U.S. tightens fishing policy, setting 2012 catch limits for all managed species

[eppefour]

U.S. tightens fishing policy, setting 2012 catch limits for all managed species

Smaller Text Larger Text Text Size
Print
E-mail
Reprints

By Juliet Eilperin, Published: January 8

In an effort to sustain commercial and recreational fishing for the next several decades, the United States this year will become the first country to impose catch limits for every species it manages, from Alaskan pollock to Caribbean queen conch.

Although the policy has attracted scant attention outside the community of those who fish in America and the officials who regulate them, it marks an important shift in a pursuit that has helped define the country since its founding.

68

Comments

Weigh In
Corrections?

inShare

Graphic
Catch limits are intended to protect the 528 species in federally managed fisheries.
Click Here to View Full Graphic Story

Catch limits are intended to protect the 528 species in federally managed fisheries.

Unlike most recent environmental policy debates, which have divided neatly along party lines, this one is about a policy that was forged under President George W. Bush and finalized with President Obama’s backing.

“It’s something that’s arguably first in the world,” said Eric Schwaab, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s assistant administrator for fisheries. “It’s a huge accomplishment for the country.”

Five years ago, Bush signed a reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which dates to the mid-1970s and governs all fishing in U.S. waters. A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers joined environmental groups, some fishing interests and scientists to insert language in the law requiring each fishery to have annual catch limits in place by the end of 2011 to end overfishing.

Although NOAA didn’t meet the law’s Dec. 31 deadline — it has finalized 40 of the 46 fishery management plans that cover all federally managed stocks — officials said they are confident that they will have annual catch limits in place by the time the 2012 fishing year begins for all species. (The timing varies depending on the fish, with some seasons starting May 1 or later.) Some fish, such as mahi-mahi and the prize game fish wahoo in the southeast Atlantic, will have catch limits for the first time.

Until recently the nation’s regional management councils, which write the rules for the 528 fish stocks under the federal government’s jurisdiction, regularly flouted scientific advice and authorized more fishing than could could be sustained, according to scientists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...bjP_story.html

[seapower]

How important job's are for our fishing communitie's, in the Gov'ts eye. Lose/lose for everyone BUT NOAA & NMFS, they keep their job's regardless. Shutting down or limiting fishery's that THEY say are "not over-fished" or "re-built" makes no sense to anyone but them. Sorry, just more of the same thing in my eye's. If and when the line get's drawn on this wasteful spending we are paying for, I hope these 2 group's get the axe. I can't imagine how the fish ever survived before they showed up. Also notice, that we are the ONLY Country that's signed on for this. In my eye's, we're just saving fish for someone else who don't have law's or don't follow the one's in place. Just think about all the turtle's saved by Gov't mandated excluded devices, just to be eaten Down South, starting at the Mexican boarder. Frank

[marine4003]

Its the minority dictating what the majority does..enviromental groups are well funded..well organized have lots of lobbying cash and are a very vocal voice in DC, BUT..recreational and commercial fishermen outnumber them 2-1...are we well organized ? NO. right there's the problem, we wait for someone else to fix the problem, now its getting to hard to fix..we don't write letters to our senators..we don't show up at meetings we don't voice our outrage in the media..Who do we blame for this injustice to our way of life...OURSELFS.

[seapower]

I have done all of the above, for year's. It's very hard to loose time attending meeting's when you are allowed to speak and no one is listening. There are proceedure's in are nothing more than "formality's". I agree to a point that most of the fishing population sit's back and wait's to see how it shakes out. The real problem is, the deck is (and has been for decades) stacked beyond belief. If you even try to talk to some of the folk's gathering data and dispute what they found, you get "rolling of the eye's". I have personaly been on some of their data gathering trip's, it was an absolute joke. Guess what, the proposed closure went through anyway. If this is how the rest of the Gov't work's, we're screwed! Frank

[billschwabe]

I've sat through numerous "public hearings" and your absolutely correct. They are a complete sham and only intended to give the general public an impression they have input in the matter when in fact the decissions are usually already made and in the federal register. People get so discourged they then stop contributing to the recreational (or commercial) fishing lobby goups who have the only chance to make a difference. The virtual closure of nearly every species off our coast irregardless of the consequences to the industries affected flies in the face of the Magnuson-Stevens Act's intentions, to protect and enhance that very commerce. The only positive side is that when sanity finally prevails (and I am an eternal optomist that it will someday), and real life status of the fisheries is "discovered" by the NMFS, there will be so many fish out there catches will be as good or better than they were in the old days.