Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Gerry Zagorski
Keep me honest here guys, but the Magnuson Laws requires by law fisheries to be shut down if they are deemed in trouble. We recreational guys have been arguing that there needs to be some "flexibility" in this law because the science behind assessing the fish stocks is flawed and they fail to take into account the economic impacts of shutting down an entire fishery.
|
Gerry,
Very simple, concise explanation and ON target.
Bolt, Magnuson Includes all coastal waters / regions and more. Its a Federal LAW and applies to all federal waters
My understanding is there is a set number per species that decides if that species is "overfished" or "overfishing" is occurring and if so then THIS MUST HAPPEN per LAW. The "THIS MUST HAPPEN" is the issue as its cut in stone by LAW as to a shut down or reduction to "Save" the stock biomass. There is a big difference between Overfishing and Overfished. Overfishing means tighter regs, Overfished means shutdown.
The flexibility Act again as I understand it would open discussion to validate the science, include economic impact per region and factor in things like "Sandy" impact in our region for example and participation levels rather than the ridiculous numbers they create out of their ASS.
Magnuson started in 1976, was amended in 1996 and 2006 (I believe) but never given the "Flexibility" to consider that the data is flawed, and other factors need consideration. Its Important that this get done
