NorEast Fishing Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The latest from Sen. Stevens (as in Magnuson-Stevens) on fishery management and law. Sounds pretty happy with MSA and his attention is on IUU-not the Pallone bill.

Protecting Alaska's fishing industry should be a national priority

TED STEVENS
April 18, 2008 at 12:18PM AKST

For Alaska Newspapers
Every year, the waters off the Alaska's coast produce nearly half of our domestic fishery. None of our stocks are overfished.
This important accomplishment is possible because the Alaska fishing industry continues to set the standard in the United States and in the world for sustainable and productive fisheries.

This approach, mandated by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, works by imposing science-based catch limits to end overfishing. It is also effective because the United States has implemented strong fisheries enforcement regimes. Unless other major fishing nations adopt similar standards, high-seas global fish stocks will continue to decline.
It is vital that fishing nations worldwide address the global problem of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, which is still common on the high seas. These fishing practices threaten to deplete valuable fish stocks on which we depend.
In January 2007, President Bush signed the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. That legislation contains important international fisheries compliance and monitoring provisions. Additionally, this past December, the president signed legislation I authored directing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to maintain a list of IUU fishing vessels around the world.
This language assures that America's fishing industry can quickly and easily identify IUU "blacklisted" vessels, which is essential for helping our industry avoid doing business with them. The bill also allows the United States to take action against these rogue IUU vessels.
I am currently working with colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee to close gaps in U.S. law that still allow IUU fish products to enter our country. If America refuses to import IUU products, other fishing nations will also address this issue and embrace sustainable fisheries policies.
To effectively stop IUU fish products at the border, Congress must ensure that law enforcement officers for U.S. fisheries have every tool and resource available. The United States must improve coordination among law enforcement agencies to allow resource sharing in IUU investigations.
We should also clarify that it is illegal in the United States to knowingly trade in any fish or fish product caught in violation of a Regional Fishery Management Organization agreement or otherwise harvested from IUU fishing.
The United States has assumed a strong leadership role in promoting sustainable fisheries. But we can do more to help other countries ? particularly developing countries that have large ocean territories with valuable fish stocks yet limited ability to control harvests. NMFS and the Coast Guard have reached out to many of these countries, but we should step up our efforts to help them identify and stop IUU fishing. The Office of International Affairs in the National Marine Fisheries Service can lead this vital effort by facilitating the knowledge transfer and support necessary to improve its monitoring and enforcement capabilities.
We must also ensure that all areas of the ocean have effective fishing rules in place. Even today, there are large unregulated areas of the high seas, including the waters of the North Pacific and Arctic Oceans beyond Alaska?s Exclusive Economic Zone. My plan is to convince the State Department to pursue new international fisheries management agreements for these areas of the high seas.
Taken together, these actions will represent a comprehensive U.S. approach to address and combat destructive IUU fishing practices. I plan to further this effort by introducing legislation to assure the United States will accomplish these goals. Doing so will ensure the safety and security of Alaska?s healthy, sustainable fisheries now and into the future.
Sen. Ted Stevens is the senior member of Alaska?s congressional delegation and the longest-serving senator in the history of the Republican Party.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
26,338 Posts
Is it just me or does it seem impossible to use what what happens in Alaska, with a TOTAL population of 663,661, as a basis for comparison with the other coastline states that have much, much larger populations and therefore much, much larger numbers of recreational anglers which makes it much, much more difficult to really gather accurate data? I mean, Long Island has a population of over 7 million all by itself.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
Effectively there is no recreation catch in AK. The amount of recreational anglers is so small that their catch is dwarfed by the commercial catch. But that didn't stop NMFS/NOAA from putting strict limits on recreational Halibut catches!
 

· Registered
Joined
·
26,338 Posts
MM- It was really more a comment on this guy who is pointing as some wonderful example of how great fisheries management can be, but it is management utopia up there. 99% of fishing is commercial by large vessels so keeping track and enforcement is manageable. In other states, with vast recreational fishing populations, the numbers are nearly impossible to be accurate with.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Scott1280 wrote:
MM- It was really more a comment on this guy who is pointing as some wonderful example of how great fisheries management can be, but it is management utopia up there. 99% of fishing is commercial by large vessels so keeping track and enforcement is manageable. In other states, with vast recreational fishing populations, the numbers are nearly impossible to be accurate with.

You are more than welcome to tell Sen. Stevens how wrong and misguided he is regarding this law with his name on it. Be sure to let him kow you are a supporter of SSFFF (if appropriate). Make sure to let him know what an ill-informed, ignorant, uncaring lout he is.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
667 Posts
Very astute, MichaelJD

For those interested, what follows is the response from the House of Representatives regarding "Flexibility" legislation...

http://www.tidewise.com/misc/msa/natural_resources_response_re4087.pdf

quote:

(emphasis aded)

February 8, 2008

Mr. Thomas D. McIlwain
Chair
Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council
2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100
Tampa, FL 33607

Dear Mr. McIlwain:

Thank you for your letter of January 15, 2008, co-signed by the seven other Fishery Management Council chairs regarding H.R. 4087.

In response to your inquiry, there are no hearings or other Subcommittee actionsscheduled for the bill at this time. Instead, the Subcommittee will be exercising its oversight authority to ensure the full implementation of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, consistent with Congressional intent. Again, thank you very much for your letter.

Sincerely,
Madeleine Z. Bordallo
Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans

Now mind you this is in response to a letter sent by all 8 regional councils.

If they can't get congress' ear on this then what on earth makes the the just-let-us-fish industry in New Jersey think they have a chance?


Small wonder why ASA won't touch it either. Afterall, they didn't become one of the most mainstream recreational industry organizations in the country by taking fringe possitions that profoundly weaken fishery laws tailored to accomodate those who helped get us in this mess in the first place.

And then there is the growing national fish-press outside of NJ that is speaking up more and more against the effort by those trying to add loopholes to MSA.

quote:
Back in February CaptTB wrote

It is hopeful that within the next week or two there will be a Senate version of the bill as well, it's being worked on.

http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?topic_ID=102953

It's June now. Any update on a senate version? Anyone??:confused: :confused: :confused:

Just keep sending money I guess.

Or in case folks haven't figured it out yet, win or lose, the same folks will make out who always do. That would be the lawyers and the lobbyists, of course.

Ask yourslves, has there ever been anything even close to this magnatude nationally (amending the primary fishing law of the land) that this cast has ever come even close to pulling off - never mind being laughed out of court?


Oh well. It's your money - and your region's diminishing credibility and status. :rolleyes:

Best,
Mike F.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
667 Posts
Kumbaya Everyone!

Stevens wasn't the only one happy with the reauthorized act...

quote:

CONGRESSMAN FRANK PALLONE, JR.
Sixth District of New Jersey

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: Andrew Souvall or Heather Lasher Todd (202) 225-4671

January 12, 2007

NEW JERSEY LAWMAKERS LAUD SIGNING OF

MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT INTO LAW

Washington, D.C. ---- U.S. Reps. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) and Jim Saxton (R-NJ) and U.S. Sens. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) lauded President Bush for signing into law legislation reauthorizing the Magnuson-Stevens Act today at the White House. Pallone and Saxton attended the bill signing this morning.

More:
http://www.house.gov/list/press/nj06_pallone/pr_jan12_magnusensigning.html

Sort of makes the point that some have been making that even Pallone knows his bill has no chance of passing. And that he has introduced it as a political means to appease the vocal minority on this issue - otherwise known as his constituents.

Honestly, I'm a little curious as to why we haven't seen any Geiser attack pieces yet against the remaining NJ legislative delegation portraying their non-involvement as "slap in the face" like he did with ASA.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,017 Posts
Scott1280 wrote:
Is it just me or does it seem impossible to use what what happens in Alaska, with a TOTAL population of 663,661, as a basis for comparison with the other coastline states that have much, much larger populations and therefore much, much larger numbers of recreational anglers which makes it much, much more difficult to really gather accurate data? I mean, Long Island has a population of over 7 million all by itself.

There are a lot of reasons that it is impossible, but you nailed one of the biggest ones.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
Scott1280 wrote:
Is it just me or does it seem impossible to use what what happens in Alaska, with a TOTAL population of 663,661, as a basis for comparison with the other coastline states that have much, much larger populations and therefore much, much larger numbers of recreational anglers which makes it much, much more difficult to really gather accurate data? I mean, Long Island has a population of over 7 million all by itself.

So if the data are really that uncertain, as you claim, wouldn't that mean there should be more precaution....not less? Erring more on the side of leaving fish in the water when you trust the data less :confused:


This post edited by guest 12:39 PM 06/11/2008
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,061 Posts
Guest -

The antis - led and fed by Pew and with some subsidiary help by the Lenfest and Moore Foundatations - are spending tens of millions of dollars every year on fishing grants, and I'm not familiar with one which has gone towards making fisheries science any better. Most goes to twisting existing data into new and different anti-fishing forms. They don't put money into collecting better real data, in spite of the fact that we know so little about even our most well-studied fisheries.

That has to be because they rely on the so-called "precautionary approach," which means if you don't know, assume the worst and manage accordingly, a management principle which they - or other so-called environmentalists - have successfully sold as the 11th Commandment in some scientific communities. It boils down to "when there's doubt, the fishermen come out behind." In every instance that I'm aware of, when the fishermen improved the science, the fishermen showed that there were more fish.

This post edited by NilsS 03:19 PM 06/11/2008
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
NilsS wrote:
In every instance that I'm aware of, when the fishermen improved the science, the fishermen showed that there were more fish.

of course...some would argue... they paid for it!

That IS the one thing that does make me angry. All of the money spent by both sides in lobbyists, lawsuits, and such could have advanced the science much more then it is today. There should be a law in the next MS act that if you sue the feds and lose, you should have to pay for the monitoring of the fishery for a year or more. Non-profit status or not
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
guest wrote:
NilsS wrote:
In every instance that I'm aware of, when the fishermen improved the science, the fishermen showed that there were more fish.

of course...some would argue... they paid for it!

That IS the one thing that does make me angry. All of the money spent by both sides in lobbyists, lawsuits, and such could have advanced the science much more then it is today. There should be a law in the next MS act that if you sue the feds and lose, you should have to pay for the monitoring of the fishery for a year or more. Non-profit status or not


Oh Nils....you know as well as I do that some of the folks who spend money in the name of saving the oceans are really just feathering their nests.....sniff sniff sniff
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top