Barring an unexpected delay, H.R. 200, the Strengthening Fishing Communities as well as Increasing Flexibility inward Fisheries Management Act, volition come upward to the flooring of the House of Representatives on Wednesday, where it volition live on debated for 1 hr as well as and then topographic point to a vote.
H.R. 200 is a bad bill.
It volition substantially weaken the conservation as well as management provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation as well as Management Act, largely yesteryear creating numerous vaguely-worded exceptions to Magnuson-Stevens’ prohibition against overfishing, its deadlines for rebuilding overfished stocks as well as its requirement that annual grab limits live on established for almost all managed species.
H.R. 200 also weakens 1 of the provisions of Magnuson-Stevens that makes the constabulary work: The requirement that fishery management actions live on based on the best available science. It does that non yesteryear abolishing the requirement itself, but yesteryear legislatively determining that observations made yesteryear fishermen as well as other untrained as well as belike biased observers could live on considered “best available science,” rather than leaving it upward to scientists to determine what is skillful scientific discipline as well as what is not.
There are a lot of other questionable provisions inward the neb that, if it becomes law, volition hamper the effectiveness of the federal fishery management system. A publish of those are the so-called “Modern Fish Act” provisions that were in 1 lawsuit included inward a split bill, H.R 2023, as well as are intended to hamper the commercial fishing industry, facilitate reallocating commercial quota to anglers inward the South Atlantic as well as Gulf of United Mexican States regions as well as allow anglers to escape their portion of the burden for conserving as well as rebuilding fish stocks.
Because those provisions are inward there, a coalition of anglers’ rights groups as well as fishing tackle as well as marine trades organizations receive got straight off orphaned H.R. 2023, the master House Modern Fish Act, receive got given that appellation to H.R. 200, as well as are going all-out for H.R. 200’s passage.
The fact that a publish of respected conservation groups receive got taken a aspect at H.R. 200’s provisions, as well as appropriately nicknamed it the “Empty Oceans Act” every bit a result, doesn’t seem to receive got given the angling/boating manufacture coalition whatsoever suspension at all, fifty-fifty though empty oceans aren’t really pleasant places to fish in, as well as are hardly conducive to boat as well as fishing tackle sales.
The neb that’s going to come upward up for a vote on Midweek won’t live on precisely the same every bit the neb that was originally introduced. The sponsor, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), volition innovate an amended version that doesn’t brand the changes to the fishery conservation as well as management whatsoever better, but at to the lowest degree deleted linguistic communication that would receive got made the National Environmental Policy Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, Antiquities Act as well as Endangered Species Act inapplicable to fishery management actions taken pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens.
But don't allow those changes demeanor on your opinion. H.R. 200 remains a lousy law.
None of the amendments would materially improve the bill, although 1 offered yesteryear Rep. Jared Huffman (D-California) would require that whatsoever fishery management plan, amendment or regulation intended to rebuild a fish stock that was non successfully rebuilt nether a previous management activity receive got at to the lowest degree a 75% remove a opportunity of achieving its goal. While that’s a worthwhile amendment, it surely doesn’t brand upward for all of the bad linguistic communication inward H.R. 200—including linguistic communication that would largely brand the amendment irrelevant yesteryear stretching out rebuilding times for indeterminably long periods. And every bit a practical matter, Rep. Huffman’s amendment is belike unlikely to pass.
Another amendment, offered yesteryear Rep. Jim Langevin (D-Rhode Island), would give Rhode Island a topographic point on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, something that is arguably needed given the publish of Mid-Atlantic fish stocks that are straight off following—or beingness chased by—warmer waters into southern New England. A third, offered yesteryear Rep. William Keating (D-Massachusetts) would require the National Marine Fisheries Service to adopt concluding standards for electronic monitoring of the New England groundfish fleet, which could live on a large positive, but would also laid a short, 180-day timeline for getting it done, as well as require NMFS to pay for the buy as well as installation of the monitoring gear, neither of which appears really practical.
Beyond those, the residue of the amendments alone make
a bad neb worse.
Striped bass anglers volition belike receive got item law-breaking to an amendment offered yesteryear Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-New York). Zeldin has already been working difficult to maintain, or perchance fifty-fifty lower, his League of Conservation Voters lifetime rating of 10 (his 2017 rating was 9)—and yes, that’s out of 100—by beingness a staunch supporter of H.R. 200, a neb that the League strongly opposes. He’s straight off seeking to lower his rating amongst northeastern striped bass anglers every bit well, amongst an amendment that would allow striped bass fishing inward the exclusive economical zone to a greater extent than or less Block Island, as well as hence increase striped bass harvest at a fourth dimension when the bass population is hovering just higher upward the threshold that marks an overfished stock.
Another amendment, offered yesteryear Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Connecticut) would create a “pilot enquiry trawl survey” employing commercial fishermen inward the New England as well as Mid-Atlantic regions, which would operate independently from the NMFS trawl surveys. While boats participating inward such survey would live on required to role “a peer-reviewed cyberspace configuration” supplied yesteryear NMFS, at that topographic point is no similar requirement that a peer-reviewed survey methodology live on employed, raising the risk, especially given the weakened “best available science” linguistic communication of H.R. 200, that participating fishermen would target areas known to agree concentrations of fish, as well as hence bias the survey, which would as well as then live on used to impeach (or, inward the linguistic communication of the amendment, “enhance as well as render improvements to”) the information collected yesteryear NMFS.
Among other amendments, at that topographic point is 1 that would salve several southward Atlantic states of their obligation to mitigate impairment to aquatic vegetation caused yesteryear maintenance dredging of navigation channels inward an inland waterway (Rep. Lois Frankel, D-Florida), 1 that would mandate a study that would, amid other things, suggest ways that “resource rent” from grab portion computer program participants inward the South Atlantic as well as Gulf of United Mexican States regions (but, really noticeably, non inward the North Pacific, where the mass of such rents would live on very, really much higher) could live on “reclaimed” yesteryear the U.S.A. of America Treasury (Rep. Garret Graves, R-Louisiana), as well as nonetheless another, dramatically titled the “Reef Assassin Act,” that would create a bounty on lionfish that would live on paid inward transferrable tags that would allow a commercial or recreational fishermen to grab cerise snapper, gag grouper, greater amberjack or gray triggerfish out of flavour or inward excess of the prevailing pocketbook bound or annual grab bound (Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Florida).
That’s all on the tabular array for Wednesday.
If you lot don’t similar the thought of H.R. 200 becoming law, I strongly suggest that you lot contact your House illustration as well as inquire that he or she vote against the bill, as well as against whatsoever specific amendment that you lot don’t like.
I’ve never tried to mislead my readers as well as I’m non going to start out now: No affair how much of a fuss nosotros handle to make—and, combined amongst everyone else opposing this bill, I promise that nosotros brand a large one—the odds are really high that H.R. 200 volition top inward the House. The really similar H.R. 1335 passed at that topographic point 3 years ago, as well as that was earlier all of the Modern Fish Act hoopla began. Right now, at that topographic point are just besides many people belongings seats inward the House that are hostile to the really concept of conservation; the pro-exploitation H.R. 200 is a perfect reflection of their philosophy of putting short-term turn a profit on a pedestal, as well as disregarding other concerns.
But fifty-fifty if H.R. 200 passes, it’s of import to continue its margin of victory every bit narrow every bit possible.
The existent deal volition live on inward the Senate, where currently undecided senators may good brand or time out the vote on a companion bill. If H.R. 200 passes yesteryear a broad margin, such senators may good live on convinced to back upward S. 1520 as well as post both bills to conference, where something really ugly is probable to emerge.
But if plenty concerned as well as thoughtful legislators oppose the neb inward the House, as well as supporters of fishery conservation brand a determined goal-line stand, it may live on possible to force whatsoever reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens dorsum until afterwards the mid-term elections as well as into the side yesteryear side session of Congress, yesteryear which fourth dimension some seats may receive got fallen into to a greater extent than conservation-friendly hands, as well as a neb every bit bad every bit H.R. 200 won’t live on probable to top again.
So it’s mash time, correct now.
Time to selection upward the telephone 1 to a greater extent than time. Time to allow your House illustration know that you lot retrieve H.R. 200 is bad for fish, bad for fishermen, as well as bad for the future.
Because, quite simply, it is.
Crunch Time
4/
5
Oleh
Admin
