SEAFOOD.COM NEWS [by John Sackton] — April 21, 2014 — The Senate draft for Magunson reauthorization would change forage fish protections and would mandate recreational / commercial allocation reviews. In looking at the draft bill, it is obvious that heavy lobbying by NGOs on forage fish, and by the Coastal Conservation Association and other sport fishing commercial groups, is reflected in the draft bill.
Both groups aim to add provisions to Magnuson that would allow them to force the councils to allocate fish for predator needs, and to take away quotas from commercial users in favor of recreational users. The recreation language is particularly dangerous, as it would virtually ensure allocation battles before the council every eight years for species where both commercial and recreational qutoas exist. As it has taken the North Pacific Council nearly ten years to address halibut charter allocation issues, the prospect of reopening settled problems every eight years is a recipe for disaster.
The Sen. Commerce subcommittee on Oceans chaired by Alaska Sen. Mark Begich has begun circulating a draft Magnuson reauthorization bill based on hearing testimony it has taken earlier.
There is still a long way to go before the reauthorization is voted on in the Senate, and then it still has to be reconciled with the bill being proposed in the House. As a result, most don't see it happening in this year's Congress.
The major changes in the current bill are also subject to substantial revision. However, the highlights show that envirionmental groups have been working to tighten protections on 'forage fish' and bycatch.
The major items covered in the summary include:
Subsistance
The bill would add subsistance oversight and consultation to the existing management councils, and ask the councils to consider subsistance allocations and give governors authority to appoint subsistence representatives to the councils.
Depletion and Overfishing
The bill would address the fact that some depleted stocks, such as Pribilof Island blue king crab, are not 'overfished' , and would define more carefully fisheries that simply have low stock levels that cannot support a commercial harvest, as either overfished, or otherwise depleted.
Time line for Rebuilding
The Senate version would add some provisions that would change the application of the ten year or as short as possible rebuilding time, when it is scientific consensus that a mean generation and/or the minimum rebuilding time of a fishery is more than ten years. However the overall standard would remain in place.
Forage Fish
The committee would add a number of protections for forage fish, including a definition under the MSA, requirements for Council scientific committees to account for forage fish dependence by predator fish, and a requirement to adjust annual catch limits to include needs of predators for forage fish populations.
By catch
The draft would modify the definition of bycatch to include incidental mortality from gear and bait fish.
Recreational / Commercial
The draft would rework how councils allocate recreational and commercial quotas in mixed use fisheries such as halibut and red snapper. This is a controversial aspect of the bill, as it would change the value of allocated fish quotas in IFQ fisheries.
The draft calls for council review of allocations every eight years; and a study of factors to be considered by the council in allocating mixed use fisheries.
Annual Catch Limits
The bill would clarify that annual catch limits are to apply to target species; not bycatch species. A multi-species annual catch limit would be sufficient for bycatch species.
Ecosystem management
The bill would require the Secretary to define ecosystem management, and give the councils authority to enact such ecosystem management, if they chose to do so.
Sustainability Label
The bill would create a voluntary sustainability labeling scheme under the Magnuson Stevens Act. For a fish that meets the sustainability standard and has a traceability system in place, that fish could be marketed as 'sustainably caught.' The bill would also provide penalties for fraudulent use.
The draft also goes on with more specific points including an arctic set aside if fish quotas are established there, and several more regionally specific issues.
Overall the draft represents heavy lobbying by NGOs on forage fish, which is a key campaign supported by Pew to get a forage fish control mechanism in Magnuson, which would then be used at the council level.
The other heavy lobbying has come from the CCA, (Coastal Conservation Association) a group funded by marine outboard engine manufacturers and other suppliers, and with heavy political support from offshore recreational fishing and charter guides. These groups have as a goal to reduce or eliminate commercial catch on species they want to use exclusively for recreation; and the draft reflects their hope to push the councils into a reallocation battle every eight years.
This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.