a council member up for interpretation. The recusal provision in the current law requires full economic disclosure but also that an affected individual not be allowed to vote on council decisions that would have a significant and predictable effect on a member’s financial interest.

“The MSA language left the issues of significant and predictable effect open for interpretation, so NMFS developed a regulation that set a 10% threshold for a significant effect, which is the basis for determining whether a recusal is required,” explained Hull.

“The primary problem is the way in which NOAA calculates a member’s financial interests in determining whether the 10% thresholds are exceeded. The NOAA and NMFS policy is to attribute all fishing activities of a company — even partially owned by an associated company — in calculating an individual Council member’s interests. The North Pacific Council believes that this attribution policy is inconsistent with the intent of the conflict of interest statute and regulations.

“The following example helps to explain this issue: Joe Councilman works for Fishing Company A, which owns 50% of Fishing Company B, which in turn owns 3% of Fishing Company C. NOAA uses ALL harvesting and processing activity by ALL three of these companies in determining whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the 10% thresholds,” Hull explained.

“The North Pacific Council believes that this is an unfair and illogical interpretation of the recusal regulations, and results in unintended recusals of Council members. The North Pacific Council believes that NOAA should use only the amount of harvesting or processing activity equivalent to the Council member’s percentage of ownership,” Hull continued.

“Using this proportional share approach, NOAA GC would use 100% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company A, 50% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company B, and 1.5% of the harvesting and processing activity of Fishing Company C to determine whether Joe Councilman exceeds any of the thresholds.

“At our request, NOAA and NMFS revisited the attribution policy, but to date, have declined to make changes,” Hull wrote.

Finally, on behalf of the NPFMC, Hull asked that any new legislation:

• Avoids across the board mandates which could negatively affect one region in order to address a problem in another region.

• Allows flexibility in achieving conservation objectives, but be specific enough to avoid lengthy, complex implementing regulations or ‘guidelines’.

• Is in the form of intended outcomes, rather than prescriptive management or scientific parameters.

• Avoids unrealistic/expensive analytical mandates relative to implementing fishery closures or other management actions.

• Avoids constraints that limit the flexibility of Councils and NMFS to respond to changing climates and shifting ecosystems.

• Avoids unfunded mandates.

• Prioritizes the reservation and enhancement of stock assessments and surveys among the highest when considering any changes to the Act.

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

 

Cantwell, Huffman, Colleagues to Trump Admin: “Listen to Our Fishermen” and Save Bristol Bay from the Pebble Mine

White House plan to reverse clean water rules paves the way for construction of Pebble Mine, a catastrophic move for Bristol Bay watershed, 60 million salmon, and more than 20,000 jobs

Decision flies in the face of science and basic reason, made with no public input from fishermen or business groups

October 11, 2017 — WASHINGTON — The following was released by the office of Senator Maria Cantwell:

Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Rep. Jared Huffman (CA-02), and 40 of their colleagues in the House and Senate sent a forceful letter to President Trump urging caution and a careful consideration of the facts before his administration removes the science-based environmental rules that protect Alaska’s Bristol Bay and the fishermen who depend on it.

Removing the existing clean water protections allows for the construction of Pebble Mine, an open-pit copper and gold mine that could have a depth equivalent to as much as two and a half Trump Towers. The mine would be an unmitigated catastrophe for the Bristol Bay watershed and the 40-60 million salmon who return to it every year. A three-year Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study in 2014 found that the proposed mine would, even in the course of normal, safe mine operations, destroy 24 to 94 miles of salmon-producing waterways and pristine environment.

The University of Alaska Institute of Social and Economic Research found that the Bristol Bay fishery supports more than 20,000 jobs and adds $674 million of economic activity to the states of Washington, Oregon, and California. The region also supports a prolific outdoor recreation industry; anglers from around the world take roughly 37,000 fishing trips annually to Bristol Bay, generating $60 million in economic activity.

“The EPA’s plan to reverse clean water safeguards is egregious and inconsistent with science, and frankly, inconsistent with basic logic,” wrote the members of Congress. “The Pebble Mine directly threatens our maritime economy and thousands of American jobs that rely on this world class fishery. We ask you to listen to America’s fishermen and businesses and reverse EPA’s decision to undo strong protections and clean water safeguards in Bristol Bay.”

Cantwell, Huffman, and their colleagues note the process that established the current clean water safeguards were the result of rigorous scientific analysis and peer review, over one million public comments, and eight public hearings.

In stark contrast, the Trump Administration’s recent decision to roll back the protections has no scientific basis and has been carefully removed from the public eye. There has been no input from stakeholders such as the fishing, tourism, and outdoor industries. Only two public hearings have been noticed, neither of which are scheduled for Washington, Oregon or California where many Bristol Bay commercial and sports fishermen reside.

In their letter, the members of Congress also called for public hearings, a 90-day extension of the public comment period, and other transparency measures to ensure the public is allowed to make their voices heard. Restrictions on mining have the support of 90% of local Bristol Bay residents.

Senator Cantwell successfully led the fight to save Bristol Bay when Pebble Mine was first proposed. In 2011, she urged the EPA to use authority under the Clean Water Act to block large scale development in Bristol Bay. She continued the drumbeat through 2014, when she rallied supporters at Fisherman’s Terminal in Seattle to urge President Obama and the EPA to continue to prevent mining in the area.

In addition to Sen. Cantwell and Rep. Huffman, 40 additional member of Congress signed the letter including: Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Edward Markey (D-MA) and Representatives Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Earl Blumenauer (OR-03), Barbara Lee (CA-13), Grace Napolitano (CA-32), Jackie Speier (CA-14), Anna Eshoo (CA-18), William Keating (MA-09), Adam Smith (WA-09), Denny Heck (WA-10), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-Del.), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Alan Lowenthal (CA-47), Dwight Evans (PA-02), Peter DeFazio (OR-04), Zoe Lofgren (CA-19), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Emanual Cleaver, II (MO-05), Rick Larsen (WA-02), Derek Kilmer (WA-06), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11), Judy Chu (CA-27), Ro Khanna (CA-17), Jerry McNerney (CA-9), John Garamendi (CA-3), Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Kurt Schrader (OR-05), Jimmy Panetta (CA-20), Donald S. Beyer, Jr. (VA-08), Norma Torres (CA-35), Doris Matsui (CA-06), Ted Lieu (CA-33), Linda Sánchez (CA-38), Julia Brownley (CA-26), and Salud Carbajal (CA-24).

A copy of the letter can be found here.

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.

Fishing rule reforms debated on Capitol Hill

September 27, 2017 — How large of a role should the federal government have in regulating fishing fleets?

Republicans and Democrats on the House Committee on Natural Resources discussed this question Tuesday in Washington, D.C., as part of renewed efforts to reauthorize and potentially amend a 40-year-old law that works to prevent overfishing and provide aid to fishing fleets.

Committee member and California 2nd District 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.

Read the full story at the Eureka Times-Standard