US Senate preventing overfishing

The House Resources Committee will mark up its version of a bill to reauthorize the 1976 law regulating the nation’s fisheries: the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Senate Commerce Committee has already reported its draft, which is largely the handiwork of Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska.
       In critical respects, the House bill—pushed by committee chairman Richard W. Pombo, R-California—represents a retreat from the progress the Senate bill would make in managing the nation’s fish stocks. It needs serious work.
       That Congress is paying attention to the endangered state of America’s oceans is promising. Two major reports over the past few years have documented how dire the problem is, and bad management of fisheries is a major cause.
       The Senate bill, which followed an open and serious legislative process orchestrated by Mr. Stevens, is far from perfect. Designed to augment the use of science by the regional councils that regulate fishing, it does not do enough to make sure council members are free of conflicts of interest and does not require that regulators follow the advice of their scientific committees in deciding how much fish can be caught. Still, the bill would improve current law.
       Councils are supposed to allow for the rebuilding of depleted fish stocks, but some permit overfishing to continue anyway. The Senate bill would require the councils to impose firm limits on each year’s catch and would dock the next year’s catch if these are exceeded; this provision was weakened a bit in committee and remains a work in progress.
       Mr. Pombo’s bill not only doesn’t include this critical accountability device, but it actually weakens the requirements for rebuilding depleted stocks—making the deadline for rebuilding more flexible in some instances. This is a recipe for more of the management policies that have caused disasters in New England fisheries.
       Mr. Pombo’s bill would also exempt the councils from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. Worst, it would apply the terms of Magnuson-Stevens to the national marine sanctuaries, thereby interfering with the government’s ability to prevent commercial fishing in underwater national parks.
       Mr. Pombo’s bill is not all bad. It requires, as the Senate bill does not, that the councils follow the advice of their scientific committees. Yet on the whole it would not only miss an opportunity to improve fisheries management but could also undermine what might well become a rare environmental achievement for President Bush: the designation of a giant marine sanctuary in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Making sure Mr. Stevens’ bill prevails over Mr. Pombo’s on these points should be a cause that unites the administration and its habitual foes in the environmental community. The Washington Post