What is up with this???? This OPINION piece was on AL.com
Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Conservation Act of 2014: Bureaucratic overreach in the name of states rights (opinion)
By Ben Payton
There is a saying in Alabama, "If it ain't broken, it don't need a fixing."
Now, just as the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council has taken proactive steps to stabilize the Gulf's recreational red snapper fishery and end chronic recreational overages with accountability measures and sector separation, Congressman Jeff Miller of Florida has introduced the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Conservation Act of 2013, H.R. 3099.
The bill would shift red snapper management away from the National Marine Fishery Service and to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission and its member states, essentially undermining the mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that have rebuilt roughly 60 percent of the nation's overfished stocks since 2006.
Any legislation that removes fishery management for nationally economically important species like red snapper from the successes of the Magnuson-Stevens Acts to the Gulf States Commission and its state partners could destabilize the fishery and erode the progress made under a management system that has had many proven and measurable successes.
For certain, the road to Gulf recreational red snapper recovery, one we are still navigating by the way, has not been without its fair share of potholes and dangerous curves. We recreational anglers have witnessed our average size fish get bigger, while our seasons grow shorter and shorter as we reach our quota quicker.
(The) Red Snapper Conservation Act.. is a bureaucratic overreach.
But the other 800-pound gorilla in the room is the shortening of seasons due to the Gulf States extending state-water days longer than those of the federal season. The National Marine Fishery Service must shorten recreational fishing days in federal waters to account for the additional catch created by the longer, liberal state seasons. This dynamic has led to mistrust of the National Marine Fisheries Service's management system without considering the state's actions.
Because of the fundamental misunderstanding of the federal management system, compounded by a heavy dose of political gamesmanship played by recreational fishing groups that profess to represent fishermen, many anglers are petitioning their congressional representatives to increase the Magnuson-Stevens Act's flexibility, not realizing the legislation's mandates are already quite nimble. Miller's Red Snapper Conservation Act is an example of good intentions befuddled by misunderstanding of the Magnuson-Stevens Act's strengths and its inherent flexibility.
Representative Miller's Red Snapper Conservation Act attempts to shift the management of the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Fishery to state agencies and is a bureaucratic overreach. The Magnuson-Stevens Act already allows the Gulf Council to manage as it sees fit for its constituents, while minding the health of the resource.
The Gulf Council is already considering Amendment 39, or regional management, that would allow the states to manage the federal waters off their coasts by setting seasons, bag limits, and size restrictions that would better fit with their state's fishing habits and its angler's needs. Amendment 39 will allow the states the needed flexibility to manage their private recreational fishery, while allowing the Federal government to continue footing the bill for costly stock assessments and angler effort surveys that help monitor the fishery's health. This is accomplished under the existing Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Red Snapper Conversation Act proposes to shift those costs to the states and the Gulf States Commission within one year of passage.
As the southern states, particularly Alabama, still struggle to return jobs to our beleaguered communities and rebuild our economies, asking the Gulf States to burden their coffers by creating programs that will increase state expenditures with fishery management systems that are already in place and paid for is bad for the state, detrimental to the economy, and an irresponsible ploy to "fix" the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which ain't broken.
Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Conservation Act of 2014: Bureaucratic overreach in the name of states rights (opinion)
By Ben Payton
There is a saying in Alabama, "If it ain't broken, it don't need a fixing."
Now, just as the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council has taken proactive steps to stabilize the Gulf's recreational red snapper fishery and end chronic recreational overages with accountability measures and sector separation, Congressman Jeff Miller of Florida has introduced the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Conservation Act of 2013, H.R. 3099.
The bill would shift red snapper management away from the National Marine Fishery Service and to the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission and its member states, essentially undermining the mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that have rebuilt roughly 60 percent of the nation's overfished stocks since 2006.
Any legislation that removes fishery management for nationally economically important species like red snapper from the successes of the Magnuson-Stevens Acts to the Gulf States Commission and its state partners could destabilize the fishery and erode the progress made under a management system that has had many proven and measurable successes.
For certain, the road to Gulf recreational red snapper recovery, one we are still navigating by the way, has not been without its fair share of potholes and dangerous curves. We recreational anglers have witnessed our average size fish get bigger, while our seasons grow shorter and shorter as we reach our quota quicker.
(The) Red Snapper Conservation Act.. is a bureaucratic overreach.
But the other 800-pound gorilla in the room is the shortening of seasons due to the Gulf States extending state-water days longer than those of the federal season. The National Marine Fishery Service must shorten recreational fishing days in federal waters to account for the additional catch created by the longer, liberal state seasons. This dynamic has led to mistrust of the National Marine Fisheries Service's management system without considering the state's actions.
Because of the fundamental misunderstanding of the federal management system, compounded by a heavy dose of political gamesmanship played by recreational fishing groups that profess to represent fishermen, many anglers are petitioning their congressional representatives to increase the Magnuson-Stevens Act's flexibility, not realizing the legislation's mandates are already quite nimble. Miller's Red Snapper Conservation Act is an example of good intentions befuddled by misunderstanding of the Magnuson-Stevens Act's strengths and its inherent flexibility.
Representative Miller's Red Snapper Conservation Act attempts to shift the management of the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Fishery to state agencies and is a bureaucratic overreach. The Magnuson-Stevens Act already allows the Gulf Council to manage as it sees fit for its constituents, while minding the health of the resource.
The Gulf Council is already considering Amendment 39, or regional management, that would allow the states to manage the federal waters off their coasts by setting seasons, bag limits, and size restrictions that would better fit with their state's fishing habits and its angler's needs. Amendment 39 will allow the states the needed flexibility to manage their private recreational fishery, while allowing the Federal government to continue footing the bill for costly stock assessments and angler effort surveys that help monitor the fishery's health. This is accomplished under the existing Magnuson-Stevens Act.
The Red Snapper Conversation Act proposes to shift those costs to the states and the Gulf States Commission within one year of passage.
As the southern states, particularly Alabama, still struggle to return jobs to our beleaguered communities and rebuild our economies, asking the Gulf States to burden their coffers by creating programs that will increase state expenditures with fishery management systems that are already in place and paid for is bad for the state, detrimental to the economy, and an irresponsible ploy to "fix" the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which ain't broken.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire