Saving Seafood

Trump took shot at fishery management councils in signing of Modern Fish Act

January 7, 2019 — Despite earlier resistance from commercial fishing and ocean conservation groups, little uproar was registered after US president Donald Trump signed the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018 (S. 1520), also known as “the Modern Fish Act”, last week. The parts of the bill most objected to were removed.

However, the president’s brief comments – in a statement released after his signing of the bill – are raising a few eyebrows as well as questions about what actions might be taken next at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Trump suggested his administration has concerns about both the increasing authority and makeup of the country’s eight fishery management councils (FMCs).

“The power of these councils,” he said, “has steadily increased over time, raising constitutional concerns related to the manner of the appointment and removal of their members and of members of certain scientific and statistical committees that assist them.

“Keeping with past practice of the executive branch, my administration will treat the plans promulgated by the council as advisory only; the adoption of the plans will be subject to the discretion of the secretary of Commerce as part of the regulatory process described in section 304 of the Magnuson‑Stevens Act [MSA],” he said.

Read the full story at Undercurrent News

Modern Fish Act Falls Short: Full Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization Still Needed

December 20, 2018 — The following was released by the National Coalition for Fishing Communities:

In June, members of Saving Seafood’s National Coalition for Fishing Communities wrote to Congressional leadership in support of H.R. 200, the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. That bill, championed by Congressman Don Young (R-Alaska), would have addressed the concerns of the commercial fishing industry by allowing more flexibility in management, eliminating arbitrary rebuilding timelines, and adding other reforms to better take into account the complex challenges facing commercial fishermen.

Unfortunately, the Senate failed to take up the House bill, and instead took up S.1520, the “Modernizing Recreational Fishing Management Act.” In its original form, S.1520 faced widespread opposition from both commercial fishing and environmental groups. After its most controversial components were either totally removed or substantially weakened, it moved forward in the Senate and passed the House yesterday.

S.1520 is an amendment to, but not a reauthorization of, the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Commercial fishing interests, recreational interests, and environmental groups all agree that the Magnuson-Stevens Act should, as the Environmental Defense Fund recently noted, “be recognized as one of the most successful conservation statutes ever enacted.” But no law is perfect, and there are still reforms that need to be addressed.

“We certainly hope the passage of this bill doesn’t reduce the incentive for the 116th Congress to work with the seafood industry on legislation to reauthorize the MSA in ways that will enhance the law and benefit fishing communities throughout the U.S.,” said Lori Steele, Executive Director of the West Coast Seafood Processors Association in Portland, Oregon. “The need for such legislation remains.”

“The enormous amount of energy spent working to turn S.1520 from a widely opposed bill to a diminished version just so it could make it through the Senate would have been better spent on crafting a helpful Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization,” said Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association in New Jersey. “If the President signs this bill into law, the best outcome might be that the public may get a better sense of the significant catch and discard mortality associated with recreational fishing, but the bill does not get us the real reform that both industries need.”

“Any Magnuson-Stevens re-authorization should include two goals,” said David Krebs, president of Ariel Seafoods Inc. in Destin, Florida and a board member of the Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance. “The ten national standards must be maintained, and provisions should be included to ensure balance between commercial and recreational interests on the eight fishery management councils.”

Ms. Steele and Mr. DiDomenico both testified before the Senate this year in favor of needed improvements to the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Some of the crucial issues addressed in HR 200, and that were not addressed by the Senate include:

1) Eliminating the 10-year time requirement for rebuilding fisheries and replacing it with a biologically based time frame. This will allow the Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) to determine the optimal path and duration for stock rebuilding.

2) Modifying requirements for annual catch limits (ACLs) to allow RFMCs to consider ecosystem changes and the needs of fishing communities when establishing ACLs. In light of changing environmental conditions and the role of the environment in fisheries recruitment, these considerations make both scientific and common sense.

3) Using the term “depleted” instead of “overfished” throughout the Act is a simple yet very important change that will allow the Secretary of Commerce to more accurately characterize stock condition not based solely on fishing mortality. The term “overfished” is perceived negatively and can unfairly implicate the industry for stock conditions resulting from other factors.

4) Maintaining the requirement for a transparent referendum process before any new catch share program can be implemented in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions to ensure the industry has a role in determining its future.

Greg DiDomenico & Diane Pleschner-Steele: Senate MSA reauthorization a step back for fishing communities

August 21, 2018 — The following op-ed was originally published in The Hill and was written by Greg DiDomenico, the Executive Director of the Garden State Seafood Association, and Diane Pleschner-Steele, the Executive Director of the California Wetfish Producers Association:

In July, the House passed H.R. 200 the “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act,” a much needed update of federal fisheries law that allows for both sustainable fisheries management and the long-term preservation of our nation’s fishing communities. Unfortunately, its counterpart bill making its way through the Senate would likely have the opposite effect.

The Senate bill, S.1520, or the “Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018,” introduces changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA)—the main law governing U.S. fisheries—that would impose increasingly burdensome regulations on American fishermen and undermine H.R. 200’s goal of increasing flexibility in fisheries management.

Of particular concern are provisions contained in Section 104 of the bill, “Rebuilding Overfished Fisheries.“ Rather than giving fisheries managers more flexibility in how they manage and rebuild fish stocks, these new requirements added to S.1520 make rebuilding requirements more stringent and onerous.

For example, one of the most disturbing changes is the requirement that Regional Fishery Management Councils achieve a 75 percent chance of rebuilding a stock if that stock has not rebuilt in as short a timeframe as possible. What that means in practice is that regulators will be forced to set quotas according to a rigid, predetermined timeframe, rather than one based around scientific evidence or biological necessity. This will lead to quotas that are much lower than they need to be to sustainably manage the species, and fishing communities being unnecessarily hurt in the process.

Read the full opinion piece at The Hill