COMMERCE
Subscriber Services
Classified Ads
Subscribe
Advertise
NEWS
This Month
Editorial
Letters
F/V Safety
Past Issues
ABOUT US
Contact Us
Latest Issue
Subscribe
History
MORE CONTENT
CFN Archives
Links
Each month exclusively in the PRINT edition of CFN
Along the Coast
Ask the Lobster Doc
Bearin’s
Classifieds
Coming Events
Editorial
Enforcement Report
FISH SAFE
Fleet Additions
Letters
Lobster Market Report
New Boats
News Catch
Quahog Market Report
|
Editorial
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 33 Number 3
November 2005
Keep an eye on Magnuson-Stevens Act process
After years of simmering, the heat’s been kicked up under Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act reauthorization. Failure to keep a close eye on the process could result in the industry getting burned.
Late in September, the Bush Administration released proposed legislation to reauthorize the act, and the word around Capitol Hill is that key legislators finally want to get the job done.
The last time Congress revamped the Magnuson-Stevens Act was in 1996 with the adoption of the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA). That legislation created strict new mandates to protect essential fish habitat, minimize bycatch, and rebuild overfished stocks to produce “maximum sustainable yield.”
The SFA proved to be a real shock to the fishing industry in the Northeast. In some cases, the effects were clearly for industry’s own good. After all, the SFA forced everyone to get serious about ending overfishing.
At the same time, it was very difficult for fishery managers to figure out how to interpret the SFA’s vague and often conflicting directives. The result was lengthy and costly lawsuits that hurt everyone, except, perhaps, the environmental groups who profited from “save the ocean” campaigns.
This time around, the changes proposed for the Magnuson-Stevens Act are just as monumental because they address numerous issues related to overfishing, science, fines and penalties, and data collection. The industry shouldn’t let itself be taken by surprise.
A significant component of the administration’s proposed legislation is the promotion of “greater use of market-based systems for fisheries management” through Dedicated Access Privileges (DAP).
DAP programs include individual fishing quotas, community quotas, fishing cooperatives, and area-based quotas.
There has been a strong attitude in the Northeast against these kinds of private access rights ever since individual transferable quotas (ITQs) were imposed on the Mid-Atlantic surf clam and ocean quahog fishery in 1990. In the first six years of the ITQ program, the number of boats in the fishery dropped from 128 to 33 as permits were concentrated into the hands of a few individuals and companies.
ITQ-like programs still cause tremendous social disruption. According to recent news reports, the “Crab Rationalization Program” now in place for Alaska’s crab fisheries has left nearly 900 crewmembers suddenly unemployed, seriously impacting local economies.
But even the most strident ITQ protesters now admit DAP programs are probably inevitable. So several fishing organizations around the country are supporting the “Fishing Quota Standards Act of 2005” filed by US Reps. Tom Allen (D-ME) and Bill Delahunt (D-MA) to ensure that DAP programs do as little damage to small-scale fishing operations as possible.
Among other things, the legislation would: limit the number of fishing shares any one person can control; give preference to long-time fishermen; and create a mechanism to allow new entrants into the fishery.
Those kinds of protections will need public support to survive special interest pressures. When it comes to politics, the best way for fishermen to protect their future is to support their industry associations. That way you know someone’s keeping an eye on the pot, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization process is apparently getting ready to boil. /cfn/
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
