NorEast Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 42 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
1,449 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2008 (Introduced in House)

HR 5425 IH

110th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5425

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to extend the authorized time period for rebuilding of certain overfished fisheries, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 13, 2008

Mr. PALLONE (for himself, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, and Mr. LAMPSON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL

To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to extend the authorized time period for rebuilding of certain overfished fisheries, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2008'.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF TIME PERIOD FOR REBUILDING CERTAIN OVERFISHED FISHERIES.

Section 304(e) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1854(e)(4)) is amended--

(1) in paragraph (4)(A)--

(A) in clause (i) by striking `possible' and inserting `practicable'; and

(B) by amending clause (ii) to read as follows:

`(ii) not exceed 10 years, except in cases where--

`(I) the biology of the stock of fish, other environmental conditions, or management measures under an international agreement in which the United States participates dictate otherwise;

`(II) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be extended because the cause of the fishery decline is outside the jurisdiction of the Council or the rebuilding program cannot be effective only by limiting fishing activities;

`(III) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be extended to provide for the sustained participation of fishing communities or to minimize the economic impacts on such communities, provided that there is evidence that the stock of fish is on a positive rebuilding trend;

`(IV) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be extended for one or more stocks of fish of a multi-species fishery, provided that there is evidence that those stocks are on a positive rebuilding trend;

`(V) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be extended because of a substantial change to the biomass rebuilding target for the stock of fish concerned after the rebuilding plan has taken effect; or

`(VI) the Secretary determines that such 10-year period should be extended because the biomass rebuilding target exceeds the highest abundance of the stock of fish in the 25-year period preceding and there is evidence that the stock is on a positive rebuilding trend;'; or

(2) in paragraph (7), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting after the first sentence the following: `In evaluating progress to end overfishing and to rebuild overfished stocks of fish, the Secretary shall review factors, other than commercial fishing and recreational fishing, that may contribute to a stock of fish's overfished status, such as commercial, residential, and industrial development of, or agricultural activity in, coastal areas and their impact on the marine environment, predator/prey relationships of target and related species, and other environmental and ecological changes to the marine conditions.'; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

(
If the Secretary determines that extended rebuilding time is warranted under subclause (III), (IV), (V), or (VI) of paragraph (4)(A)(ii), the maximum time allowed for rebuilding the stock of fish concerned may not exceed the sum of the following time periods:

`(A) The initial 10-year rebuilding period.

`(B) The expected time to rebuild the stock absent any fishing mortality and under prevailing environmental conditions.

`(C) The mean generation time of the stock.

`(9) In this subsection the term `on a positive rebuilding trend' means that the biomass of the stock of fish has shown a substantial increase in abundance since the implementation of the rebuilding plan.'.

This post edited by sealaw 11:45 AM 02/15/2008
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,679 Posts
Looks like a excellent means to also modify the section for the SW Registry. Have them strike out the section for fees. Then the states will not be so motivated to have a SW license if they know the feds will do it all for no cost. If the goal is to get the best data, then make it free and voluntary.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
Capt. Marc wrote:
Looks like a excellent means to also modify the section for the SW Registry. Have them strike out the section for fees. Then the states will not be so motivated to have a SW license if they know the feds will do it all for no cost. If the goal is to get the best data, then make it free and voluntary.

Many states have voluntary log books for salt water fishermen now. How's that working?

It's going to be hard enough to change the current law to get even a little more flexibility (and you'll notice it's still up to NMFS discretion). No sense in asking for the house, car, and daughter when you are asking to borrow the phone
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,763 Posts
Capt. Marc wrote:
Looks like a excellent means to also modify the section for the SW Registry. Have them strike out the section for fees. Then the states will not be so motivated to have a SW license if they know the feds will do it all for no cost. If the goal is to get the best data, then make it free and voluntary.

you are right - except IMO they should make the registry for at $50 and it should be compulsory. see the discussion on mandatory rec reporting below.(http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?page=1&startrow=1&topic_ID=102956)
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
loligo wrote:

you are right - except IMO they should make the registry for at $50 and it should be compulsory. see the discussion on mandatory rec reporting below.(http://www.noreast.com/discussion/ViewTopic.cfm?page=1&startrow=1&topic_ID=102956)

H'mm, I didn't see anything in the original law that indicated that the registry was optional? Why should they charge anything for it, the NEFMC and the MAFMC give away the federal commercial licenses. Why should recs pay when commcials don't?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,169 Posts
The key to passing any legislation is to get a large number of Congressman including leaders from both parties to sign on as co-sponsers of the bill.

This bill currently has only 7 co-sponsers. Without more, it will languish in commitee and die.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
764 Posts
obtuseangler wrote:
The key to passing any legislation is to get a large number of Congressman including leaders from both parties to sign on as co-sponsers of the bill.

This bill currently has only 7 co-sponsers. Without more, it will languish in commitee and die.

Exactly! The bill is not a week old yet, but people need to contact their congressmen and tell them they should support HR 5425. 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.

The last thing anyone needs is to bog this bill down with so much pork and nonsense that it becomes something other than what it was intended. As soon as you start adding issues to it you come up with more reasons why some people might not want to support it.

Guys, please take your SW registry and reporting comments to those threads...pretty please.

Let's keep this one for news/comments/etc. about the bill specifically.

Lastly, while Thomas has not updated yet there are actually 11 sponsors to the bill now.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
sealaw wrote:
(2) in paragraph (7), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting after the first sentence the following: `In evaluating progress to end overfishing and to rebuild overfished stocks of fish, the Secretary shall review factors, other than commercial fishing and recreational fishing, that may contribute to a stock of fish's overfished status, such as commercial, residential, and industrial development of, or agricultural activity in, coastal areas and their impact on the marine environment, predator/prey relationships of target and related species, and other environmental and ecological changes to the marine conditions::
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,036 Posts
commfish wrote:
sealaw wrote:
(2) in paragraph (7), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting after the first sentence the following: `In evaluating progress to end overfishing and to rebuild overfished stocks of fish, the Secretary shall review factors, other than commercial fishing and recreational fishing, that may contribute to a stock of fish's overfished status, such as commercial, residential, and industrial development of, or agricultural activity in, coastal areas and their impact on the marine environment, predator/prey relationships of target and related species, and other environmental and ecological changes to the marine conditions::


Just out of curiosity, can anyone think of a fish that clause wouldn't apply too?
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
guest wrote:
commfish wrote:
sealaw wrote:
(2) in paragraph (7), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), by inserting after the first sentence the following: `In evaluating progress to end overfishing and to rebuild overfished stocks of fish, the Secretary shall review factors, other than commercial fishing and recreational fishing, that may contribute to a stock of fish's overfished status, such as commercial, residential, and industrial development of, or agricultural activity in, coastal areas and their impact on the marine environment, predator/prey relationships of target and related species, and other environmental and ecological changes to the marine conditions::


Just out of curiosity, can anyone think of a fish that clause wouldn't apply too?

Tuna? Basically almost any of the pelagic species.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
Senates version

We now have to wait for the senate to evaluate and submit another version of the bill? If that is the case , this could take quite a bit of time to actually get voted on. That should give us some more time to circulate the word about contacting our represtentatives.In the meantime a lot of strict changes have already started to hit us for next season.

:rolleyes:
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
67,033 Posts
fishforlife wrote:
We now have to wait for the senate to evaluate and submit another version of the bill? If that is the case , this could take quite a bit of time to actually get voted on. That should give us some more time to circulate the word about contacting our represtentatives.In the meantime a lot of strict changes have already started to hit us for next season.

:rolleyes:

IMHO there is no way this bill is going to have any effect on the 2008 seasons.
 
1 - 20 of 42 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