Magnuson fishing mandates up for review – fourth 10-year revision and re-authorization

The process will highlight different perspectives on the need for writing flexibility into the law — which was the subject of two national rallies at the Capitol, one in 2010 and another in 2012 — from the team of Congressman John Tierney and former Congressman Barney Frank, advocates of the need for flexibility on the one hand, to Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Ed Markey on the other, who does not share their view of the law as an inflexible impediment to a revitalized industry. Read more

One Response to Magnuson fishing mandates up for review – fourth 10-year revision and re-authorization

  1. Dick Grachek says:

    It is these unrealistic rebuilding targets that were built into the Act in 2006 and the consequent hard TAC’s that have provided NOAA/CLF/EDF the leverage to do just about anything they’ve wanted in their quest to dismantle the fishery.

    The fisheries can be successfully managed. With integrity, common sense, and clarity of purpose it can be done.
    “…the critical role that sound science and good governance —that is, inclusive, transparent co-management between government, and industry and stakeholders — plays in ensuring the sustainability of fisheries.” Ecotrust Canada (intro. to “A Cautionary Tale”, 2009)

    Fishing cannot be managed from sound-bites or marketing slogans created by environmental organizations with a prejudice and an agenda. Good scientific cooperative surveys, accurate stock assessments, and intelligent CO-MANAGEMENT do not result if there is a predisposition or a given blind allegiance to the postulate that “there are too many fishermen chasing too few fish”

    Fishing also cannot be managed as catch shares, a free floating Wall Street commodity with no input controls or trip limits, which leaves the fish up for grabs and vulnerable to ownership by one of the wannabe mogul fishermen or an international mega-corp that is busy gobbling up small independent fisheries worldwide.

    We need flexibility in Magnuson Stevens, yes definitely; but first we need to demand that NOAA obey ALL of the statutes that are already on the books. We have to stop Peter Shelley and CLF and Pew and NOAA from citing only the Magnuson Stevens Act statutes that they can interpret as support for their anti-fishing campaign while ignoring (and violating) the statutes that protect the fishing communities.

    Only then might it be possible to have some effective, intelligent, and HONEST management…if it’s not already too late!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.