Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries
256 Figueroa Street #1, Monterey, CA 93940
(831) 373-5238
www.alliancefisheries.com

 

Follow-up Witness Questions
House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans
October 24, 2007

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1187, the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuaries Boundary Modification and Protection Act; H.R. 1907, the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Act; and H.R. 3352, the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act Amendments of 2007

 

Follow-up Questions for Ms. Fosmark

Questions from Mr. Brown (R-SC)

1. Since the legislation contains provisions regarding prohibited activities and allowable activities, should the authorization for commercial and recreational fishing be spelled out in the legislation to remove any confusion?  Why are you not comfortable leaving this authorization in the regulations rather than statute if this legislation were to become law?

We believe that the authorization should be spelled out in legislation, just as it was when the sanctuaries were created.  Regulations can be changed too easily, as we have seen with the Channel Islands NMS where the “promise to fishermen” was broken.

2.      The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act states in National Standard #3 that “to the extent practicable, an individual stock of fish shall be managed as a unit throughout its range, and interrelated stocks of fish shall be managed as a unit or in close coordination.”  The Act also gives this management authority to the regional fishery management councils.  Do you believe this language gives the councils priority to manage fisheries, even in sanctuaries unless specifically exempted?  Are you aware of any attempts by sanctuary managers to develop fishery management regimes different than those passed by one of the councils or without council input?

While we believe that the Councils should – and do – have priority, apparently neither NOAA nor its National Ocean Service (NOS) agree. Testimony presented to the Pacific Fishery Management Council by NOS attorneys made clear their belief that a simple change in the designation document can clarify their authority over fisheries management.  While they profess willingness to come to the Council first and give the Council an opportunity to recommend regulations, those recommendations will only be followed if the Council does what the sanctuary asks for.

Further, in a letter to the Pacific Council from VADM Lautenbacher in regard to Council actions to restrict fishing in the Channel Islands NMS (as requested by the sanctuary), it was made clear that NOAA interprets the law as giving the Council no authority over the water column (only over the bottom and over specific fishing activities) and thus the

CONTINUED