For good over a year, anglers in addition to federal legislators convey been the targets of a sophisticated in addition to really well-funded world relations endeavor designed to convince them to back upward the so-called “Modern Fish Act,” a pecker that would weaken fundamental provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation in addition to Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens) inwards guild to growth recreational harvest.
Modern Fish Act supporters claim that the legislation could achieve many of their goals, including “allowing option administration for recreational fishing, reexamining fisheries allocations, smartly rebuilding fishery stocks, establishing exemptions where annual grab limits don’t lucifer in addition to improving recreational information collection.”
The occupation is that no pecker currently moving through Congress volition do what the Modern Fish Act supporters describe, although at that spot is pending legislation that would either autumn far brusk of coming together those goals or harm the electrical flow federal fishery administration organisation far to a greater extent than than Modern Fish Act proponents are willing to admit.
That wasn’t e'er the case. When the Modern Fish Act endeavor was publicly launched inwards 2017, it involved ii similar bills, H.R. 2023, introduced yesteryear Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA), inwards the House of Representatives, and S. 1520, introduced yesteryear Sen. Roger Wicker(R-MS), inwards the Senate. Both bills were titled the “Modernizing Recreational Fishery Management Act of 2017,” in addition to both arguably advanced the goals of Modern Fish Act supporters.
Although the linguistic communication of the bills differed somewhat, the differences were small-scale plenty that no i doubted that they could endure reconciled inwards a conference commission composed of House in addition to Senate members, alongside the resultant beingness a compromise that was, on balance, really similar to the master copy legislation.
Today, the province of affairs is really different.
S. 1520, the Senate version of the Modern Fish Act, was marked upward on Feb 28 of this year, in addition to formally reported out of commission on June 5. However, the version of S. 1520 that emerged from the commission mark-up was really different from the pecker that had originally been introduced.
According to the official commission study on S. 1520, the pecker would now
“Direct Fishery Management Councils (Councils) to review allocations to commercial in addition to recreational line-fishing sectors every five years.
“Clarify that the Councils [already] convey the ascendance to piece of work for certain fishery administration measures inwards a recreational fishery inwards developing a administration programme or proposed regulation.
“Authorize Councils to institute annual grab limits for multispecies complexes or annual limits for each yr inwards a 3-year period.
“Direct the Secretary of Commerce to railroad train a study to Congress on facilitating greater incorporation of data, analysis, stock assessments, in addition to surveys from State agencies in addition to non-governmental sources…”
While the electrical flow version of S. 1520 would require a reexamination of the allotment of fishery resources in addition to has a chance, depending on the conclusions reached inwards the proposed study yesteryear the Secretary of Commerce, of improving fisheries data, it would no longer materially demeanour upon the institution of annual grab limits or the prompt rebuilding of overfished stocks.
In fact, that version contains a “Rule of Construction” section, making it clear that electrical flow provisions that prohibit overfishing, concur sectors accountable if they do overfish, in addition to require the prompt rebuilding of overfished stocks volition non endure affected yesteryear the bill.
Thus, S. 1520 has been largely rendered harmless; its provisions are straightaway to a greater extent than of a nuisance, which house unnecessary burdens on the fishery administration process, than they are a straight threat to science-based fishery administration in addition to the conservation provisions of Magnuson-Stevens.
Ironically, that’s precisely what straightaway makes S. 1520 so dangerous.
To sympathize why, it’s necessary to await at what happened alongside the Modern Fish Act inwards the House.
Despite all of the hyperbole that accompanied its introduction, H.R. 2023, the Modern Fish Act pecker kickoff introduced inwards the House of Representatives, never got off the ground. It was referred to the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Power in addition to Oceans where, afterwards hearings were held inwards September 2017, the pecker effectively died.
Normally, that would endure practiced news. But inwards the example of the Modern Fish Act, it’s non practiced tidings at all.
That’s because at that spot is simply about other fishery pecker that’s active in addition to endure inwards the House. It’s a full-fledged Magnuson-Stevens Reauthorization bill, H.R. 200, titled the Strengthening Fishing Communities in addition to Increasing Flexibility inwards Fisheries Management Act, which was introduced yesteryear Rep. Don Young (R-AK).
H.R. 200, equally introduced, didn’t suggest whatever ideas that Congress hadn’t seen, in addition to chose non to adopt, before. It is substantially the same pecker as H.R 1335, which bore the same championship when Rep. Young introduced it during the 113th Congress, in addition to non really different from H.R. 4742, simply about other identically-named slice of legislation, which was sponsored yesteryear Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) inwards the 112th.
It is a really bad bill. In fact, it is such a bad pecker that afterwards Rep. Young introduced the essentially identical H.R. 1335 inwards the previous legislative session, he felt that he had to assure his constituents that the pecker wouldn’t harm their fisheries, writing that
“My legislation…will non alter the agency the [North Pacific Fishery Management Council] manages our fisheries. Alaska fishermen in addition to the communities they back upward volition hold to reap the benefits of our well-managed fishery resources in addition to the [North Pacific Fishery Management Council] volition hold to piece of work audio scientific information inwards their administration decisions.Regardless of the changes proposed to [Magnuson-Stevens], the [North Pacific Fishery Management Council] volition hold to utilize innovative practices to endure leaders inwards fisheries management… [emphasis added]”
In other words, H.R. 1335, in addition to hence its successor, H.R. 200, was entirely drafted for the rubes downward inwards the Lower 48 who don’t know whatever better, in addition to non for Alaskans who demand in addition to value salubrious in addition to sustainable fisheries.
When the primary sponsor of a pecker starts talking similar that most his ain creation, it’s non difficult to figure out that the pecker is no good.
Unfortunately, H.R. 200, dissimilar H.R. 2023, was marked upward in addition to favorably reported out of committee. So dissimilar H.R. 2023, it remains really much endure in addition to really much a threat to Magnuson-Stevens in addition to the wellness of fish stocks.
What makes H.R. 200 a detail threat is that, during the markup process, it was amended to include linguistic communication from the Modern Fish Act. Given H.R. 2023’s failure to exit of committee, H.R. 200 is straightaway the de facto Modern Fish Act pecker inwards the House.
And that’s where the necktie to S. 1520 comes in.
Should S. 1520 overstep inwards the Senate, at that spot volition endure no companion pecker of similarly express orbit that has been passed yesteryear the House, in addition to that could endure referred to conference alongside S. 1520.
Instead, assuming that both bills are passed, S. 1520 volition endure sent to conference alongside H.R. 200, hence largely cutting the Senate, lately the to a greater extent than reasoned in addition to deliberative torso alongside abide by to fisheries issues, out of the Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization debate. The entire intricate procedure of drafting a Senate bill, which could endure shaped yesteryear a bipartisan process, the commission discussions in addition to markup in addition to the ground on the flooring would all endure lost. The price of Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization would instead endure decided yesteryear a handful of Senators in addition to representatives coming together together in addition to largely out of Blue Planet eye.
Thus, when anglers in addition to Congressmen listen the blandishments of Modern Fish Act supporters, and pleas to “Pass the Modern Fish Act,” they must sympathize that they are beingness told entirely a small-scale business office of the story, spell the greater truth is concealed.
Instead of beingness an terminate inwards itself, S. 1520, the entirely truthful Modern Fish Act pecker yet inwards play, is beingness used equally a Trojan Horse that, if passed, volition opened upward the doors broad for H.R. 200, a total reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, in addition to a rollback of many of that law’s most of import provisions.
The federal fishery administration system, America’s fish stocks in addition to America’s fishermen would endure badly equally a result.
S. 1520 is non a terrible bill. But if it passes, a terrible pecker could easily larn law.
-----
This examine kickoff appeared inwards “From the Waterfront,” the weblog of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, which may endure found at http://conservefish.org/blog/
S.1520: The Trojan Horse
4/
5
Oleh
Admin
