House Magnuson-Stevens Bill Weakens Fish Conservation

(May 17, 2006 – Washington, DC) The House Committee on Resources voted today to advance Rep. Richard Pombo’s (R-CA) bill - H.R. 5018 – to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), which governs fishery management activities within the federal 200-mile limit, through eight Regional Fishery Management Councils. This bill will significantly roll back current law, reducing the economic and social benefits healthy fisheries provide. 

“It’s been 10 years since Magnuson-Stevens was reauthorized, we should be making progress not moving backwards,” said Ocean Policy Specialist Amanda Leland. “We’ll need strong leadership on the House floor to win an alternative — one similar to Senator Stevens’s bipartisan bill — which maintains current protections and provides conservation and economic tools that offer the right incentives to protect our marine resources.”

Pombo’s deceptively named American Fisheries Management and Marine Life Enhancement Act would weaken important conservation and management protections. Key conservation rollbacks include the delayed rebuilding of fisheries and reduced environmental review. This is a big departure from Senator Stevens’ bill that passed the Senate Commerce Committee in December 2005 with broad bipartisan support and is expected to be voted on by the full Senate soon. Senator Stevens’ bill maintains current protections and aims to provide new tools for improving fisheries. 

Pombo’s bill would significantly slow the restoration of our fisheries by undercutting a key conservation measure of the MSA that rebuilds overfished stocks by providing three new broad exceptions to the current requirements. This would greatly reduce the economic and conservation benefits of restored fisheries.

The bill would also limit environmental review and public participation, allowing circumvention of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in fisheries management. NEPA is critical to ensuring the consideration of reasonable alternatives and the impacts of proposed action, and providing public input and review. Other MSA proposals, including one offered by the Bush Administration and the Senate bill, address concerns that NEPA and MSA processes be better integrated without fully exempting fisheries from the environmental review under NEPA. 

Pombo’s bill does take positive steps to improve science in fisheries management, and it authorizes limited access privilege programs, which help fishermen cut costs, improve the quality of their fish, maximize dockside prices and prevent the waste of millions of fish each year that must be discarded. Also, during the mark up, Pombo removed bad sanctuary provisions and agreed to take the issue up during national marine sanctuary act reauthorization.

“Overall, Pombo’s bill greatly reduces the economic and conservation benefits of restored fisheries,” said Leland. “It puts the health of our oceans and the future of our working waterfronts at risk.”

www.oceansalive.org