Don Young: Stosh Anderson misrepresents Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization

The April 8 opinion piece by Stosh Anderson, “Don Young seeks to unwind ‘Alaska Model’ for fisheries in Magnuson-Stevens Act,” fails to represent the facts of the legislation I introduced to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). The issue, which was clearly ignored in Stosh Anderson’s commentary, is the application of the “Alaska Model” to the nation’s seven other regional fisheries councils, which was done in 2006 through amendments to the MSA. While the premise of the reform was good, the “Alaska Model” has not worked in other areas of the country as well as envisioned — for a number of reasons. Read the rest here 14:27

  • DickyG

    The proposals in Don Young’s Bill for flexibility, transparency, predictability, fishermen representation, and taking into account the environmental and socio-economic aspects of fishery management in this current reauthorization bill before Congress are long overdue.

    And actually most of these current reauthorization proposals are simply reinforcing and making more specific several existing MSA Standards —but mostly ignored by management—relating to “setting catch limits based on science”; but, insuring that it’s the “best available science” through utilizing cooperative surveys and assessments from “other sources” (National Standard 2). Current proposals also reinforce the National Standards 1, 4, and 8, which account for the survival of the fishing communities.
    http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/msa2005/docs/MSA_amended_msa%20_20070112_FINAL.pdf
    The current House Bill proposals clearly do not reverse or “gut” any of the basic fish replenishing tenets of the Magnuson Stevens Act.

    From the House Natural Resources Committee website: http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx…