July 2006

On March 29, 2006, California Representative Richard Pombo introduced a bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the primary law for managing our nation’s fisheries. Other legislation in both the House and the Senate take positive steps toward improving federal fisheries law. In contrast, Pombo’s bill, the American Fisheries Management and Marine Life Enhancement Act (H.R. 5018), would present a step backwards, by weakening provisions to protect against overfishing, and limiting public review and comment of fishery management decisions. Take action and tell your legislator not to support this bill!

Weakens Overfishing and Rebuilding Provisions

• Under current law, when a fish stock has been depleted by overfishing, fishery management councils are generally required, with some common-sense exceptions, to rebuild those stocks within ten years, so that they are healthy for the future.
  
• The longer a stock remains depleted, the harder it is for it to recover, and the harder it will be on fishermen and the ecosystem in the long run.
  
• H.R. 5018 would open the door for longer rebuilding periods, by allowing the Secretary of Commerce to make additional, unnecessary exceptions to current rebuilding requirements. This means continued uncertainty for fishing economies and a greater threat to our ocean ecosystems.

Waives Environmental Review Provisions

• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) ensures the public has the opportunity to weigh in on critical decisions affecting the management of our fisheries.

Fails to Make Needed Improvements to the MSA

• The U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommended changes to the Magnuson-Stevens Act to improve the balance of representation in the fishery management process (currently commercial and recreational fishing interests dominate the process), and to ensure that management decisions are based on independent scientific advice. H.R. 5018 fails to implement these critical improvements.
  
• Current law requires managers to end overfishing as part of a rebuilding plan, but does not establish a specific time limit for ending overfishing. As a result, fishery management councils often allow overfishing to continue for years under a rebuilding plan. The bill should include a requirement to end overfishing as soon as possible, but in not more than one year as part of a rebuilding plan.

For information on other fisheries legislation in the House of Representatives see our press release of March 31, and for information on fisheries legislation in the Senate see our press release of Dec. 15, 2005.