Now that H.R. 200, a neb that would ameliorate together with reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation together with Management Act(Magnuson-Stevens), has passed the House of Representatives, it poses an fifty-fifty greater threat to the federal fishery administration system.
Much of that threat arises out of the incertitude that would endure introduced yesteryear many of the provisions of H.R. 200, which create wide exceptions to the clear conservation together with administration linguistic communication of the electrical current law.
Ideally, the constabulary should endure worded thus clearly that a someone without legal grooming tin give the sack read it together with empathize what is together with is non allowed. When Magnuson-Stevens unambiguously states that “Conservation together with administration measures shall foreclose overfishing,” its intent is perfectly clear. By using the give-and-take “shall,” that constabulary doesn’t give fishery managers whatever discretion; whatever stair out that allows overfishing is clearly illegal.
Similarly, when Magnuson-Stevens requires that “For a fishery that is overfished, whatever fishery administration plan, amendment, or proposed regulation…shall specify a fourth dimension menstruation for rebuilding such fishery that shall…not exceed 10 years, except inwards cases where the biological scientific discipline of the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or administration measures nether an international understanding to which the the States is a political party dictates otherwise, [emphasis added, internal numbering deleted]” it’s pretty clear what fishery managers get got to create when rebuilding a stock.
Unfortunately, that ideal is seldom achieved inwards the existent world; approximately incertitude ever creeps into legislation, together with the courts ask to teach involved together with translate the law. Whether the courts ultimate deport out the legislators’ intent oftentimes depends upon whether that intent is clearly expressed inwards the law’s language.
Magnuson-Stevens faced such a courtroom challenge, later fishery managers failed to adopt fishery administration measures that complied alongside the conservation provisions that were added to the constabulary inwards 1996. The challenge arose inwards 1999, later the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) proposed a summertime flounder quota that had exclusively a 17 per centum jeopardy of preventing overfishing.
The federal appellate courtroom that issued a determination inwards that case, Natural Resources Defense Council v. Daley , held that “at the really least…to ‘prevent overfishing’…the [total allowable landings] must get got at to the lowest degree a 50% chance” of keeping line-fishing mortality below the overfishing threshold. It decided that the constabulary meant just what it said, that overfishing shall endure prevented, together with thus enabled federal fishery managers to very limited circumstances; exclusively decisions that are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise non inwards accordance alongside law” volition endure overturned yesteryear a reviewing court. Courts may non substitute their ain findings of fact for those of the agency, or create upwardly one's heed which testimony should or should non endure believed. Instead, thus long every bit the agency didn’t overstep its Constitutional together with statutory authority, a courtroom must affirm whatever agency decision
that is supported yesteryear “substantial evidence.”
And “substantial evidence” is a legal term of art, that involves far less “substance” than a non-lawyer mightiness expect. Courts get got defined it every bit “such relevant bear witness every bit a reasonable heed mightiness get got every bit adequate to back upwardly a conclusion…When the bear witness may rationally endure interpreted inwards to a greater extent than than 1 way, the courtroom must uphold the [agency] decision.”
As a practical matter, that agency that if at that spot was whatever bear witness provided during the rulemaking procedure that supports an agency’s decision, a courtroom volition non overturn that decision, fifty-fifty if far to a greater extent than bear witness to the reverse was also provided to the agency.
Thus, if 1 someone testified that a fish population was depleted every bit a result, perhaps, of pollution inwards inshore plant nursery areas, together with 2 dozen people testified that the work was overfishing, NMFS could pick out to believe that 1 person’s give-and-take and, if H.R. 200 became law, create upwardly one's heed that a rebuilding deadline should non apply. And the courts would allow that determination stand.
At this point, someone mightiness object that Magnuson-Stevens requires such administration decisions to endure supported yesteryear “the best scientific information available,” together with that such requirement would protect fisheries from such unfortunate results. But H.R. 200 is putting that at risk, too.
Normally, what is or is non deemed “best scientific information” is determined yesteryear each regional fishery administration council’s scientific discipline together with statistics commission or yesteryear experts at NMFS, a procedure that keeps nearly bad information from affecting administration outcomes. But a provision inwards H.R. 200 would require that fishery administration plans “identify information together with analysis, specially concerning recreational fishing” together with determine “whether such information together with analysis could endure provided yesteryear fishermen, line-fishing communities, universities together with interrogation institutions.” The identified information together with analysis mightiness thus endure considered “the best scientific information.”
The findings of professional person researchers at universities together with other institutions are already considered inwards stock assessments together with other administration actions, thus that much of H.R. 200’s linguistic communication offers few problems (although issues sometimes arise when “hired guns” working for diverse organizations seek to steer a stock assessment commission toward a item conclusion). However, the notion that data, much less analysis, compiled yesteryear fishermen alongside no scientific background, could endure considered “the best scientific information” should frighten anyone concerned alongside the wellness of fish stocks.
H.R. 200’s linguistic communication could allow the New England Fishery Management Council to give a fisherman’s comments that “There is thus much to a greater extent than cod out at that spot than ever before” the same weight every bit a comprehensive stock assessment saying that the stock is inwards serious trouble, yesteryear deeming both “the best scientific information” available. And if the council decided to believe the fishermen instead of the assessment, together with laid harvest levels accordingly, it would endure really difficult to successfully challenge that determination inwards court. That would clearly endure a bad result.
But then, a lot of bad results would accrue if H.R. 200 became law. And on July 11, it took a large footstep inwards that direction.
Thus, it is fourth dimension to gear upwardly for an all-out create create inwards the Senate to foreclose a bad neb from going whatever farther.
For if H.R. 200’s supporters win inwards the Senate every bit good every bit the House, our nation’s fish stocks volition for sure lose.
-----
This essay commencement appeared inwards “From the Waterfront,” the weblog of the Marine Fish Conservation Network, which may endure establish at http://conservefish.org/blog/
The Growing Threat To Magnuson-Stevens
4/
5
Oleh
Admin