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 33 Number 9
May 2006
US reps introduce competing Magnuson bills
WASHINGTON, DC - After an eerie period of silence following the US Senate Commerce Committee’s unanimous passage in December of a bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), the House of Representatives swung into action in March with the introduction of three MSA reauthorization bills.
On March 13, US Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA) and John Tierney (D-MA) introduced HR 4940, a bill packed full of provisions clearly meant to respond to local fishing industry concerns.
Then on March 28, US Rep. Richard Pombo (R-CA), the powerful chairman of the House Committee on Resources, introduced HR 5018, which incorporated many of the recommendations made by the US Commission on Ocean Policy, including increased reliance on scientific advice.
Recognizing that Pombo was in a better political position to push through his own bill, Frank agreed to co-sponsor HR 5018.
“Of course, in an ideal setting, I would prefer my own legislation,” Frank said. “But I have been pushing for some time for a full reauthorization of the Magnuson Act and Congressman Pombo’s bill is a responsible contribution to that effort.”
Frank also said he and the chairman had discussed areas of Pombo’s bill where Frank hoped “improvements” could be made.
“I am hopeful that, as action on the bill continues, many of these issues will be addressed,” Frank said.
Finally, on March 30, US Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans, which falls under Pombo’s House Resources Committee, introduced HR 5051.
This version of MSA reauthorization legislation was widely characterized as the bill that most closely mirrors Senate bill S 2012, and it was the one most strongly endorsed by environmentalists.
Political differences
The introduction of two separate bills by Pombo and Gilchrest capped months of effort by the two Republicans to resolve their disagreements, and it highlighted political differences between the two men as well.
During his time in the House, Gilchrest has often championed legislation endorsed by the environmental community. Pombo, on the other hand, has been a lightning rod for criticism by environmentalists, who view him as having too close a tie to the business community and have charged him with, among other things, trying to gut the Endangered Species Act.
These contrasts are reflected in the congressmen’s MSA reauthorization bills. Generally speaking, Gilchrest’s bill takes a hard line on stock rebuilding requirements and timeframes, and requires regional fishery management councils to set firm total allowable catch (TAC) limits and deduct any overages from the following year’s TAC.
Pombo’s bill allows some leeway in these decisions. It requires the councils to adopt a TAC “or other annual harvest effort control limit,” like days-at-sea, but doesn’t specify a timeframe for making up overages.
The Senate bill originally had language similar to what is in the Gilchrest bill, but that was ultimately replaced with “placeholder” language, which left the specifics open for further negotiation among Senate staffers. Once an agreement is reached, it likely will be inserted in the bill before a final vote by the full Senate.
NEPA
The Gilchrest and Pombo bills also differ in how they deal with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA is the reason regional councils produce environmental impact statements (EISs) for major actions.
An EIS is supposed to identify and analyze all alternative management approaches under consideration by a council. It’s a complex and extremely time-consuming process, and one that has been the hook for many a lawsuit.
At the same time, this NEPA process is transparent, with many opportunities for public comment, and it is considered by many as a way to ensure that the councils make informed decisions.
Pombo’s bill basically streamlines the fishery management process by allowing any action that meets the requirements of the MSA to be considered as meeting the requirements of NEPA.
Gilchrest’s bill retains existing NEPA requirements.
On April 20, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, Environmental Defense, and the Cape Cod Commercial Hook Fishermen’s Association (CCCHFA) issued a joint press release characterizing Pombo’s HR 5018 as “especially destructive” and “backwards” in efforts to conserve and manage US fisheries.
The groups claimed that Pombo’s bill would: slow the pace of fishery rebuilding; “make commercial interest of fishery yields a higher priority than protection of sanctuaries;” and limit public involvement in the decision-making process.
The Marine Fish Conservation Network, a coalition of more than 175 national and regional environmental organizations, commercial and recreational fishing groups, and marine science groups, released a report on March 29 called “Shell Game: How the Federal Government is Hiding the Mismanagement of Our Nation’s Fisheries.”
The network basically came out in support of strengthening the stock rebuilding requirements of the MSA by “adopting enforceable annual catch limits based on scientific recommendations of how many fish should be caught.” The network used the word “enforceable” to mean deducting TAC overages from the following year’s TAC.
“Catch limits benefit fishermen because they protect the long-term health of this important ocean resource and, by extension, they protect our way of life,” said CCCHFA member Mark Leach. “How else are we going to stop overfishing if we don’t limit the number of fish that we catch?”
House and Senate lawmakers have said they hope to finalize an MSA reauthorization bill this year, even though budget and immigration issues will likely continue to dominate congressional debate.
Lorelei Stevens
Back to story list
|
|
Tell us what you think.
