August 22, 2017 — SEAFOOD NEWS — Two companion bills in the House and Senate, both currently in committee, would alter the Magnuson-Stevens Act in how it addresses recreational and commercial fisheries management.
Both bills call for a review of the red snapper fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico and alter the section in the MSA dealing with Gulf red snapper. Then each bill changes sections of the law that apply to all U.S. fisheries on fundamental management principals in MSA, like how regional councils will allocate access to marine resources, adopt annual catch limits requirements, and put data-poor fisheries under a less strict management than more strict.
Both versions of The Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017 (S.1520 and H.2023) are an attempt to codify what is becoming a standard argument for the recreational sector: “We are different from commercial fishermen, so the fish we target should be managed differently.”
The strength of the MSA, adopted in 1976 and amended at regular intervals to address changing aspects of the nation’s fisheries, is that within its founding principles are guidelines for managing recreational as well as commercial use.
An example of this is the halibut charter management program in Alaska. Very much like red snapper, a resurgence of non-commercial interest in Pacific halibut triggered the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council to adopt a catch sharing plan (note:“shareING” is key here — this is different from a catch share program) which allows the total allowable catch (TAC) in Alaska to be shared, and in times of low abundance, allows a higher ratio to go to charter operators. That recognizes a different business model for charters compared to commercial operators.
The Alaskan catch sharing plan for halibut came after years of difficult discussions among charter operators, commercial fishermen, federal fisheries managers and state recreational fisheries managers. It is not perfect but it has worked since it was implemented in June 2011.
The charter sector in Alaska has continued to grow and recently introduced new measures that would provide more stability for their businesses, but potentially take a higher percentage of the available resource.
A continuing problem in the charter sector is accounting for all harvests and mortality. The group is working on improving data collection and accountability which will improve their chances of getting increased TAC.
These and other considerations are currently being resolved under the aegis of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the Pacific Halibut Act, legislation that manages Pacific halibut under a treaty with Canada, within the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council.
Nationally, the recreational sector based in the Gulf of Mexico would like to see recreational fisheries removed from most fishery management plans, under the guise that recreational fishermen don’t take much fish compared to commercial fishermen. This is the purpose of the Modern Fish Act.
While this is true on an individual case by case basis, it is not true in the aggregate, where hundreds of thousands of recreational anglers can quickly decimate a stock.
In arguing for the bill Mike Leonard, Director of Conservation of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), told the Magazine Monga Bay that although the old MSA has been successful, it was written to regulate commercial fisheries, but was unjustifiably applied to managing recreational fishing as well. In actuality, the MSA was written to address all aspects of fisheries, spelling out rules for commercial, charter and recreational fishing in order to preserve sustainable fish stocks.
Leonard argued to Mongabay that “Much like gardening in one’s backyard is different than large scale agriculture practices, recreational and commercial fishing are very different activities.” He contends that, while commercial fishermen have a single goal (to efficiently catch as many fish as possible), recreational anglers have other motivations, such as enjoying the outdoors with family and friends, catching and often releasing trophy fish, and occasionally catching dinner.
Where recreational fishermen take fish from public waters, unless they are subject to the same accountability rules as the commercial industry, they are in effect claiming unlimited rights to keep a public resource to themselves. The commercial industry on the other hand, serves a national interest in providing fish for American consumption regardless as to whether you go out and catch it yourself or not.
Many in the commercial industry and NGO community support some of the efforts to improve recreational catch data, but the idea of taking recreational fish out of Magnuson is a non-starter.
This story originally appeared on Seafoodnews.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.