SEAFOODNEWS.COM [Letters] — May 14, 2014 — Several points made in a recent Seattle Times article titled “Update of fisheries law pits West Coast against East Coast” may have been taken out of context and I wish to set the record straight to the extent that’s possible.
To the Editor: RE: "Dueling drafts of Magnuson Act reauthorization pit East Coast against West Coast " SeafoodNews May 12th
Several points made in a recent Seattle Times article titled “Update of fisheries law pits West Coast against East Coast” may have been taken out of context and I wish to set the record straight to the extent that’s possible.
First and foremost, as far as I’ve heard in my communications with many fishing groups and fishermen around the country, the East Coast and West Coast are not “pitted” against one another when it comes to reauthorizing the Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA).
Let me say that again. As far as I’m aware, there is no “split” between the two coasts over MSA Reauthorization.
Everyone I’ve spoken with agrees that the MSA must be reauthorized. Furthermore, the Regional Fishery Management Councils established under the Act must retain the authority to develop management measures specific to regional issues and concerns, guided by the best available science.
This is not an East Coast vs. West Coast issue. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. Regardless of party affiliation, where we live, or which fishery we participate in, as far as I’ve heard we all want the exact same thing. We all want viable commercial fisheries now and into the future, and we all want to see coastal communities thrive. End of story.
It would be very unfortunate if the Times story leads readers to a different conclusion. I am quoted in the story as saying the current law “is not perfect, but it’s largely working.” I stand by that comment 100%. I’m reluctant to speak for the entire North Pacific industry, but I believe most of my industry colleagues would agree the law has been very successful in providing a framework for sustainable fisheries management in the North Pacific.
I think the 30-year plus track record in the North Pacific is all the evidence you need in that regard. But I never said the MSA was perfect.
I would refer the reader to North Pacific Fishery Management Council Executive Director Chris Oliver’s testimony before the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries & Coast Guard this past February. In his testimony Mr. Oliver speaks to the fact that additional flexibility for Councils may be warranted in some circumstances, although he does offer “some important cautionary notes.” Once again, I never said the law was perfect. I said that for the most part it’s working well in the North Pacific.
That does not minimize or otherwise negate the fact that the Act may not be living up to its promise in other parts of the country. Many fishermen and fishing communities around the country have asked for changes to the existing law to provide for more effective implementation at the regional level.
These requests should absolutely be considered and I believe Chairman Hastings’ discussion draft offers many changes intended to address these regional disparities. Senators Magnuson and Stevens understood in 1976 that one size does not fit all when it comes to fisheries management.
Mr. Hastings’ discussion draft simply continues this regionally based approach. If I said that Mr. Hastings’ proposed changes were not needed, as the article states, I meant that if certain provisions of the existing law are changed to address regional considerations outside of the North Pacific, then maybe those changes should be limited to the regions for which they are intended. To imply that proposed changes would eventually undermine the health of fisheries or “squander” conservation gains made since 2006 was certainly not my intent.
As to the Senate discussion draft, I think it would serve readers well to start by focusing on two important but possibly overlooked words that appear in the article: Alaska and Florida. Senators Begich and Rubio are working in a bi-partisan manner to craft a bill that will address the broad suite of issues facing the commercial fishing industry not only in their home states, but also across the Nation. They are also trying to balance the perspectives of coastal communities, the recreational fishing sector and related support businesses, the conservation community, tribal interests, and subsistence users. This is not an easy task, nor one that Congress seems to be taking lightly. The “dozen hearings on how to rewrite the law,” as mentioned in the article, provide considerable evidence of that fact.
Both the House and Senate have circulated discussion drafts, not “dueling drafts” nor bills as the article indicates. The intent of these drafts is to get the discussion going and in that respect I’d say both have been a resounding success. The letter submitted by several North Pacific commercial fishing organizations (including, but not limited to United Catcher Boats and Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers) was intended to contribute to that discussion and help inform members of Congress as they move forward in drafting their respective bills. My hope is that we can focus our efforts and energy towards making sure the Magnuson Stevens Act works for everyone, rather than focusing on a controversy that doesn’t exist.
Mark H. Gleason, Executive Director
Alaska Bering Sea Crabbers
This opinion piece appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.