JCAA

      

 

JCAA Comments on the Farr Bill

by Paul Tur

(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association February 2002 Newsletter)

The Marine Fish Conservation Network has developed the Farr Bill, H2570, to modify the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The JCAA, along with its member club representatives, has reviewed the Farr Bill at length, and the following is the position of the JCAA and its member clubs. Our position on sections of this bill reflects the recent court decision made on summer flounder that have forced NMFS to make management decisions that do not reflect what is actually happening with the status of the summer flounder stocks. This has carried over into management of other species such as scup and sea bass. What sounded good on paper because of a judge's interpretation has caused untold economic hardship on the commercial and recreational industry needlessly. It has also affected the quality of life of the recreational angler by greatly reducing his harvest of these species. It has not allowed managers at the Councils and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to be flexible in its management process. For these reasons, when JCAA reviewed this bill, we could not support sections that could be broadly interpreted by the courts. If changes are to be made in the law, those changes should be specific and not left to broad interpretation. Because of those court decisions, NMFS is now forced to use poorly designed models as its primary management tool. It is for those reasons that we offer what we deem to be constructive criticism of the Farr Bill.

MINIMIZING BYCATCH: Section 3.

This section makes avoiding bycatch a priority and will set targets. General agreement to this provision is to support the changes for the commercial sector. Any recreational catch that is released alive should not be included as bycatch. We want to maintain the 1996 definition of bycatch for the recreational fishery.

PROTECTION OF ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT: Section 4.

We agree with the premise but we need to make sure this section is clear and unambiguous that it relates to commercial fishing gear and is not interpreted to exclude recreational fishermen or divers. The current definition of EFH allows for very broad interpretation and could close some recreational fisheries due to potentially damaging activity. Areas should be closed only to gear that presents a problem to a specific species that needs protection. Before an area is closed to a specific gear it must be scientifically shown that the specific gear is causing the problem.

REFORM OF THE REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCIL: Section 5.

We do not support increasing the number of seats on the Council. We need an equal distribution of declared interests on the Council. The public at large, recreational and commercial interests should have equal representation.

CONSERVING ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES: Section 6.

This section will allow more stringent regulations than required by ICCAT. What needs to be added is wording which will force the management of these species on a worldwide basis rather than the US only. Stocks that travel across the Atlantic but are managed as local populations has proven ineffective. The danger of this section is to further restrict US fishermen without implementing corresponding restrictions on other nations that are ineffective in improving fish stocks.

MANDATORY FISHERY OBSERVER PROGRAM: Section 7.

We fully support this section of the bill.

CONSERVING MARINE ECOSYSTEMS: Section 8.

This section has the potential of severely limiting recreational fishing. Combined with the precautionary principle huge fishing areas could be closed to all recreational angling. We do not support this concept as it is written. We would like to see multi-species management based on real scientific data when it becomes available.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH & DATA COLLECTION: Section 9.

We support points 1, 2 and 3 data collection. We object to points 4 & 5. Because of our experience with the Mid-Atlantic Bight surf clam/ocean quahogs ITQ fishery, JCAA cannot support any ITQ/IFQ system that rewards people who cheat the system. It does not protect the public's right to the public resource. A public resource should not be privatized.

ELIMINATION OF OVERFISHING & REBUILDING OF OVERFISHED POPULATIONS: Section 10.

Overfishing should be avoided, but fish populations must be properly defined with realistic targets and rebuilding schedules. Good data collection is essential. The management process must balance stock protection and rebuilding schedules with social and economic needs of the recreational and commercial fishing industries. Under the current fisheries management system the destroyers of the resource are rewarded with a larger percentage of the quota. The sector that causes the pain should suffer the pain with reduced quotas during the rebuilding process. Refer to section 304 (7)(A), (7)(B). In addition, NMFS has not conducted required economic studies on regulatory changes as to how these regulatory changes will impact the recreational community. We need to strengthen the law to assure that NMFS fulfills that requirement.

PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH TO FISHERIES MANAGEMENT: Section 11.

We cannot support the precautionary approach. When we look at the management of sea bass, scup and summer flounder, we realize what can happen when the NMFS uses poorly designed models and data that are not timely. Often data input to the models are two or more years old. Until we obtain more accurate and timely data that actually reflects reality, we cannot support the precautionary approach in its present form.