Democratic witnesses at House hearing warn against Hastings proposal
E&E News
By Jessica Estepa
Februar 28, 2014
When it comes to rewriting the main fisheries law in the United States, witnesses today cautioned the House Natural Resources Committee against making any major changes that would undermine the progress already made under the act.
"We believe large-scale changes to the [Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act] are not warranted, and any changes made to the act should be carefully considered," said Dorothy Lowman, chairwoman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council.
Her statement was echoed by federal officials, fishing industry representatives and conservationists as they testified before the full committee on a discussion reauthorization draft released by Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.).
That message echoes remarks from ranking member Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) at previous hearings examining the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. And reinforcing the message was likely the point of today's hearing, given that Democrats invoked a standing rule in order to bring in people they had invited.
Hastings' discussion draft received its first hearing earlier this month, with testimony from Obama administration officials, fishery managers and other stakeholders. But Democrats argued that they hadn't been able to invite their own witnesses, leading to today's hearing (E&E Daily, Feb. 26).
Bob Rees, president of the Association of Northwest Steelheaders' North Coast chapter, said the discussion draft released by Hastings would jeopardize the successes already achieved under Magnuson-Stevens. He took issue with a provision that would undo the 10-year rebuilding timelines for depleted stock.
He also said the proposal would allow for overfishing on depleted populations for between five and seven years, a point challenged by Hastings, who said that language was not included in his draft.
Peter Shelley, vice president of the Massachusetts branch of the Conservation Law Foundation, spoke about the groundfish federal disaster in New England. But unlike others who have come from the region to ask for more flexibility in their managing practices, he said the rules should remain in place.
The stock problems in New England, where fishermen have seen high quota cuts enforced by federal officials, are the result of overfishing practices in the 1990s, not the 2006 amendments made to Magnuson-Stevens, he said.
"The fisheries that are in trouble in New England are in trouble because rebuilding was improperly delayed and ineffectually pursued," he said.
Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, warned that provisions included in the discussion draft that would relax both Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Policy Act statutes could prove problematic.
Members also heard from Samuel Pooley, director of the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center, who provided context about how Magnuson-Stevens affects the Western Pacific region and noted that better fishery science was needed for the data-poor stocks managed in that area. Democratic committee members had criticized the majority for not bringing in representatives from the Western Pacific to testify on the act.
Next Article