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 37 Number 8
April 2010
HR 1584, S 1255 add flexibility to MSA rebuilding deadlines
WASHINGTON, DC – There are two pieces of legislation currently under consideration by Congress to change the 10-year stock rebuilding mandate of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
The 10-year requirement is in large part responsible for steep quota cuts for key commercial and recreational species because, as the deadline draws closer, fishery managers must take more aggressive action to meet stock rebuilding targets.
HR 1584, titled the “Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2009,” is the House version of the bill. Introduced more than a year ago on March 18, 2009 by US Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), the bill had 31 co-sponsors as of mid-March.
The Senate version of the bill is S 1255 and goes by the same name. Introduced on June 11, 2009 by US Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the legislation had four co-sponsors as of mid-March.
The bills are basically identical. They would amend the MSA to require fishery management plans, amendments, or regulations to specify that the time period for ending overfishing and rebuilding the fishery should be as short as “practicable” rather than as short as “possible,” which is what the current law says.
The bills also modify the exceptions to the 10-year rebuilding requirement generally to include cases in which:
The biology of the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement in which the US participates indicates a 10-year rebuilding period is unrealistic;
The cause of the fishery decline is outside the jurisdiction of the regional fishery management council responsible for the species or the rebuilding program cannot be achieved only by limiting fishing activities;
Extending the 10-year rebuilding period would allow for the sustained participation of fishing communities or minimize the economic impacts on communities, provided that there is evidence that the stock of fish is on a positive rebuilding trend;
Extending the 10-year rebuilding period of one or more stocks would allow a multispecies fishery to continue, provided that there is evidence that those stocks are on a positive rebuilding trend;
There is a substantial change to the biomass rebuilding target for the stock of fish concerned after the rebuilding plan has taken effect; or
The biomass rebuilding target exceeds the highest abundance of the stock of fish during the 25-year period preceding the date the rebuilding plan has taken effect and there is evidence that the stock is on a positive rebuilding trend. /cfn/
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
