I’ve already written almost how about recreational angling manufacture groups convey been trying to conflate H.R. 200, the “Strengthening Fishing Communities together with Increasing Flexibility inwards Fishery Management Act,” alongside S. 1520, the “Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act,” which its supporters oft shorten to the “Modern Fish Act,” fifty-fifty though those bills are essentially unlike pieces of legislation.
However, at that spot is i agency inwards which those bills are precisely alike: Both autumn good exterior the historical political mainstream.
Fisheries management has historically been a bipartisan issue, alongside both Republicans together with Democrats recognizing the demand for to a greater extent than effective conservation together with management of living marine resources. The belatedly Senator Ted Stevens, whose get upward is memorialized inwards the championship of the nation’s primary fishery management law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation together with Management Act, was a long-serving Republican from Alaska.
Senator Stevens’ colleague, together with his partner inwards drafting that law, was the belatedly Sen. Warren Magnuson, a Democrat from the State of Washington.
Although they belonged to unlike parties, they good understood that, if America’s fisheries were to convey a future, fishery conservation was an imperative, non a partisan issue.
For most of the past times xl years, that has been the case.
The 1996 reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens, the landmark Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, was passed alongside wide bipartisan support, together with the affirmative votes of most of the Democrats together with Republicans inwards the House together with the Senate. The 2006 reauthorization was passed past times unanimous consent inwards the Senate, together with because of the agency the legislative procedure works, passing the largely innocuous S. 1520 would opened upward the door to the malign H.R. 200, which could together with thus move law. S. 1520 notwithstanding ought to die.
Yet, fifty-fifty proverb that, it’s good worth noting that the S. 1520 that came out of commission was, thank yous to the bipartisan process, a lot ameliorate nib than the S. 1520 that went in. The fact that Sen. Wicker (R-Mississippi), the master sponsor of S. 1520, introduced the amended nib advise that, inwards the Senate, cooperation remains alive.
So nosotros convey a rational argue to promise that the same cooperative procedure that worked inwards the illustration of S. 1520 powerfulness move alongside abide by to whatsoever Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization nib that the Senate could see.
For fifty-fifty a casual glance at history makes it clear that both H.R. 200 together with S. 1520—the “Modern Fish Act”--are political aberrations.
Both outrage the bipartisan spirit that has e'er been a purpose of federal fisheries legislation. And earlier folks get talking almost the political party inwards power, it’s of import to annotation that both outrage the historical Republican dedication to effective fishery conservation together with management.
After all, neither Sen. Stevens nor President Bush could, inwards expert faith, hold upward called “RINOs.”
So it’s fourth dimension to enjoin all of our federal legislators what nosotros know to hold upward true:
Effective fishery conservation together with management benefits everyone, inwards the long term, regardless of party.
H.R. 200, together with the “Modern Fish Act,” are bad bills, bills that outrage long-established legislative principles together with traditions, bills that heartily deserve to die.
Outside The Political Mainstream: H.R. 200 As Well As The Modern Fish Act
4/
5
Oleh
Admin
