Scott Browns Fish Act

[Raven]

he'll be proposing it soon

from his news letter concerning Mass Jobs

Fishing communities throughout Massachusetts - one of the oldest industries in the state - are facing economic hardship because NOAA and the Commerce Department refuse to acknowledge that their regulations are strangling the fishing industry. My FISH Act would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to require fishery impact statements to be independent and updated on an annual basis. The Commerce Department must be forced to comply with an independent analysis, which will be done by an outside neutral third party who would be chosen by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). If an independent auditor finds that NOAA regulations are hurting fishing communities, NOAA should be forced to make changes.

[MarkB]

Where were these people when all the factories I worked in were shutting down? Hundreds of times more jobs involved, and they looked the other way - or actually helped it happen by supporting NAFTA. And manufacturing didn't draw down any resources, like commercial fishing does. Those guys would fight each other to be the one to take the very last fish, and then they'd want the government to buy their boats from then.

[striperman36]

they're all illegals and vote democratic

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Raven

he'll be proposing it soon

from his news letter concerning Mass Jobs

Fishing communities throughout Massachusetts - one of the oldest industries in the state - are facing economic hardship because NOAA and the Commerce Department refuse to acknowledge that their regulations are strangling the fishing industry. My FISH Act would amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to require fishery impact statements to be independent and updated on an annual basis. The Commerce Department must be forced to comply with an independent analysis, which will be done by an outside neutral third party who would be chosen by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). If an independent auditor finds that NOAA regulations are hurting fishing communities, NOAA should be forced to make changes.

On the surface, this seems very much like a policy drafted by someone that doesn't understand how fishery management works. Now, if the "neutral third party" reports that striped bass are at critically low levels and NOAA uses that scientific evidence to close the striper season, that will definitely hurt fishing communities.

Does this "independent auditor" now force NOAA to "make changes" and keep the season open?

I'm sure I am missing something here.


Also, I can think of a change NOAA should make that will help fishing communities: Second offense of poaching results in the immediate forfeiture of all fishing equipment, gear, tackle and vessels; along with a 5-year revocation of all commercial fishing licenses. Then, all impounded fishing equipment is auctioned off, with the proceeds put into a fund for the families of fishermen who died at sea.

[MakoMike]

The bill is designed to force NOAA/NMFS to take economics and the impact on fishing communities into account. They are two of the national standards for fishery management contained in the MSA, but have been completely ignored by the SSCs when they set the quotas.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by MakoMike

The bill is designed to force NOAA/NMFS to take economics and the impact on fishing communities into account. They are two of the national standards for fishery management contained in the MSA, but have been completely ignored by the SSCs when they set the quotas.

Economics and the impact on fishing communities shouldn't really have much account. The health of the targeted stock along with how much it is being exploited should be the principle concern.

Seems like business as usual in Washington. Disregard Science, Acquire Lobbyist Money.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Economics and the impact on fishing communities shouldn't really have much account. The health of the targeted stock along with how much it is being exploited should be the principle concern.

Seems like business as usual in Washington. Disregard Science, Acquire Lobbyist Money.

You have to take economics into account. Let us say Recreation creates more jobs and has a larger impact on the economy then Commercial fishing of a species. Then economics should play a roll in how that species is managed.A huge roll. NOAA doesn't do that for the most part now.

Science has a way of having results suit the beliefs of those doing the research. IMO

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Economics and the impact on fishing communities shouldn't really have much account. The health of the targeted stock along with how much it is being exploited should be the principle concern.

Seems like business as usual in Washington. Disregard Science, Acquire Lobbyist Money.

Better write your Congressman then, because that's the law, and its being ignored by NOAA/NMFS. I'll post a really good article in a few minutes that explains in non-technical terms our current fishery management regime.

[MakoMike]

Originally Posted by buckman

Science has a way of having results suit the beliefs of those doing the research. IMO

When it comes to fishery "science" that statement is true in spades!

[Sweetwater]

Neutral Third Party? What's that. I they exist, I haven't seen one.