Conservationists, Scientists Propose Changes in U.S. Fishery Management Act

posted in: April 1994 | 0

In 1976, Congress passed the Fishery Conservation and Management Act, better known by the name of its chief sponsor, Senator Warren C. Magnuson, of Washington state. The act placed management of the nation’s fishery stocks out to 200 nautical miles under the authority of the Secretary of Commerce. Since its initial passage, the Magnuson Act has been amended 16 times, most recently in 1990, when tuna were brought under the act’s jurisdiction and when the use of large driftnets was prohibited.

The Magnuson Act is up for reauthorization in 1996. The Marine Fish Conservation Network, in concert with the National Audubon Society; and the American Fisheries Society are pushing for amendments to the Magnuson Act that would make fisheries management oriented more toward assuring sustainable use. What follow are some of their suggestions that have application in Hawai’i.1

Conservation versus allocation. At present, the same agencies (the fishery management councils) that make decisions about conservation of fisheries resources also decide how those resources should be allocated. By law, the councils are made up of people who, for the most part, have close ties to the fishing industry. As a result, councils sometimes yield to pressures that favor overfishing instead of conservation. According to the American Fisheries Society, “councils are directed to set total allowable catch levels based on social, economic, and ecological factors. The biological requirements of stocks are sometimes allotted less consideration than immediate economic needs and social concerns of the fishing industry.” The North American Fisheries Action Agenda Implementation Plan, sponsored by scientists from the American Fisheries Society, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, favor an amendment to the Magnuson Act that would require an “acceptable biological catch” (ABC) to be determined before councils establish a “total allowable catch” (TAC) limit.

Risk-averse versus risk-prone decision making. According to the American Fisheries Society, “the history of marine fisheries management in the United States and the world has been marked with far more failures than successes. The most prevalent stance taken by managers has been inaction pending presentation of solid scientific ‘proof’ that restrictive measures are necessary to prevent stock collapse.” However, “proof” sufficient to satisfy all concerned usually does not come until the stocks hit bottom. If the Magnuson Act were changed to require the Secretary of Commerce to adopt guidelines that incorporate a level of uncertainty into figures used in determining acceptable catch limits, the American Fisheries Society argues, the “risk-prone” decision-making practices of many management councils would be minimized.

By-catch reductions. The way fisheries are now managed, the waste and destruction associated with the catch of non-targeted species are not regulated, except to the extent that the by-catch is an animal that enjoys federal protection. This lack of regulation gives the fishing industry no reason to search out less wasteful gear or to modify its haul in other ways. As a result, populations of species important to maintaining the ecological balance of the ocean in a heavily fished area may be in a decline that won’t be noticed until the ocean ecology is disturbed to the point it disrupts fishing and other marine activities. Both the Marine Fish Conservation Network and the American Fisheries Society support an amendment to minimize by-catch and call a halt to fishing practices that are inherently wasteful and destructive.

Council composition. With the fishery management councils’ membership heavily weighted toward the industry, it is hardly surprising that they tend to be responsive to pressures that can lead to overfishing. Two recommendations of the American Fisheries Society seek to change this. The first is an amendment to prescribe that council members “shall be trustees of the public’s resources and not act as representatives of special user groups.” The second amendment would “move the act’s requirement that all nominees to the councils must possess fisheries expertise, and replace it with a requirement that three voting members of each council should have no affiliation with a user group or state or federal resources agency” The Marine Fish Conservation Network endorses such changes as well.

User fees. At present, the only fees that can be imposed by fishery management councils are license fees equal to the modest cost of record keeping associated with the licenses. The manifoldly greater costs of managing the nation’s fisheries are borne by taxpayers. One of the recommendations of the American Fisheries Society is to amend the Magnuson Act to allow the assessment of reasonable user fees or royalties which, as the society describes it, “would be a payment made to the public for the privilege of exclusive access to a public resource.”

1 The position of the American Fishery Society is stated in the article, “Reauthorization of the Magnuson Act,” which appeared in Fisheries, 18:10 (October 1993). Citations referring to the society’s position are taken from that article. The positions of the Marine Fish Conservation Network and the Audubon Society are taken from Audubon Activist, January-February 1994. In addition to the National Audubon Society, member groups of the Marine Fish Conservation Network include the Center for Marine Conservation, Greenpeace, and the National Coalition for Marine Conservation, and the World Wildlife Fund.

— Patricia Tummons

Volume 4, Number 10 April 1994