Is this ever going to happen…? I thought it expired 2 years ago. 12 years in they have a 10 day federal season in the Gulfm. Nobody would argue that spends time on the water there that the ARS is endangered.
As many like to say Google is a wonderful thing. It appears the house will vote on this soon. Everyone needs to contact their legislature and make sure they are on board. If anyone else has some more up to date info…Please chime in…
Next week, the House will vote on a Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization bill, entitled the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. President Obama’s administration is threatening a veto. This recent editorial from the SOUTH COAST TODAY correctly points out that the Obama administration is “putting politics ahead of fishery science” with its veto threat.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20150522/OPINION/150529761/101228
Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org
quote:
Originally posted by CFSFNext week, the House will vote on a Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization bill, entitled the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act. President Obama’s administration is threatening a veto. This recent editorial from the SOUTH COAST TODAY correctly points out that the Obama administration is “putting politics ahead of fishery science” with its veto threat.
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/article/20150522/OPINION/150529761/101228
Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org
This cleared correct? Would appreciate an update as to what exactly was changed and how it will affect fisheries mgmt.
Do not tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don’t tell them where they know the fish.
- More Maxims of Mark, Johnson, 1927
31’ Contender
“Touche”
250 HPDIs
The Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization passed the House on Monday night on a 225-152 vote.
Click here to see how Representatives voted:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll267.xml
Effectively, the legislation provides regional fishery management councils with a more practical, science-based timeframe for ending overfishing and establishing fishery rebuilding plans than the existing arbitrary, one-size fits all deadlines.
It will increase the time period for fishery councils to end overfishing from 2 to 3 years and give the councils the flexibility to institute fishery rebuilding plans based on a stock’s biology, not on the existing arbitrary 10 year mandate.
The language in the reauthorization is in response to a congressionally requested report from the National Research Council released last September that said more flexibility in the length of fishery rebuilding plans is needed. The report stated that there was a “mismatch between the current prescriptions for rebuilding within a limited time frame and the uncertainties inherent in assessing and managing fisheries given data limitations and complex ecosystem dynamics where fishing is only one of many influences on fish populations.”
The legislation also substitutes “depleted” for “overfished” in an acknowledgement that the decline of stocks can be attributable to environmental factors beyond fishing effort, allows consideration of ecosystem changes and the economic needs of fishing communities in establishing annual catch limits, and requires referendum approval of any proposed “catch share” programs in the South Atlantic region by a majority of the affected fishery permit holders.
The challenge will be to get a companion bill through the Senate and then past the Obama administration’s threatened veto.
Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org
Makes me sick that things are so partisan.
May have to get people working Clyburn’s office to get to Obama. There are a lot of lobbyists working for left coast interests who don’t want the flexibility though, so I’m sure that’s who Obama is making hay for also.
http://www.sustainablefishing.org/
www.joinrfa.com
Luke 8:22-25
quote:
Originally posted by PhinMakes me sick that things are so partisan.
May have to get people working Clyburn’s office to get to Obama. There are a lot of lobbyists working for left coast interests who don’t want the flexibility though, so I’m sure that’s who Obama is making hay for also.
http://www.sustainablefishing.org/
www.joinrfa.com
Luke 8:22-25
I can imagine the frustration involved with that conversation and his interest in the plight of the recreational fishermen…
I would think there are enough votes to over ride any veto threat. Even with all the libs out there, many are in coastal states like Massachusetts and even California and New Jersey. Many democratic legislators have supported this. I would love to see the roll call on how the vote went.
Tom:
Could you explain your organization’s opinions on the merits/flaws of this bill - in terms the average schlub like me can understand?
Thanks!
illigitimi non-carborundum . . .
Sure.
The legislation provides regional fishery management councils with a more practical, science-based timeframe for ending overfishing and establishing fishery rebuilding plans than the existing arbitrary, one-size fits all deadlines.
If a fishery is determined to be overfished (the population size is too small), the fishery council can use a rebuilding plan that’s longer than the existing 10 year requirement based on the stock’s biology, which means that the reductions in landings can be less severe to fishermen.
Additionally, if overfishing is occurring (the annual rate of catch is too high), fishery councils can take 3 years, instead of 2 years to end overfishing, again lessening the impact of required catch reductions.
The legislation allows consideration of ecosystem changes and the economic needs of fishing communities in establishing annual catch limits.
It also requires referendum approval of any proposed “catch share” programs in the South Atlantic region by a majority of the affected fishery permit holders.
The importance of the catch share referendum requirement rises as the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council continues to include catch share programs, which privatize fisheries, for the commercial and for-hire sectors in their Vision Blueprint for the snapper-grouper fishery, despite overwhelming stakeholder opposition.
Catch share programs tend to benefit large corporate fleets that can buy up shares and hurt small fishermen who cannot. Studies have shown that catch share programs hurt fishing communities by destroying jobs and don’t provide any biological benefit to fisheries.
The House vote is a great victory for commercial and recreational fishing interests and science-based fishery management, but our challenge now is to get a companion bill through the Senate and then past the Obama administration’s threatened veto.
I hope this helps.
Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org
Tom, Thanks for your explanation. The point that I would like to make is that the council has declared “overfishing” on a species with out any true science.(IE BSB) Is there any provision within the law to establish that the councils have to have hard science to determine status? It seems that the bulk of the science comes from commercial landings and a few slanted studies. All of these questionable facts exclude what’s happening in the massive MPA’s offshore. Makes one wonder what the point is of closing huge areas to fishing.
quote:
Originally posted by CFSFSure.
The legislation provides regional fishery management councils with a more practical, science-based timeframe for ending overfishing and establishing fishery rebuilding plans than the existing arbitrary, one-size fits all deadlines.
If a fishery is determined to be overfished (the population size is too small), the fishery council can use a rebuilding plan that’s longer than the existing 10 year requirement based on the stock’s biology, which means that the reductions in landings can be less severe to fishermen.
Additionally, if overfishing is occurring (the annual rate of catch is too high), fishery councils can take 3 years, instead of 2 years to end overfishing, again lessening the impact of required catch reductions.
The legislation allows consideration of ecosystem changes and the economic needs of fishing communities in establishing annual catch limits.
It also requires referendum approval of any proposed “catch share” programs in the South Atlantic region by a majority of the affected fishery permit holders.
The importance of the catch share referendum requirement rises as the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council continues to include catch share programs, which privatize fisheries, for the commercial and for-hire sectors in their Vision Blueprint for the snapper-grouper fishery, d
quote:
Originally posted by natureboyTom, Thanks for your explanation. The point that I would like to make is that the council has declared “overfishing” on a species with out any true science.(IE BSB) Is there any provision within the law to establish that the councils have to have hard science to determine status? It seems that the bulk of the science comes from commercial landings and a few slanted studies. All of these questionable facts exclude what’s happening in the massive MPA’s offshore. Makes one wonder what the point is of closing huge areas to fishing.
quote:
Originally posted by CFSFSure.
The legislation provides regional fishery management councils with a more practical, science-based timeframe for ending overfishing and establishing fishery rebuilding plans than the existing arbitrary, one-size fits all deadlines.
If a fishery is determined to be overfished (the population size is too small), the fishery council can use a rebuilding plan that’s longer than the existing 10 year requirement based on the stock’s biology, which means that the reductions in landings can be less severe to fishermen.
Additionally, if overfishing is occurring (the annual rate of catch is too high), fishery councils can take 3 years, instead of 2 years to end overfishing, again lessening the impact of required catch reductions.
The legislation allows consideration of ecosystem changes and the economic needs of fishing communities in establishing annual catch limits.
It also requires referendum approval of any proposed “catch share” programs in the South Atlantic region by a majority of the affected fishery permit holders.
The importance of the catch share referendum requirement rises as the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council con
I think the black sea bass stock assessments in the early 2000s that put the stock into the overfished category and into a rebuilding plan were probably correct. The problem was that as the stock rebuilt, stock assessment updates were not done on a timely basis, and the fishery was likely rebuilt a year or two ahead of schedule. This has to do with NOAA financial priorities and is not addressed in the MSA reauthorization. I have written about this in a widely published op-ed:
http://staugustine.com/opinions/2015-05-10/guest-column-tom-swatzel-dont-waste-noaa-funds-catch-share-boondoggle#.VXA8f89Vikp
The current MSA reauthorization does require a National Research Council study of the implementation of the existing recreational data collection program, the Marine Recreational Information Program or MRIP, which is needed. Historically the biggest area for flaws in data is the recreational catch estimates, which at times seem like just “guesstimates.”
A 2006 NRC study found that the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey was flawed and that the data should not be used in stock assessments even thought it was. The 2007 MSA reauthorization required the survey to be scrapped and replaced with MRIP.
The science standard in the MSA reauthorization remains the “best available,” which can be very much improved upon.
I hope this is helpful.
Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org
Thanks Tom. We so often hear Waugh use that “best available” statement.
quote:
Originally posted by CFSFI think the black sea bass stock assessments in the early 2000s that put the stock into the overfished category and into a rebuilding plan were probably correct. The problem was that as the stock rebuilt, stock assessment updates were not done on a timely basis, and the fishery was likely rebuilt a year or two ahead of schedule. This has to do with NOAA financial priorities and is not addressed in the MSA reauthorization. I have written about this in a widely published op-ed:
http://staugustine.com/opinions/2015-05-10/guest-column-tom-swatzel-dont-waste-noaa-funds-catch-share-boondoggle#.VXA8f89VikpThe current MSA reauthorization does require a National Research Council study of the implementation of the existing recreational data collection program, the Marine Recreational Information Program or MRIP, which is needed. Historically the biggest area for flaws in data is the recreational catch estimates, which at times seem like just “guesstimates.”
A 2006 NRC study found that the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey was flawed and that the data should not be used in stock assessments even thought it was. The 2007 MSA reauthorization required the survey to be scrapped and replaced with MRIP.
The science standard in the MSA reauthorization remains the “best available,” which can very much be improved upon.
I hope this is helpful.
Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org
Thanks Tom.
It still will not be “perfect” but sounds like a huge improvement over what is currently in effect.
illigitimi non-carborundum . . .
My only question is that if Emperor Obama is going to veto it, then why push the bill now? Why not just wait until his reign over New Earth is over and then push the bill without friction?
Something else to think about concerning the accuracy of stock assessments:
A 2013 National Research Council Fishery Rebuilding Report requested by Congress found that of 55 fish stocks in rebuilding plans that were reviewed, 20 stocks or 36% were not actually overfished despite being classified as such, “a finding that reveals the level of uncertainty in assessments of fish stocks.”
Tom Swatzel
Executive Director
Council for Sustainable Fishing
www.Sustainablefishing.org
Skinnee…I think there are enough dems in states with enough disaffected voters to override said threat.
So the way I see this - and tell me if I’m wrong - The law has improved for fishermen BUT the council still has lots of wiggle room on MPA’s and “spawning MPA’s” and a host of other things to restrict us.
One small victory and a major setback.
Biscayne National Park was just closed to recreational use.
Public Locked Out of Biscayne National Park
Recreational Boating and Fishing Community Strongly Objects to Fishing Closure
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? June 5, 2015 ? Today, the National Park Service announced its final General Management Plan (GMP) for Biscayne National Park. Despite commitments made by Biscayne National Park officials to work with stakeholders and the state of Florida to explore less restrictive options, the GMP includes a marine reserve, eliminating fishing and severely restricting boating in over 10,000 acres of the park?s most popular and productive marine waters.
?America?s recreational fishing community is disheartened by the National Park Service?s decision to implement a marine reserve at Biscayne National Park,? said Jeff Angers, president of the Center for Coastal Conservation. ?We understand the importance of protecting our natural resources and the delicate balance needed to ensure that anglers and boaters are able to enjoy these public waters. However, the National Park Service has shown little interest in compromise and today?s announcement confirms a lack of desire to include the needs of park users and stakeholders in important decisions such as this.?
For the past several years, a large coalition of partners in the recreational boating and fishing community has submitted comments, attended public meetings and organized discussions with the leadership at the National Park Service in an attempt to balance the critical need for conservation with the need for recreational access to the park?s waters. Numerous fisheries management measures were presented to the National Park Service that would balance resource conservation with maintaining public access, including size limits, bag limits, quotas, permits, seasonal closures and gear restrictions.
?Today?s announcement confirms that Biscayne National Park officials never had any real interest in working with stakeholders or th