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
|
Commercial Fisheries News
Volume 36 Number 7
March 2009
Fish at any cost? Congress must clarify intent
The reality could not be plainer. New England groundfish management is in a shambles, and piecemeal amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) are in large part to blame.
Contradictions in the National Standards that guide implementation of the law are ruining the lives of fishermen and the economies of coastal communities. They are destroying the reputation of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and its relationship with constituents. In its current form with regard to groundfish, the MSA is serving no one’s best interests, especially not those of the nation.
Industry and its allies in the states turn repeatedly to members of Congress, certain it is not their intent to inflict this havoc on the people they have pledged to serve. And our congressional representatives respond as they have for decades, with true concern for the fishing industry and a genuine desire to help.
They tell NMFS that it is failing to fully consider the MSA National Standards that require the agency to examine economic and social data, minimize adverse economic impacts on communities, and promote the safety of life at sea.
However, all of these important factors are modified by the phrases “to the extent practicable” and “where practicable,” and they are all overruled by the bottom line of today’s version of the law, which puts fish first above all else. While that makes sense for many stocks, it doesn’t for groundfish, where even one weak stock in the multispecies complex now can derail the entire fishery.
Most of the anger over the groundfish situation is being directed at NMFS. The agency is widely perceived as arrogant and lacking in compassion and respect for the industry. And NMFS clearly overstepped its bounds in the proposed interim action rule it issued in January.
But while NMFS has shown more interest in protecting itself from lawsuits than in finding solutions to management problems that acknowledge the human element involved, it cannot be saddled with sole blame for the confusion that has followed the Framework 42 lawsuit decision.
As government attorney Gene Martin said at the February New England council meeting, the 2006 MSA reauthorization removed “any ambiguity.” It requires an “immediate” end to overfishing on overfished stocks and a strict timeline for stock rebuilding.
We can argue with NMFS about whether or not overfishing is occurring or whether or not a stock is overfished or whether the science used to make these determinations is the “best available.” But in the end, it is the marching orders of the MSA that NMFS must follow.
Our good friends in Congress need to read the current iteration of the MSA carefully and then take steps to clarify their intent.
If they are indeed sincere in their assertions that preserving fishing businesses and the jobs they provide are just as important as ending overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks, they need to change the law to reflect that. /cfn/
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
