U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–390 PDF 2017

EXPLORING THE SUCCESSES 

AND CHALLENGES OF THE 

MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, July 19, 2017 

Serial No. 115–19 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Chairman Emeritus 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Vice Chairman 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonz lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Greg Gianforte, MT 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Vice Ranking Member 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Colleen Hanabusa, HI 

Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, CA 

Darren Soto, FL 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jimmy Gomez, CA 

Todd Ungerecht, Acting Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS 

DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman 

JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Vice Chairman 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Greg Gianforte, MT 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, July 19, 2017 .......................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Kaelin, Jeff, Government Relations, Lund’s Fisheries, Inc., Cape May, 

New Jersey .................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 17 

Martin, Sean, President, Hawaii Longline Association, Honolulu, Hawaii . 33 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 34 

Wiley, Nick, Executive Director, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission, Tallahassee, Florida ............................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 14 

Witek, Charles, Recreational Angler and Outdoor Writer, West Babylon, 

New York ....................................................................................................... 22 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 28 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 55 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXPLORING THE 

SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES OF THE 

MAGNUSON-STEVENS ACT 

Wednesday, July 19, 2017 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lamborn, LaMalfa, Graves, Hice, 

Webster, Bishop, Gianforte; Huffman, Beyer, and Barraga ́n. 

Also present: Representatives Young and Scott. 

Mr. LAMBORN. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans 

will come to order. The Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee 

meets today to hear testimony on an oversight hearing entitled, 

‘‘Exploring the Successes and Challenges of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act.’’ 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman, Ranking Minority Member, and 

the Vice Chair. I ask unanimous consent that all other Members’ 

opening statements be made part of the hearing record if they are 

submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Also, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Georgia, 

Mr. Scott, be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee and participate 

in the hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

We will begin with opening statements, starting with myself, for 

5 minutes each. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. LAMBORN. Good afternoon. Today the Subcommittee will be 

diving into—no pun intended—one of the key authorizing Acts 

under our jurisdiction: the Magnuson-Stevens Act, named after 

longtime Senators Warren Magnuson and Ted Stevens. However, I 

would argue that there should be a third name in the title of this 

Act—our good friend and Chairman Emeritus of the House Natural 

Resources Committee, Don Young of Alaska. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Congressman Young has been a longtime leader 

of Federal fisheries management issues, and we greatly benefit 

from having his expertise on these issues here in this Committee. 

2 

Our public lands and waters should be open to the public. 

Unfortunately, in recent years, access has been eroded by a past 

administration that ignored state and local laws, input, and 

science. As we will hear from our witnesses today, these decisions 

have had real impacts on local economies, cultures, and traditions. 

Time and again, this Committee has heard from many commercial and recreational fishermen and the businesses that depend on 

them about the need for more transparent science and flexibility 

for regional fishery managers. Congress can and should do something about this. 

Last Congress, the House passed Congressman Young’s bill to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act—the law that governs 

Federal fisheries management. This bill was endorsed by commercial fishing groups, recreational angler and sportsmen’s groups, and 

the shoreside businesses that they support. While this bill ultimately did not get signed into law, Mr. Young has revamped his 

efforts this Congress with his introduction of H.R. 200. 

This bill makes key reforms to reflect scientific advancements 

and regional needs. It specifically provides flexibility to the 

Regional Fishery Management Councils who are charged with 

managing our Federal fisheries stocks. It requires the Federal 

Government to incorporate state and local data when it comes to 

making fish population assessments and provides for greater transparency to make sure management decisions are made in an open 

manner. It is my hope that, with this bill, we will begin to bring 

this law into the 21st century. All fishermen deserve the right to 

fish, and that is what this bill helps give them. 

I may not live in a coastal community, however, like many of my 

colleagues who are here today, I have constituents that want fresh, 

sustainable, U.S.-caught seafood on their dinner plates. Those 

same constituents may want to go on vacation—for instance, to the 

Vice Chairman’s Sunshine State—and take a deep-sea fishing trip. 

Our constituents should not have to choose between the two. We 

can do both. 

As we will hear today from our panel of witnesses, we can maintain sustainability while also increasing access to our waters for 

all. We can strike a balance, and it is incumbent on us to do so. 

The valuable input given in today’s hearing will help guide the 

Committee as we work with our colleagues to make key reforms to 

this law. 

I want to thank our panel of witnesses for being with us here 

today, and I look forward to hearing from you all on how we can 

help bring Federal fisheries management into the 21st century. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER, POWER AND OCEANS

Good afternoon. Today, the Subcommittee will be diving into one of the key 

authorizing Acts under our jurisdiction: the Magnuson-Stevens Act, named after 

longtime Senators Warren Magnuson and Ted Stevens. However, I would argue that 

there should be a third name in the title of this Act: our good friend and Chairman 

Emeritus of the House Natural Resources Committee, Don Young. Congressman 

Young has been a longtime leader of Federal fisheries management issues and we 

greatly benefit from having his expertise on these issues here in the Committee. 

Our public lands and waters should be open to the public. Unfortunately, in recent years, access has been eroded by a past administration that ignored state and 

3 

local laws, input and science. As we will hear from our witnesses today, those decisions have had real impacts on local economies, cultures and traditions. Time and 

again, this Committee has heard from many commercial and recreational fishermen 

and the businesses that depend on them about the need for more transparent 

science and flexibility for regional fishery managers. Congress can and should do 

something about this. 

Last Congress, the House passed Congressman Young’s bill to reauthorize the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act—the law that governs Federal fisheries management. This 

bill was endorsed by commercial fishing groups, recreational angler and sportsmen’s 

groups and the shoreside businesses that they support. While this bill ultimately 

did not get signed into law, Mr. Young has revamped his efforts this Congress with 

the introduction of H.R. 200. 

This bill makes key reforms to reflect scientific advancements and regional needs. 

It specifically provides flexibility to the Regional Fishery Management Councils who 

are charged with managing our Federal fisheries stocks; it requires the Federal 

Government to incorporate state and local data when it comes to making fish population assessments and provides for greater transparency to make sure management 

decisions are made in an open manner. It is my hope that—with this bill—we will 

begin to bring this law into the 21st century. All fishermen deserve the right to fish 

and that’s what this bill helps give them. 

I may not live in a coastal community, however—like many of my colleagues here 

today—I have constituents that want fresh, sustainable, U.S.-caught seafood on 

their dinner plates. Those same constituents may want to go on vacation to the Vice 

Chairman’s ‘‘Sunshine State’’ and take a deep-sea fishing trip. Our constituents 

should not have to choose. As we will hear today from our panel of witnesses, we 

can maintain sustainability while also increasing access to our waters for all. 

We can strike a balance and it is incumbent on us to do so. The valuable input 

given in today’s hearing will help guide the Committee as we work with our 

colleagues to make key reforms to this law. 

I want to thank our panel of witnesses for being here with us today and I look 

forward to hearing from you all on how we can help bring Federal fisheries management into the 21st century. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Huffman of California, for 5 minutes for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate that 

the Subcommittee is holding an oversight hearing on the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. Last Congress, we did not have this kind 

of opportunity for input, and unfortunately, a partisan and contentious bill was rushed through Committee with no input from our 

side of the aisle. So, I hope that this time we can actually work together on what has traditionally been a very bipartisan issue: 

fisheries management. And if we do that, I think we can make real 

progress for our Nation’s fishermen and coastal communities. 

Congress, of course, passed the original Magnuson-Stevens Act in 

1976, and subsequent amendments in 1996 and 2006. And the context of that has always been very bipartisan in both chambers. It 

involved Republicans working with Democrats to enact significant 

reforms. It has been just over 10 years since the last of these, the 

2006 reforms. As we take stock of those, I think we have to conclude that the law is working. 

In 2006, 13 percent of stocks were subject to overfishing, 23 

percent were overfished. The most recent NOAA report from 2016 

showed that only 9 percent of stocks are subject to overfishing, and 

only 16 percent are overfished. 

4 

That is good progress. These numbers have remained at these 

all-time lows over the past several years, and every year during 

this period, the number of rebuilt stocks has increased. We now 

have 41 rebuilt stocks, so Magnuson has been successful. 

Healthy fisheries, of course, also means a healthy fishing industry. In 2015, that meant 1.62 million jobs and over $200 billion in 

sales from commercial and recreational fishing, supporting coastal 

communities across this country, including my own district on the 

north coast of California. 

Because this law ensures that fisheries are managed based on 

science, rather than short-term economic or political motivations, 

these benefits can continue growing as long as we maintain responsible and sustainable management measures. 

Unfortunately, some believe—or argue, at least—that Magnuson 

is too restrictive, and they want to weaken or circumvent this important law. I am fully aware that it is not always easy or popular 

to implement fishing restrictions. Management tools like catch limits and rebuilding plans, they are essential to ensure a future for 

our fisheries and our fishing industry, but in the moment they can 

be very unpopular, especially in certain localities. 

In my district, fishermen went through a period of sacrifice. They 

had several tough years while groundfish stocks were depleted. But 

Magnuson provided the scientific and regulatory framework to 

bring them back. We have now rebuilt half of our groundfish 

species, and more of them are on the way to being rebuilt. These 

accomplishments certainly did not come easy, but our fishermen, 

after making sacrifices, are now benefiting from the long-term 

health of our fisheries, and the communities that depend on these 

fisheries are benefiting, as well. 

Fishing restrictions, of course, don’t just happen. They are only 

put in place because they are absolutely necessary. If there are not 

enough fish to support strong harvests both now and in the future, 

then we have to make the tough decision to cut back. 

As we know, Magnuson can be improved, and it is my hope that 

Democrats and Republicans on this Committee can actually work 

together and stay focused on fisheries instead of using reauthorization of this important law as a vehicle for partisan, anticonservation agendas to support special interest groups. 

Unfortunately, in recent years our friends across the aisle have 

not done that. They have chosen, in fact, to pass highly partisan 

bills that did not benefit from bipartisan collaboration, and the result sort of speaks for itself. Those bills went over to the Senate 

and they were dismissed out of hand. 

So, it ought to be crystal clear that the right thing to do, in terms 

of good public policy, and also the durability and success of whatever bill passes out of this House can only come from working together. I know there are good ideas on both sides of the aisle to 

achieve our conservation goals, to modernize data and monitoring, 

to make fisheries more accessible and profitable. 

I also know that it is a legacy of overfishing, and not recent restrictions or other conservation laws, that has caused protracted 

hardship in some fishing communities. These communities are 

never going to get real relief until target stocks rebuild, and that 

5 

can only happen with a strong Magnuson Act based on sound 

science and accountability. 

So again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing, and I look 

forward to hearing from the witnesses. 

Welcome, we are glad you are here. And hopefully I look forward 

to working together to reauthorize a strong Magnuson Act. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate that this Subcommittee is holding an oversight hearing on the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Last Congress, we 

didn’t have this important opportunity, and unfortunately a partisan and contentious bill was rushed through Committee with no input from our side of the dais. 

So, I hope that this time we can work together on the traditionally bipartisan issue 

of fisheries management and make real progress for our Nation’s fishermen and 

coastal communities. 

Congress passed the original Magnuson-Stevens Act in 1976, and subsequent 

amendments in 1996 and 2006. For context, those amendments were passed while 

Republicans controlled both chambers, and after working with Democrats to enact 

significant reforms. It has been just over 10 years since the 2006 reforms were 

passed, and it is clear that the law is working. 

In 2006, 13 percent of stocks were subject to overfishing and 23 percent were 

overfished. The most recent NOAA report from 2016 showed that only 9 percent of 

stocks are subject to overfishing and 16 percent are overfished. These numbers have 

remained at these all-time lows over the past several years and every year the number of rebuilt stocks increases. We now have 41 rebuilt stocks, so I think it’s safe 

to say that Magnuson has been successful. 

Healthy fisheries also mean a healthy fishing industry. In 2015, 1.62 million jobs 

and $208 billion in sales from commercial and recreational fishing supported coastal 

communities across the country. Because the law ensures that fisheries management is based on science rather than short-term economic or political motivations, 

these benefits can continue growing as long as we maintain responsible and sustainable management measures. 

Unfortunately, some claim that Magnuson is too restrictive and want to weaken 

or circumvent the law. While I’m fully aware that it isn’t always easy or popular 

to implement fishing restrictions, management tools like annual catch limits and rebuilding plans are essential to ensure a future for our fisheries and fishing industry. 

In my district, fishermen went through several tough years while groundfish 

stocks were depleted. But Magnuson provided the scientific and regulatory framework to bring them back. We’ve now rebuilt half of our groundfish species and more 

are on the way. These accomplishments certainly didn’t come easily. Our fishermen 

had to make sacrifices, but the long-term health of our fisheries and communities 

depend on making these tough conservation decisions, and the support from commercial and recreational fishermen has been integral to sustaining the fisheries that 

are critical for West Coast communities. 

The success and sustainability of the fishing industry relies on harvesting from 

healthy and productive fish stocks. Fishing restrictions are only put in place because 

they are absolutely necessary—if there aren’t enough fish to support strong harvests 

both now and in the future, we need to cut back. 

As we discuss how Magnuson can be improved, it is my hope that Democrats and 

Republicans on the Committee can work together and stay focused on fisheries, instead of using reauthorization of this important law as a vehicle for a partisan anticonservation agenda to support special interest groups. Unfortunately, Committee 

Republicans have chosen the latter path during each of the last two Congresses, and 

the Senate has dismissed their bills out of hand. It should be crystal clear from this 

experience that in order to craft a bill that can become law, we must work together. 

I know that there are good ideas from both sides to achieve conservation goals, 

modernize data and monitoring, and make fisheries more accessible and profitable. 

I also know that it is the legacy of overfishing, and not recent restrictions or other 

conservation laws, that has caused protracted hardship in some fishing communities. Those communities will never get real relief until target stocks rebuild, and 

that can only happen with a strong Magnuson Act based on sound science and 

accountability. 

6 

We must also accept the reality of climate change, and incorporate climate science 

into fisheries management. Fish stocks are responding to changing temperatures 

and ocean conditions, and these impacts must be considered if we hope to achieve 

and maintain strong and sustainable fisheries. 

Earlier this morning, I talked about the importance of science in managing 

endangered species, and again I’d like to highlight the importance of science, this 

time in managing our Nation’s fisheries. We cannot let political or short-sighted 

economic priorities set the agenda for managing any of our Nation’s resources, especially the fisheries that support coastal economies. Magnuson has been a great 

success for our fisheries, recreational and commercial fishing industries, and people 

across the country who enjoy eating sustainable seafood. I urge the Committee to 

move forward on Magnuson reauthorization in a collaborative manner this Congress 

and I hope that we can make progress on a bipartisan effort to strengthen fisheries 

management. 

With that I’d like to thank the witnesses for being here today and I look forward 

to hearing from you. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I now recognize the Vice Chair of the 

Subcommittee, Mr. Webster of Florida, for any statement he may 

wish to make. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to yield my time 

to the gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young. 

Mr. LAMBORN. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. 

And I will say that the bill started in this Committee with another 

Democrat, Mr. Gerry Studds from Massachusetts. We wrote the bill 

through the input from fishermen, because the fish were being 

over-harvested by foreign fleets. We passed the bill and it went 

over to the Senate side. And, as people will recognize, it was named 

after two Senators from the West Coast. All I can say, this action, 

has been one of the better, brighter spots of this Committee. 

I will say that the bill has worked beautifully. There have to be 

some adjustments made, but I have to say to my good friend from 

California, there is a two-way street here. You don’t want to catch 

any fish, that is really the whole problem, and that is because you 

want to catch them yourself. And we need the industry as it is to 

be very viable. We have done that. I believe my bill last year, with 

the flexibility, which was requested by people involved in the fisheries, including the scientists—and I was accused of destroying the 

Magnuson Act, which I gave birth to. 

I think some of the objections to it were not really well thought 

out, and what they were trying to do—certain interest groups 

outside the fishery would have stopped the whole activity of commercial and recreational fisheries. 

So, Mr. Chairman, this has been an outstanding piece of successful legislation. I personally do believe in a Council system. Some 

of the Councils have not functioned well. In my case, the North 

Pacific Council has done quite well. We are heavily abundant in 

fish, and there is not as much conflict as there is in other areas 

across this Nation. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Webster for yielding me 

his time, and suggest that this is an enlightening hearing. Hopefully, we will have the ability to make—if we change some of the 

decisions, I would like to see it reauthorized. We did pass it out of 

the House, even though the threat that Mr. Obama was going to 

veto. What for, I don’t know. I won’t ask that question again. 

7 

But this is a good piece of legislation, as proposed, and as the 

hearings go. But this hearing is important to hear from all sides, 

again, and hopefully move a bill that will accomplish the job of sustainable yield of fisheries. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I will just recognize that we have our Full 

Committee Chairman, Representative Bishop of Utah, with us 

today also. 

If the witnesses want to come forward to the chairs, our first witness is Mr. Nick Wiley, Executive Director of the Florida Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Commission from Tallahassee, Florida; our 

second witness is Mr. Jeff Kaelin, who works in government relations for Lund’s Fisheries, Inc., from Cape May, New Jersey; our 

third witness is Mr. Charles Witek—I hope I said that correctly— 

a recreational angler and outdoor writer from West Babylon, New 

York; and our final witness is Mr. Sean Martin, President of the 

Hawaii Longline Association, from Honolulu, Hawaii. 

Each witness’ written testimony will appear in full in the hearing 

record, so I ask that witnesses keep their oral statements to 5 

minutes, as outlined in our invitation letter to you, and under 

Committee Rule 4(a). 

I will explain how the timing lights work. When you are recognized, press the talk button to activate your microphone. Once you 

begin your testimony, the Clerk will start the timer and a green 

light will appear. After 4 minutes, a yellow light will appear. At 

that time, you should begin to conclude your statement. At 5 

minutes, a red light comes on. I will ask that you complete your 

sentence at that time. 

Mr. Wiley, if you could present your testimony, we will start with 

you. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF NICK WILEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FLORIDA 

FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION, 

TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 

Mr. WILEY. Chairman Lamborn, Vice Chair Webster, Ranking 

Member Huffman, Chairman Bishop, and other Members, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today. I recognize the purpose of 

this hearing is to explore successes and challenges. 

The Magnuson-Stevens Act has delivered some successes. But 

today, I need to focus on the challenges. Candidly, in Florida and 

across the Southeast we are facing a number of highly controversial and divisive fishery management issues that we cannot fully 

address because we are boxed in by the current framework of this 

Act. 

Today, the Act simply is not providing for the best utilization of 

our Nation’s public trust fishery, by our experience. There are 

several key issues that need to be addressed, including overly restrictive catch limits, flawed monitoring tools, and inflexible fishery 

rebuilding plans. 

Strict annual catch limits are a serious issue for us. They work 

well for commercial fisheries, where harvest and catch rates can be 

monitored closely and effectively, almost real-time. They do not 

work well for recreational fisheries, because we simply cannot 

monitor recreational fisheries this closely. 

8 

The Marine Recreational Information Program, known as MRIP, 

is a primary tool for monitoring recreational fishing, but it will 

never be sufficient to support management decisions under strict 

annual catch limits. Forcing use of MRIP in this manner means we 

use untimely and unreliable harvest estimates, which translate 

into short-notice closures, reduced seasons, and reduced catch limits. All of these are actions that frustrate recreational anglers. 

These issues can be illustrated with red snapper management in 

the Gulf of Mexico. Our Gulf red snapper stock is rebuilding well 

ahead of schedule, but the Federal system is penalizing recreational anglers for success. We are required to manage catch limits by pounds caught, which is a commercial approach. As red 

snapper get more abundant and bigger, the recreational harvest 

reaches catch limits more quickly, and Federal seasons get 

shorter—down to just 3 days this year. 

Thankfully, several of you and your colleagues recognized the 

seriousness of this dilemma and helped us work with the Department of Commerce to allow a 39-day season this year. To those of 

you who led the way on this effort, particularly Majority Whip 

Steve Scalise and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, I offer our 

gratitude for your leadership and support. 

Current requirements for rebuilding stocks under MagnusonStevens are unnecessarily inflexible. The law requires rebuilding 

plans to end overfishing within 2 years, and attempt to rebuild 

stocks within 10 years. These requirements result in overly prescriptive constraints and inflexibility that hinders reasonable management of fish stocks. If we had flexibility for longer rebuilding 

time frames, stocks could be rebuilt while still allowing more reasonable access for fishing. 

Inflexible rebuilding time frames also pressure fishery managers 

to use inaccurate or even fallible scientific information for management decisions because it is the best available science. The red 

snapper fishery in the Atlantic is a good example of this issue. Although science tells us our Atlantic red snapper stocks are increasing dramatically, the fishery has been open for only 11 total days 

of recreational fishing over the past 8 years. 

But with no fishing season, we get no harvest data and our bestavailable science and stock assessments no longer reflect the reality anglers are seeing on the water. We get no season again this 

year: a bona fide Catch-22, because we cannot scientifically support 

a harvest without actually having a harvest. 

But we are encouraged by legislation that has recently been introduced here in the House, specifically H.R. 200 and H.R. 2023. 

These bills would substantially improve fisheries management and 

help bring better balance for fisheries conservation and access. My 

written testimony specifies much of what we like about these 

pieces of legislation. 

So, the take-home message is that the current Federal management system with regard to recreational fishing, in our view, forces 

a square peg in a round hole, causing high levels of frustration and 

loss of confidence in all of us. I know we can do better. 

In fact, we only need to look to our near-shore fisheries in 

Florida and other southeastern states to see how we can do better 

using well-established management and monitoring tools designed 

9 

for recreational fishing. We have a proven track record in the nearshore fisheries, such as red drum, sea trout, and snook. We absolutely can manage for robust and abundant salt water fisheries, 

working in cooperation with recreational anglers. 

Please don’t fall for the argument that we want to weaken 

Magnuson-Stevens. That notion is an affront to the conservation 

legacy established by recreational anglers and state fishery agencies. 

Much to the contrary, our suggestions are intended to strengthen 

the Act, strengthen partnerships with state fisheries agencies, restore balance between access and conservation, and restore credibility and trust in the system. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NICK WILEY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, FLORIDA FISH AND

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION (FWC) 

Chairman Lamborn, Vice Chair Webster, and Ranking Member Huffman, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing ‘‘Exploring the Successes 

and Challenges of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.’’ 

My name is Nick Wiley, and I serve as Executive Director for the Florida Fish 

and Wildlife Conversation Commission (FWC). FWC is the state agency responsible 

for managing fish and wildlife resources in the state of Florida. I also serve as 

president of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), which is the professional association that represents state fish and wildlife agencies nationwide. My 

remarks today, however, are offered on behalf of my agency in Florida. 

Recreational fishing generates an economic impact of $8 billion to Florida’s 

economy and supports more than 115,000 jobs. Florida leads the Nation in the number of saltwater recreational anglers. We have more world record fish catches than 

any other state or country. Our state is home to a thriving fishing tackle and 

marine manufacturing industry. Florida leads the Nation in the number of registered boats, with nearly 50 percent of boat owners using their boats for fishing. 

Recreational boating contributes $10 billion to our economy and supports more than 

80,000 jobs. 

Florida has one of the top-producing commercial fisheries in the country, which 

is second in the Nation in terms of sales, income, and value-added impacts, and is 

third in the Nation for the number of jobs supported by commercial fishing. The seafood industry in Florida supports more than 90,000 jobs. Sales of Florida seafood 

have an economic impact of more than $1 billion. 

As the state agency responsible for managing saltwater resources for their longterm well-being and the benefit of people, FWC is uniquely positioned to comment 

on the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

BACKGROUND

As you are aware, Magnuson-Stevens was enacted in 1976 and amended in 1996 

and, most recently, in 2007. The original law creating the Federal fisheries management structure has largely remained in place for more than 40 years. Eight regional 

management councils are responsible for developing and implementing fishery management plans. Council members are nominated by governors and are appointed by 

the Secretary of Commerce. The regional management councils monitor fisheries 

and make recommendations for fishery management plans that are ultimately approved by the Secretary of Commerce with guidance from the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). These fishery management plans dictate access 

to, types of, and number of fish that are available to recreational anglers, the 

charter fleet, and the commercial industry. 

Fishery management plans have a huge impact on the economy at every step from 

sea to table. It is important, therefore, that all parties involved in the fisheries management plan development processes have access to the right data, use all tools 

available to interpret these data, and be given the flexibility to make necessary 

management decisions. 

I recognize the purpose for this hearing is to explore the ‘‘successes and challenges’’ of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This Federal legislation has provided the 

framework for a number of successes. Many important fish stocks have been rebuilt 

10 

or are well on the way to rebuilding due to the provisions of this Act and its diligent 

implementation. In my agency and my state, however, we always stay focused on 

challenges and are continually seeking ways to solve problems and improve. This 

is particularly true with our efforts to sustainably manage marine fishery resources 

for the benefit of Florida families, communities, and the millions of Americans who 

visit our state each year from across the Nation. 

Given this, I am not inclined to look in the rear view mirror to celebrate successes 

or rest on laurels. In fact, I want to be very candid in my remarks today. Speaking 

for my agency and many of our stakeholders, we are not pleased with the current 

framework of Magnuson-Stevens and believe there is much room for improvement. 

We are facing a number of highly controversial and divisive fishery management 

challenges that continue to simmer. We cannot fully address these challenges in 

many cases because we are boxed in by the current framework of the MagnusonStevens Act, and we need your help to find solutions. 

Magnuson-Stevens was originally designed to prevent overfishing in the commercial fishing industry and implement rebuilding plans when fish stocks are overfished. The Act has worked best when applied to the commercial sector, but not so 

well when applied to the recreational sector. The 2007 reauthorization of MagnusonStevens created numerous challenges for the management of marine fisheries resources in the southeastern United States. The requirements to manage fisheries 

under strict annual catch limits, the overly prescriptive constraints for stock rebuilding plans, and general inflexibility within the current version of the law have 

hindered management of fish stocks in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. This 

inflexibility has fostered a serious erosion of public confidence, trust, and support 

for this fishery management system. FWC believes Magnuson-Stevens, as currently 

written, needs to be modified and improved to better balance today’s need for access 

and conservation. Changes to the law are needed to provide better utilization of and 

access to the Nation’s public trust resources for the American public and the citizens 

of Florida. 

ANNUAL CATCH LIMITS ARE NOT A UNIVERSAL SOLUTION

The requirements for annual catch limits and fishing levels required by 

Magnuson-Stevens are impractical for the South Atlantic and Gulf regions, which 

harbor the largest segment of recreational fishing in the Nation. While annual catch 

limits, or quotas, may work well for commercial fisheries in which harvests are 

closely monitored, they can complicate management of recreational fisheries, such 

as red snapper. This is the case because the system that generates recreational harvest estimates, the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), is less precise 

than commercial monitoring and does not generate estimates in real time. This 

system was not designed or equipped for tracking recreational harvest to the individual pound, but was originally intended to provide general trends in recreational 

harvest and effort. Recreational data is often extrapolated unrealistically, especially 

for species not commonly targeted by hook-and-line, such as hogfish, which are primarily speared, or for species classified as ‘‘rare events,’’ such as red snapper, which 

has had no annual season in the South Atlantic region the last few years, and before that, had a very short one. 

Even though methodologies to estimate recreational harvest have improved since 

the last Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization, they are still insufficient to manage recreational fisheries under strict annual catch limits. Yet, bound by the requirements 

of Magnuson-Stevens, Federal fishery managers use the recreational data collection 

system to justify the closing of fisheries, often with minimal advance notice. Despite 

fishery managers’ best efforts to constrain recreational harvest to the annual catch 

limit through fishing seasons and recreational bag limits, the unpredictable figures 

produced by the system can result in estimated harvest exceeding the annual catch 

limit. The penalties for doing so, including closures, reduced seasons, and reduced 

catch limits, frustrate private recreational anglers and prevent the charter industry 

from developing effective business plans. Management of the recreational sector 

under strict annual catch limits generates devastating socioeconomic effects and is 

highly unreasonable due to the insufficiency of the recreational data collection 

system. 

In the southeastern United States, the annual catch limit requirement further 

complicates fisheries management for stocks that have never been assessed or 

whose assessments are outdated. Accurate stock assessments are the linchpin for 

successful management under annual catch limits. Historically, investment in stock 

assessment capabilities in the Southeast has been low in comparison with other 

parts of the country. In 2017, only five assessments of South Atlantic or Gulf 

Council-managed stocks are scheduled to be completed under the SEDAR process 

11 

(three for the South Atlantic and two for the Gulf). Given the large number of 

federally managed fish stocks, as well as the high level of participation and the economic revenues generated by fisheries in the Southeast, the funding and priorities 

of NOAA are woefully inadequate for this region. Although the annual catch limit 

is a Federal requirement, the state of Florida, through FWC, produces many of the 

stock assessments needed to implement this system. In addition to assessments of 

state-managed species, FWC annually produces one or two assessments of federally 

managed species. Inadequate funding of the research and the capacity needed to 

conduct adequate stock assessments will continue to inhibit management under annual catch limits and will prevent fisheries from achieving optimal yields. 

So, in summary, with regard to recreational fisheries management, particularly 

in the Southeast, the current monitoring system under Magnuson-Stevens is truly 

a square peg in a round hole causing high levels of frustration, particularly among 

recreational saltwater anglers. I do not fault the Federal and state fishery scientists 

and managers who are doing their best to make this system work. We just do not 

have the flexibility to fully address these problems without changes to the statutory 

framework and more strategic funding solutions. 

Magnuson-Stevens already acknowledges that it is not appropriate to manage all 

fisheries under annual catch limits, such as in fisheries where the species life cycle 

is less than a year. However, there are other fish stock characteristics that pre-empt 

the utility of annual catch limits in the United States. For example Florida’s spiny 

lobster is one of the state’s most valuable commercial fisheries with a dockside value 

averaging $20 to $24 million annually. Lobsters have a unique life cycle with a long 

larval stage, which means the recruits for Florida’s fishery are spawned elsewhere 

in the Caribbean. As a result, harvest in Florida has minimal effect on future abundance of the stock. Decisions made in foreign Caribbean countries ultimately seal 

the fate of our fishery. Thus, an annual catch limit provides no biological benefit 

for Florida’s spiny lobster, and Magnuson-Stevens should not require this fishery to 

be managed under this system. 

A concrete example of how the current management system of annual catch limits 

has failed comes from the Gulf of Mexico recreational red snapper fishery. After a 

long history of overfishing, the Gulf red snapper stock is rebuilding ahead of schedule, and annual catch limits have increased. The commercial fishery has benefited 

through individual fishing quotas and now has access to the stock year round. In 

contrast, the recreational fishery has faced increasing uncertainty in recent years, 

with Federal fishing seasons being cut shorter and shorter each year. The 

Magnuson-Stevens framework in this regard has created a situation where 

recreational fishing literally is a victim of successful stock rebuilding rather than 

realizing increasing access and sharing in successful rebuilding. As a result, the 

recreational season for Gulf red snapper diminished to just 3 days in 2017. 

Thankfully, several of you and your colleagues recognized the seriousness of this 

dilemma with Gulf red snapper and worked with the U.S. Department of Commerce 

and Gulf states to allow a 39-day season in Federal waters this year. To those of 

you who led the way on this effort, particularly Majority Whip Steve Scalise, and 

on behalf of recreational anglers and coastal communities across the Gulf of Mexico, 

I want to offer a heartfelt thank you for the relief you provided this season. But 

now we have to look ahead to next season and beyond to secure durable solutions 

for the red snapper situation in the Gulf and South Atlantic. We are earnestly and 

respectfully seeking your continued attention and support in this regard over the 

next few weeks and months. 

If alternative fishery management systems can be employed in Federal fisheries 

management, private recreational anglers and charter captains would face less uncertainty in fishing seasons while stocks, such as Gulf red snapper continue to rebuild. These innovative approaches would provide valuable socioeconomic benefit to 

Florida’s Gulf coast fishing communities, such as Destin and Panama City, which 

depend on charter trips and vacationing families staying in hotels and eating in 

local restaurants, for much of their economy. But, we cannot get there without your 

help. 

THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS UNNECESSARILY INFLEXIBLE

The management system established under the 2007 Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization is extremely inflexible and sometimes contrary to common sense. Under the 

requirements of Magnuson-Stevens, the regional management councils develop rebuilding plans for overfished stocks. The law requires rebuilding plans to end overfishing within 2 years and attempt to rebuild stocks within 10 years, if biologically 

possible. These arbitrary deadlines can be unnecessarily disruptive to fishing communities and local economies. In some cases, if longer time frames were allowed, 

12 

fisheries could be rebuilt or overfishing could be eliminated without devastating the 

economic livelihood of fishermen and negatively effecting fishing communities. We 

are simply suggesting a more balanced and measured approach that would benefit 

all sectors of the fishery while maintaining a path to full rebuilding of fishery 

stocks. This approach will achieve fishery conservation goals while restoring public 

confidence in and support for our collaborative fishery management system. 

Inflexibility also impacts how data is used in fisheries management. MagnusonStevens requires fishery management plans and regulations be ‘‘based upon the best 

scientific information available.’’ This is sound in theory. However, due to inadequate funding for fisheries research in the southeastern United States, the shortcomings of the recreational data collection system, and stock assessment models 

that depend upon harvest data, the ‘‘best scientific information available’’ is not 

always best. The regional management councils and their scientific advisors have 

recognized this. Yet, they are constrained to using fallible data when making management decisions because it is the best available. 

Perhaps one of the best examples of the requirement to use the ‘‘best scientific 

information available’’ confounding sound management in the Southeast occurs in 

the Atlantic red snapper fishery. The Atlantic red snapper stock was first declared 

overfished in 2008. In response, the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

(SAFMC) took drastic measures to end overfishing and implement a rebuilding plan. 

This included prohibiting all harvest of red snapper in 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015, and 

2016. In the last 8 years, NOAA Fisheries has only allowed 17 days of recreational 

harvest. This creates a significant problem for assessing the Atlantic red snapper 

stock. 

The 2016 stock assessment determined Atlantic red snapper is still overfished and 

undergoing overfishing. However, the magnitude of overfishing is unknown. This is 

because the model used to assess the red snapper stock relies on data from fishing 

to inform the assessment. NOAA Fisheries has determined that without a fishery, 

the model cannot produce results to inform management or to set annual catch limits. Although the 2016 stock assessment found the stock abundance had dramatically increased, management of the fishery must still be guided by the ‘‘best 

scientific information available,’’ which comes from the 2010 stock assessment. 

Consequently, there will be no fishery again this year from which to collect data to 

inform the next stock assessment. How can we defend this situation to the hardworking people in the recreational fishing industry, the charter boats, and 

commercial fishermen whose livelihoods depend on sustainable access to this 

fishery? 

The 2010 Atlantic red snapper stock assessment established annual catch limits 

that restrict the amount of both harvest and dead discards. Dead discards result 

when fishermen incidentally catch red snapper and release them but the fish does 

not survive. As the fishery has been closed, only dead discards have been counted 

against the annual catch limit. The system that generates recreational data, including dead discard, estimates has been deemed the ‘‘best scientific information available.’’ As stated earlier, data produced by this system is imprecise and is often extrapolated unrealistically, especially for closed fisheries. The estimated number of 

dead discards has increased exponentially in recent years, and for the past 3 years, 

it exceeded the annual catch limit. NOAA Fisheries acknowledges that estimates of 

dead discards are flawed. Clearly, the system is broken if the estimated number of 

fish that die because of bureaucratic regulations exceeds the annual catch limit. 

These same fish could have been harvested and enjoyed by America’s anglers and 

seafood consumers. Changes are needed to break this cycle, including the flexibility 

in determining when and how scientific data should be used. 

THERE IS A PATH FORWARD

FWC is encouraged by legislation recently introduced in the U.S. House of 

Representatives that would amend Magnuson-Stevens to provide realistic solutions 

for continued conservation and management of marine fisheries, while also providing reasonable public access to these resources. H.R. 200 introduced by 

Congressman Don Young (R-AK), the Strengthening Fishing Communities and 

Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act, would substantially improve 

fisheries management and help bring better balance for fisheries conservation and 

access. Specifically, those improvements are: 

• Basing fish stock rebuilding time frames on biology rather than on an 

arbitrary, one-size-fits-all deadline; 

• Providing flexibility in ceasing a rebuilding plan when it is determined to no 

longer be necessary; 

13 

• Giving regional management councils the flexibility to use ecosystem changes 

and economic needs of fishing communities when setting annual catch limits; 

• Exempting certain stocks where annual catch limits may not be appropriate, 

such as spiny lobster; 

• Providing flexibility in the management of recreational fisheries, such as 

fishing mortality rate targets and alternative rebuilding strategies; 

• Repealing Section 407(d) because this section is outdated and should be removed given it addresses creation of an Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) 

program and catch limits for red snapper. Gulf red snapper has an IFQ 

program, and catch limits are now addressed elsewhere in the MagnusonStevens Act. Removal of this section also would allow the Council to consider 

needed modifications to the red snapper IFQ program without always needing 

a referendum. 

• Increasing public involvement and transparency when scientific data are 

developed; 

• Prioritizing improvements to data collection and stock assessments, 

particularly in the Southeast; 

• Forming a Federal-State partnership program to improve data collection for 

recreational anglers; 

• Adding a definition for ‘‘depleted’’ and requesting NOAA to indicate in an 

annual report on why a species is depleted, which might not be related to 

fishing; 

• Requiring a referendum for South Atlantic Council LAPP programs. 

While acknowledging enactment of this bill would deliver major improvements, 

FWC recommends additions or changes as follows to more completely address significant fishery management issues: 

• Reef Fish Stock Assessments in the Gulf: The Gulf States Marine 

Fisheries Commission does not have the personnel with institutional knowledge and appropriate science and marine fisheries management background 

to perform the due diligence and provide an accurate stock assessment. FWC 

suggests, therefore, changes that would identify a more appropriate organization to perform reef fish stock assessments and stands ready to help identify 

such an organization. 

• Cost recovery money from Limited Access Privilege Programs 

(LAPPs): A complete accounting of the disbursements, including how much 

is used for program administration, law enforcement, etc., would provide a 

high level of transparency for the public to understand how this program 

operates. 

• Marine Recreational Information Program Reporting: FWC suggests 

changes in the MRIP report that transparently acknowledge the limitations 

of MRIP for the current management system. 

• Referendum Participation: FWC suggests limiting catch share voting to 

those who have landings from the particular species for which the catch share 

is being implemented. 

In addition to H.R. 200, H.R. 2023, the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries 

Management Act, which was introduced by Congressmen Graves (R-LA), Green (DTX), Webster (R-FL), and Wittman (R-VA) contains many important reforms that 

would be bring stability, flexibility, and security to recreational fishing. 

Some of those key reforms are: 

• Charging National Academy of Sciences (NAS) with conducting a study on 

allocation for South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico mixed-use fisheries; 

• Repealing Section 407(d) of Magnuson and giving Councils the authority to 

use alternative fishery management measures for recreational fisheries; 

• Instituting a moratorium on LAPP for mixed-use fisheries in the Gulf of 

Mexico and South Atlantic. FWC suggests including a sunset date, such as 

5 years, for the moratorium; 

• Basing rebuilding time frames on biology, stock status, and the needs of 

fishing communities; 

14 

• Giving Councils flexibility to consider changes in ecosystem and economic 

needs of communities when setting ACLs and removing ACL requirements for 

certain criteria. FWC suggests allowing the Secretary of Commerce, when 

determining an ACL, to consider that overfishing is not occurring or inadequate data collection system is being used. 

• Including affected states in review of proposed exempted fishing permits to 

ensure the proposed activity is consistent with management and conservation 

objectives, and that social and economic impacts are minimal; 

• Facilitating greater incorporation of data, analysis, stock assessments, and 

surveys from state agencies and non-governmental sources and following 

through with recommendations of the NAS for evaluation of whether MRIP 

use is compatible with current management; 

• Creating best practices for state-administered recreational data collection 

programs and providing funding for improvement of state data collection programs. Within 90 days of enactment, Secretary of Commerce must enter into 

agreement with NAS to review if MRIP is compatible with the needs of inseason management of annual catch limits, including whether in-season 

management of annual catch limits is appropriate for all recreational 

fisheries. 

This is an exciting time to be involved in fishery management. We appreciate 

these opportunities to address serious problems and create a better fishery management system for all parties involved including the hardworking people in the fishing 

industry and the millions of American families who count on us to provide sustainable access to enjoyable saltwater fishing and tasty seafood. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and FWC looks forward to working with you and the members of this Committee to advance legislation 

that strikes the important balance between access and conservation. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. WITTMAN TO MR. NICK WILEY, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

COMMISSION

Question 1. In my region, anglers are extremely frustrated with Federal management of cobia, in which data seems wildly inaccurate based on what anglers are experiencing on the water. You noted that annual catch limits create a lot of problems 

when data are lacking. I’ve heard about another issue with cobia, but in your region 

in the Gulf of Mexico, where anglers have been expressing a lot of concerns about 

the health of the fishery. Yet, because the annual catch limit wasn’t being exceeded, 

Federal fisheries managers didn’t see cause to respond. 

I understand your state is proactively implementing more conservative regulations 

for the fishery, but this seems like a big problem on the Federal side, where a lack 

of data combined with the annual catch limit requirement can actually put a fish 

stock MORE at risk. 

Would you agree? 

Answer. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) meets five 

times a year at various locations around the state. This allows staff and the commissioners to hear from our stakeholders, fishing groups, and other interested parties. 

Over the course of the last few years, FWC staff has been hearing from our anglers 

about cobia mainly in the panhandle in the Gulf of Mexico. In May 2017, FWC held 

five public workshops and one online webinar for all parties to provide input. As 

a result of the feedback from our fishing community and, with support from data 

that we have access to, FWC is taking steps to improve the cobia fishery. Our draft 

regulations, which will be presented to the commissioners at the September 2017 

meeting for final approval, would institute several changes FWC believes will improve access and conservation. The last Federal stock assessment for Gulf of Mexico 

cobia occurred in 2013. Because it has been several years since the last assessment 

and anglers have expressed concerns about the cobia fishery, the Gulf Council has 

requested another cobia stock assessment, which expected to occur in 2019. Florida 

anglers have requested that FWC take immediate action to conserve Gulf cobia until 

the next stock assessment can be completed. Annual Catch Limits (ACLs) are not 

a universal solution. For years, FWC has been advocating for changes to MagnusonStevens. That is why FWC believes allowing more flexibility and alternative fishery 

management systems would improve conservation and increase access, especially in 

the recreational sector. 

15 

Question 2. While the Magnuson-Stevens Act has been generally successful at rebuilding fish stocks, it has become clear to me based on my personal experience and 

the amount of outcry I hear from other recreational fishermen, that the Act hasn’t 

been able to manage that success in a way that works for anglers. I know that there 

are ways to adjust this law so that it works better for anglers while maintaining conservation safeguards, but in my experience the best conservation safeguard we have 

are anglers themselves. 

Mr. Wiley, in your decades of experience working with the recreational fishing community, what do you think recreational fishermen want these fisheries to look like 

and what role should the rec community have in conservation efforts? 

Would you agree that modest but important changes are needed to MSA to adapt 

it to work better for recreational fishermen? What changes do you think are the most 

important? 

Answer. As you know, the recreational and commercial fishing industry are two 

different industries. FWC believes Federal and state law ought to examine each industry separately and provide solutions that work for both industries. MagnusonStevens was enacted to address issues in the commercial industry. Those laws and 

regulations do not necessarily fit the recreational industry. Therefore, FWC believes 

Magnuson-Stevens ought to be changed to allow more flexibility and improvements 

for the recreational sector. FWC believes H.R. 2023 is a good addition to the 

Federal stage. FWC supports many of the provisions in H.R. 2023, including MRIP 

changes, because those provisions are an attempt to provide flexibility and improvements to the recreational industry and an attempt to move away from the one-sizefits-all management structure currently in place. 

Since I have been executive director at FWC, our goal at FWC is to find the right 

balance of providing access to and preserving our natural resources. We work 

tirelessly to ensure that we have the best information from fishing groups, communities, stakeholders, and other interested parties, so we are making the right 

decisions. FWC is pleased to work with all parties—recreational, commercial, and 

charter for hire—who share those goals and who want to help us accomplish those 

goals. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Mr. Kaelin, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JEFF KAELIN, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, 

LUND’S FISHERIES, INC., CAPE MAY, NEW JERSEY 

Mr. KAELIN. Thank you Chairman Lamborn, Vice Chair Webster, 

Ranking Member Huffman, Chairman Bishop, and distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to 

speak with you today on the need to reauthorize the Magnuson Act 

in this Congress, and in strong support of H.R. 200. 

I want to thank Congressman Young for sponsoring that bill, and 

for leading efforts to maintain productive and sustainable U.S. 

fisheries. We also want to thank Secretary Ross for his important 

focus on achieving optimum yield (OY) from each U.S. fishery while 

preventing overfishing, which this bill will help to facilitate across 

the country and in the GARFO region. 

My comments today are on behalf of my employer, Lund’s 

Fisheries of Cape May, New Jersey. We are a family-owned and operated primary producer of fresh and frozen seafood and highquality bait products for recreational and commercial fishermen 

and several U.S. fisheries. 

Since 2006, the U.S. seafood industry has lost access to robust 

fishery resources from the application of overly precautious interpretations of the Act by attempting to reign in a changing marine 

environment on an annual basis, or within a decadal time frame. 

We appreciate the fact that this bill will improve the situation in 

16 

the coming years, utilizing a collaborative approach and developing 

better science by which better management decisions can be made. 

For the 2006 reauthorization to work, there is a heavy reliance 

on high-quality scientific information. Unfortunately, this is information that, in most regions, we simply don’t have. The juxtaposition of insufficient data on many stocks with considerations of 

scientific uncertainty in the quota-setting process has resulted in 

robust precautionary buffers and yields below maximum sustainable yield (MSY) at the expense of our industries, our communities, 

and the Nation. 

Several facts justify the idea that additional reform is necessary 

to address the unintended consequences from the 2006 amendments. NOAA has recently published a re-examination of the 

National Standard One guidelines around realizing OY and supporting flexibility, predictability, and stability. 

In 2013, the GAO concluded that the 10-year rebuilding requirement was arbitrary, and that the mixed stock exemption should be 

revisited. Many of their recommendations for the Managing Our 

Nations fisheries conference and from the Councils strongly support carefully targeted reform. 

We are plagued by the Act’s requirement to have all stocks, including minor ones, at MSY in the same time, and in the same 

space, which is severely limiting ecosystem-based fishery management options at the Council level, with the collective result being 

that we are not meeting our primary Federal fisheries management 

objective to maximize harvest to provide the greatest benefit for the 

Nation. 

In the interest of time, I will quickly summarize our support for 

a few of the most important issues that H.R. 200 addresses. 

We support flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks as part of the 

path to sustainable fisheries, and support eliminating the 10-year 

time frame for rebuilding overfished or depleted fisheries, replacing 

it with a biologically-based foundation. 

We support substituting the term ‘‘overfished’’ with depleted, as 

this term more accurately characterized population shifts based on 

environmental and non-fishing impacts. 

We support expanding limitations to annual catch limit (ACL) requirements for special fisheries by expanding the existing 12- 

month life history definition for short-lived species, which will be 

a benefit to managing the butterfish fishery. 

We support the bill’s exemption from ACL control rules for transboundary stocks, which would be a benefit to managing the 

Atlantic mackerel fishery. We support re-defining ecosystem component species as a non-targeted, incidentally harvested species 

which will provide a benefit to our chub mackerel management associated with the Illex fishery in the Mid-Atlantic. 

We support the addition of reciprocal voting rights for 

established Council liaison positions between the New England and 

Mid-Atlantic Councils. 

We support the requirement that a referendum be held before 

instituting a new catch share program in the Mid-Atlantic. 

And we strongly support the bill’s intent to ensure consistent 

fisheries management under competing Federal statutes, including 

17 

the Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Antiquities Act, and the 

Endangered Species Act. 

We also appreciate the focus on regional fishery management research needs and the potential to use industry platforms in support 

of auxiliary stock assessment surveys. We want to emphasize the 

need for continued and enhanced congressional and agency support 

for collaborative fisheries research involving the science centers, 

the commercial and recreational industries, and academic partners, 

and the need to apply more resources toward assessment science 

and improving the assessment process through frequent and timely 

benchmark assessments and updates. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, and for 

your intention to seriously consider moving this bill during this 

Congress. 

We look forward to working with you and the members of your 

staff toward that end. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaelin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFF KAELIN, LUND’S FISHERIES, INC., CAPE MAY, NEW JERSEY

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, Vice Chairman Webster and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak 

with you today on the need for reauthorization of the MSA in this Congress, and 

in strong support of H.R. 200. I want to thank Congressman Young for sponsoring 

this bill and for leading efforts to maintain productive and sustainable U.S. 

fisheries. We also want to thank Secretary Ross for his important focus on achieving 

optimum yield (OY) from each U.S. fishery while preventing overfishing, which this 

bill will help to facilitate across the country and within the GARFO region. 

Many of us have been involved in previous reauthorizations which used to occur 

with some regularity and with broad national and regional agreement. Although 

that has clearly not been the case over the last decade or so, our recreational and 

commercial fishing opportunities will be needlessly limited, from both an ecosystem 

and community resilience perspective, if reforms cannot be advanced this year. 

My comments today are on behalf of my employer, Lund’s Fisheries, in Cape May, 

New Jersey but I want to give credit to Mr. Greg DiDomenico, Executive Director 

of the Garden State Seafood Association, for his assistance with this testimony and 

for emphasizing the need to immediately reauthorize this fundamental Federal fisheries law to the benefit of our coastal communities and U.S. seafood consumers. 

In addition to my comments being coordinated with Mr. DiDomenico, I have also 

referred to the 2014 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council’s (MAFMC) comments on an earlier version of this bill, written while I was privileged to serve as 

a Council member. Today, the MAFMC is undergoing at least the third rewrite of 

its risk policy around setting science-based Allowable Biological Catch control rules 

(ABCs), which points out the need to continually attempt to apply flexibility in balancing resource and community sustainability under the rigid standards of the Act 

as currently written. I also referred to the Council Coordinating Committee’s June 

2017 working paper on reauthorizing the Act, which is still in development. My 

thanks go to the New England Council for making this paper available at their 

Portland meeting last month. 

Lund’s Fisheries, Inc. is a primary producer of fresh and frozen seafood and highquality bait products for recreational and commercial fishermen in several U.S. 

fisheries. We purchase, process and distribute nearly 30,000 metric tons of fresh and 

frozen fish annually. We have about 30 fishing vessels delivering a variety of products to our facility year round. 

The majority of these vessels call Cape May their home port. Several are 

company-owned and we also work with independent vessels landing from Rhode 

Island, New York, Virginia, and North Carolina. Our East Coast fishing grounds extend from the Gulf of Maine, south through Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The significant number of species we handle are managed by two Federal Councils and an 

interstate commission. 

The 2006 Amendments and their subsequent implementation fundamentally altered the way domestic fishery resources are managed here. The core concept was 

to separate fish politics from science. Those new provisions focused on ending overVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:53 Nov 21, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\115TH CONGRESS\WATER & POWER\07-19-17 FINAL\26390.TXT DARLEN
18 

fishing immediately, developing accountability in both recreational and commercial 

fisheries, rebuilding stocks as quickly as possible, and reducing fishing capacity 

through defining limited access programs—all in the context of a more intensive reliance on science in the decision-making process. 

When the Act was last reauthorized in 2006, we supported the science-based focus 

of the amendments and the adoption of hard catch limits. We already had a hard 

catch limit in the herring fishery that long ago and believe today that this has led 

to a sustainable coastwide Atlantic herring resource and fishery. 

Since that time we have learned that improvements in this process can and 

should be made. Adaptive fisheries management would have us gather performance 

data and learn from the unintended consequences that are bound to occur and have 

occurred in managing the dynamic ocean environment that New Jersey’s 

recreational and commercial fishing industries and communities rely upon for food, 

jobs and recreation. H.R. 200 provides us with that opportunity. 

Since 2006, the U.S. seafood industry has lost access to robust fishery resources 

from the application of overly precautious interpretations of the Act by attempting 

to rein in a changing marine environment on an annual basis or within a decadal 

time frame. The result has been that a founding principle of the Act has been eroded to the extent where we have lost our collective ability to ‘‘achieve optimum yield 

on a continuing basis’’ in our region. Each fishing sector benefits from better science 

and the resulting predictability that it brings about, for employees and customers. 

We appreciate the fact that this bill will take us in this direction in the coming 

years, utilizing a collaborative approach in developing better science by which better 

management decisions can be made. 

It has turned out that, while the rigid nature of the time-certain, annual adjustments approach may have reduced or eliminated overfishing of some directed 

fisheries, an outcome that we certainly support, in many cases it has also led to 

significant underfishing of other stocks due to the domestic seafood industry being 

subjected to a seemingly repetitive, precautionary application of risk averse management culminating with significant, unpredictable quota reductions stemming from 

wildly fluctuating estimates of scientific uncertainty. This bill will help to minimize 

that uncertainty in the future and result in more U.S. jobs from the sea. 

In 2009, and again in 2016, NOAA revised the National Standard One Guidelines 

(NSG1) requiring the Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) to consider 

both scientific and management uncertainty when setting quotas. Many of these recommendations we strongly support, such as the application of a mixed stock exception to the Act’s annual ACL requirement in certain cases and the authorization for 

Optimum Yield (OY) to be expressed qualitatively in data poor situations. We urge 

the Subcommittee to use this bill to provide a statutory basis for these specific allowances in order to enhance flexibility in our region. 

For the 2006 reauthorization to work there is a heavy reliance on high quality 

scientific information. Unfortunately, this is information that in most regions we 

simply do not have. The juxtaposition of insufficient data on many stocks with considerations of scientific uncertainty in the quota setting process has resulted in robust precautionary buffers and yields below MSY (Maximum Sustainable Yield) at 

the expense of the industry and our Nation. 

The following points justify the idea that additional reform is necessary to address 

the unintended consequences from the 2006 amendments. These include but are not 

limited to: (1) the Natural Resources Committee considered no less than eight bills 

focusing on MSA reform in 2011; (2) the Committee has convened six hearings with 

testimony from almost 100 witnesses in the 113th Congress; (3) NOAA has recently 

published another re-examination of NSG1 advice around realizing OY, predictability and stability; (4) in 2013 the GAO concluded that the 10-year rebuilding requirement was arbitrary and the mixed-stock exemption should be revisited; (5) 

many of the recommendations from the 2013 ‘‘Managing Our Nations Fisheries III’’ 

and from the Regional Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) strongly support 

carefully targeted reform; (6) we are plagued by the Act’s requirement to have all 

stocks, including minor ones, at MSY in the same time and in the same space, 

which is severely limiting ecosystem-based fishery management options at the 

Council level; and (7) we are not meeting our primary objective to maximize harvest 

to provide the greatest benefit to the Nation. 

Our comments follow the outline of H.R. 200 and will emphasize reasonable improvements we encourage the Subcommittee and the House to support in reauthorizing the Act as soon as possible. We are not commenting on sections of the bill 

related directly to Gulf of Mexico or Pacific-specific provisions or provisions related 

primarily to recreational fishing. 

19 

SEC. 4. FLEXIBILITY IN REBUILDING FISH STOCKS 

We support flexibility in rebuilding fish stocks as part of a path to sustainable 

fisheries and fishing communities and support the elements of this section including 

eliminating the 10-year time frame for rebuilding overfished or depleted fisheries 

within a particular time period, replacing it with a biologically based foundation. 

This section is intended to allow rebuilding plans to take into account environmental factors and predator/prey relationships, which we strongly support. It is our 

understanding that the conservative fishing mortality rates in the region already 

allow some 80 percent of an available fishery resource to remain in the water each 

year and there is little public understanding of this fact. In addition, a rebuilding 

plan would include a schedule to review FMP targets and progress including the option to use alternative harvest control rules and F-rates, which should help in giving 

the SSCs and Councils additional flexibility in setting ABCs and ACLs (Annual 

Catch Limits). 

We also support clarifying that a rebuilding plan may be terminated if it is determined the stock status determination was incorrect and the allowance that an 

emergency rule/interim measure period may be increased to 1 year (from 180 days) 

with an option to extend for an additional 1-year period. 

SEC. 5. MODIFICATIONS TO ANNUAL CATCH LIMIT REQUIRMENTS 

This section provides Councils with increased flexibility in setting ACLs. The ACL 

requirement is retained in the Act but the RFMCs could consider changes in ecosystem and economic needs of the communities when setting limits. In light of 

changing environmental conditions, and the role of the environment in fisheries recruitment, these additions make scientific and common sense. 

We strongly support expanding limitations to ACL requirements for ‘special 

fisheries’ by expanding the existing 12-month life history definition. We believe 

butterfish, for example, should fit this proposed ACL exemption as a species that 

exhibits a short life history, an extremely high natural mortality rate, and highly 

uncertain, variable survey indices. This combination of factors has resulted in an 

exceedingly variable catch level over time, so that it is not possible to accurately 

determine the condition of the stock or avoid a ‘choke species’ outcome with negative 

effects on fishing for other short-lived species like squid. 

The Act currently provides an exemption from the ACL control rules for stocks 

managed under international agreements but does not address species that are truly 

trans-boundary in nature where there is only an informal agreement (or no agreement) in place. We support the bill’s expansion of these extra-territorial 

considerations. 

For example, in the case of Atlantic mackerel, scientific evidence has indicated the 

stock distribution is shifting into Canadian waters. Unfortunately, the United 

States has no formal trans-boundary sharing agreement and Canada takes what 

they can harvest before a U.S. ACL can be specified. In this instance, unilateral 

U.S. management actions pursuant to MSA do not affect rebuilding or end overfishing but disadvantage our fishermen and weaken the U.S. negotiating position. 

Due to the lack of a trans-boundary ACL exemption, rigid interpretation of MSA 

requirements, and applications of layers of scientific uncertainty, the U.S. mackerel 

fishery has been severely restricted and it has been (and will remain) difficult to 

rebuild quota levels under the existing MSA limitations. 

We also support this section redefining ‘‘Ecosystem Component Species’’ as a nontargeted incidentally harvested species or those species identified by a regional 

council that is not depleted or likely to become depleted in the absence of management measures. These changes will provide additional flexibility in allocating directed fishery resources by the RFMCs when minor incidental catches are involved. 

We also support the clarification that ACLs can be established for up to 3 years, 

which codifies NOAA’s related NS1 guideline recommendations, as we understand 

the issue. 

SEC. 6. DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN OVERFISHED AND DEPLETED 

This section correctly defines ‘‘overfishing’’ and removes the term ‘‘overfished’’ 

from the Act, substituting the newly defined term ‘‘depleted,’’ which we strongly 

support. This is an important element of this bill as this term more accurately characterizes population shifts based on environmental and non-fishing anthropogenic 

impacts instead of characterizing stock impacts as being based solely on fishing 

mortality effects. This section also requires changes to the annual Status of Stocks 

report submitted by the Secretary to distinguish between stocks that are depleted 

or approaching that condition due to fishing and those meeting that definition as 

a result of other factors. The Secretary must also state for each identified fishery 

whether they are the target of directed fishing. We support the separation and 

20 

clarification of the two terms and the requirement to differentiate sources of 

mortality when projecting stock status and setting ACLs. 

SEC. 7. TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC PROCESS 

We support requiring each scientific and statistical committee (SSC) to expand 

the transparency of their ABC-setting process. Specifically, within the GARFO 

region (NEFMC & MAFMC) meetings of the SSCs, FMATs (fishery management action teams) and PDTs (plan development teams) are unevenly webcasted or unevenly provide call-in opportunities to facilitate public participation, although this 

has improved in recent years. With the tremendously complex and geographically 

broad management system that we must participate in, expanding these requirements will allow for broader participation in the process than is currently the case. 

We also support this section’s focus on the development of fishery impact statements 

to specifically analyze proposed impacts of management measures on the human environment. The process will benefit from required, regular reviews of the collective 

impacts of fishery regulations on our coastal communities and economies. 

SEC. 8. LIMITATION ON FUTURE CATCH SHARE PROGRAMS 

We support a referendum vote for all future catch share programs implemented 

in the Mid-Atlantic region and we support the establishment of a fully-informed 

majority vote referendum by fishermen with landings in 3 of 5 recent years (with 

allowances for hardship considerations). 

SEC. 9. REPORT ON FEE 

We support this sensible provision, providing additional transparency in the 

collection of fees to fund administrative aspects of specific fishery management programs including limited access privilege programs. 

SEC. 10. COOPERATIVE RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 

We appreciate the focus on regional fishery management research needs and the 

focus on using industry platforms in support of auxiliary stock assessment surveys. 

We also appreciate the focus on the need for more accurate and timely catch reporting through the use of electronic reporting systems, which all of our vessels are engaged in at this time as part of the Study Fleet concept supported by the Northeast 

Fisheries Science Center’s cooperative research program. Although we are also participating in a pilot electronic monitoring program in the region’s Atlantic herring 

and Atlantic mackerel fisheries, we believe that monitoring the Nation’s fisheries 

should continue to be a fundamental government function in our region, with the 

benefit to the Nation accruing through our industry’s development of the Nation’s 

fishery resources. Requiring industry to fund these programs in the future will diminish both industry and community resilience since profit margins are small in 

this global business. 

SEC. 11. COUNCIL JURISDICTION FOR OVERLAPPING FISHERIES 

We support the addition of reciprocal voting rights to established Council ‘‘liaison’’ 

positions between the New England and Mid-Atlantic RFMCs. While fishermen in 

the Mid-Atlantic do not wish to dismantle established Council membership, fishermen in New England made the request to change that membership. Since this provision establishes a limited reciprocal voting right and does not disrupt current 

Council procedures and membership, there is general agreement about this provision between fishermen in the two areas. This solution will facilitate enhanced coordination between the two Councils and deserves the Subcommittee’s support. 

SEC. 14. ENSURING CONSISTENT MANAGEMENT FOR FISHERIES 

THROUGHOUT THEIR RANGE 

We strongly support this section’s intent to ensure consistent fisheries management under competing Federal statutes, including the Marine Sanctuaries Act, the 

Antiquities Act and the Endangered Species Act—with the MSA being the controlling statute. We were extremely disappointed by the prior administration’s establishment of shoreside boundaries and commercial fishing restrictions as part of the 

Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Marine Monument designation. These 

restrictions were unnecessary, from a resource conservation perspective, and differed significantly from the ongoing efforts of the NEFMC to protect deep-sea coral 

in the canyon regions. The restrictions are also in opposition to the recent successful 

efforts of the MAFMC to balance fishing opportunities in and around the canyons 

with preservation of the vast majority of hard corals found on the canyon walls and 

in the abyss surrounding the distant seamounts. 

Regarding Marine Sanctuaries, many stakeholders who fish in and around these 

areas believe there are definitely conflicting jurisdictions between the National 

21 

Marine Sanctuary Act and the MSA when it comes to fishing regulations. We share 

these concerns relative to the Stellwagen Sanctuary’s policy goals which are often 

at odds with those of the NEFMC and we are equally concerned about the proposal 

to establish a Hudson Canyon marine sanctuary in the midst of important fishing 

grounds in the Mid-Atlantic region. 

We believe the specific problem appears in Section 304(a)(5) of NMSA (16 U.S.C. 

1434) whereby the Councils are afforded the opportunity to prepare draft regulations using the MSA as guidance only ‘‘to the extent that the standards are consistent and compatible with the goals and objectives’’ of the Sanctuary designation. 

This is the crux of the jurisdictional and philosophical conflict between NOAA/ 

NMFS and NOAA/National Ocean Service (NOS) as we understand the issues 

involved. 

SEC. 18. ESTIMATION OF COST OF RECOVERY FROM FISHERY 

RESOURCE DISASTER 

We support requiring the Secretary to rapidly identify fishery disaster costs, in 

order to facilitate appropriate compensation to those affected. 

SEC. 19. DEADLINE FOR ACTION ON REQUEST BY GOVERNOR FOR 

DETERMINATION REGARDING FISHERY RESOURCE DISASTER 

We also support requiring timely decisions by the Secretary in these 

circumstances. 

SEC. 26. REQUIREMENTS FOR LIMITED ACCESS PRIVILEGES 

We support establishing a more formal and detailed review on the operations and 

impacts of limited access privilege programs, involving collaboration with the 

RFMCs and the Secretary’s office. 

SEC. 27. HEALTHY FISHERIES THROUGH BETTER SCIENCE 

While we strongly support the linkage between healthy fisheries and improved 

scientific information we are not in support of separating recreational fisheries 

science from that used to manage commercial fisheries, as Section (2) would appear 

to do. Also, we are not in support of identifying information from a wide variety of 

sources, particularly that originating from certain non-government sources, as necessarily equivalent to the best scientific information available. 

At the same time, we wish to emphasize the need for continued and enhanced 

Agency support for collaborative fisheries research involving the Science Centers, industry and academic partners. Not only will enhancing this collaboration lead to reducing uncertainties around assessing fish stock status in the future but it will also 

lead to broader support for quota outcomes if recreational and commercial industry 

partners are engaged in developing the best available scientific information being 

used in the fishery management process. 

Finally, we want to emphasize the need for Congress and the Agency to apply 

more resources toward assessment science and focus on improving the assessment 

process through more frequent and timely benchmark assessments and updates. In 

this context we were particularly disappointed to see that none of the $13.8 million 

allocated to the 2017 Coastal Resilience grant program will be used to support enhanced fishery stock assessment initiatives in the GARFO region. 

***** 

In closing, we would like to sincerely thank the Subcommittee for holding this 

hearing today and for your intention to seriously consider important MSA reform 

during this session of Congress. It is likely that my comments today do not fully 

take into account the variety of issues addressed in H.R. 200 or fully grasp the 

Subcommittee’s intent in all aspects of the bill. In recognition of this fact, I look forward to working with the members of this Subcommittee and your staff to further 

refine the provisions of the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Flexibility in 

Fisheries Management Act and support its passage this year. 

Mr. LAMBORN. We will now hear from—I hope I say this 

correctly—Mr. Witek? 

Mr. WITEK. Mr. Witek, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Mr. Witek, you are now recognized for 5 

minutes. 

22 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES WITEK, RECREATIONAL ANGLER 

AND OUTDOOR WRITER, WEST BABYLON, NEW YORK 

Mr. WITEK. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and Mr. Ranking 

Member, thank you for inviting me to be here today. My name is 

Charles Witek, and I am a recreational fisherman residing in West 

Babylon, New York. I have more than 50 years’ experience angling 

on every coast of the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii, 

although I have done most of my fishing off southern New England 

and in the upper Mid-Atlantic. 

I am a writer, specializing in salt water fishery conservation 

issues, and a Vice President of the New York State Outdoor 

Writers Association. I have held a seat on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery 

Management Council. I currently sit on the New York State 

Marine Resources Advisory Council, and on the Atlantic States 

Marine Fishery Commission’s advisory panels for winter flounder 

and coastal shark. 

My observations while on the water and my experience with the 

fishery management process has made me a strong supporter of the 

conservation and stock rebuilding provisions of Magnuson-Stevens. 

Some claim that the Act is too restrictive and leads to regulations 

that harm fishing-related businesses. But the lack of adequate fisheries regulation is far more likely to do lasting damage. 

Nothing illustrates that better than the recreational winter 

flounder fishery in the state of New York. Since the late 1980s, the 

recreational fishing industry has argued that additional restrictions 

on the winter flounder fishery would cause them to lose business. 

So, regulations were never adequate to halt a stock decline, and 

the stock collapsed. 

NMFS recreational fishing effort estimates show that 1986 New 

York anglers made over 1 million fishing trips targeting winter 

flounder. In 2016, after the collapse, New York anglers made only 

about 74,000 such trips, and our angling-related businesses lost the 

revenues that would have accrued from 1 million winter flounder 

fishing trips each year. 

The East Coast is a living laboratory that allows us to evaluate 

the consequences of various approaches to fisheries management. 

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council is quick to adopt 

regulations consistent with the intent of the Act, and we enjoyed 

a number of years when no Council-managed stock was either overfished or experiencing overfishing. 

The New England Council tried to temper the Act’s mandates 

with various economic concerns. Instead of imposing annual catch 

limits, it adopted so-called input controls, such as trip limits and 

limits on days at sea, which never manage to end overfishing. As 

a result, our recreational fisheries for many groundfish species 

have declined precipitously. 

Since 1996, Federal fisheries managers have successfully rebuilt 

41 stocks, and many others are well on the road to recovery. 

During the same period, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission employed a flexible management approach that failed 

to rebuild a single stock that falls under its old jurisdiction. A number of stocks, including American eel, southern New England 

lobster, American shad, northern shrimp, tautog, and weakfish declined during that time. Even striped bass, ASMFC’s singular 

23 

fishery management success, has experienced a decline, and the 

population is now hovering just above the overfished threshold. 

It is thus clear that the Act, with its annual catch limits and rebuilding deadlines, provides the only framework for fisheries management that has met with consistent success. If we want an 

angling industry, we must have fish. Not just small, overfished 

populations, but an abundance of fish that will allow even unskilled anglers to catch a few. 

Today, New York’s angling industry sits atop a tippy, threelegged stool. One leg is made up of striped bass, another of summer 

flounder. The third consists of everything else, none of which is 

abundant enough or popular enough to support the stool by itself. 

If any leg of that stool collapses, New York’s angling industry will 

collapse, as well. The fact that both striped bass and summer 

flounder are almost overfished gives real cause for concern. 

Making the Act more flexible, weakening its requirements to use 

the best-available science, or allowing anglers to overfish will not, 

in the long run, help fishermen or the businesses they support. Our 

fishery cannot long survive if all effort is concentrated on a handful 

of species that remain relatively abundant. Currently depleted 

stocks must be rebuilt. 

Thus, it is critical that the conservation and management provisions of the Act remain strong. Only the best peer-reviewed science 

should be used in assessments, and anglers must act on such 

science, whatever its conclusions. 

Finally, the Act must concentrate not only on the species we fish 

for. It must assure that there are adequate forage species for them 

to feed on, healthy corals, sponges, and other life to provide habitat 

and nursery areas, and intact ecosystems in which they can function. By achieving those goals, Congress can assure that the Act 

remains the most comprehensive and most effective fisheries management law, not only in the United States, but in the world. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Witek follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES A. WITEK, III, RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN, 

WEST BABYLON, NEW YORK

My name is Charles Witek. I am a recreational fisherman residing in West 

Babylon, New York. 

I have fished for most of my life, and have more than 50 years’ experience angling 

on every coast of the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii, although most 

of my angling has taken place in southern New England and the upper Mid-Atlantic 

region. I am a writer specializing in salt water fishery conservation issues, and a 

vice president of the New York State Outdoor Writers Association. 

I have also been active in the fishery management process. I formerly held a seat 

on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, and currently sit on the New 

York State Marine Resources Advisory Council, and on the Atlantic States Marine 

Fisheries Commission’s advisory panels for winter flounder and coastal sharks. 

My observations while on the water and my experience with the fishery management process has made me a strong supporter of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation Act (Act) and, in particular, the conservation and stock rebuilding provisions of such Act which were added during the previous two reauthorizations. 

Thanks to the Act, the Federal fishery management system is undoubtedly the most 

comprehensive and most effective fishery management system in the Nation, which 

has successfully ended overfishing in most American fisheries, and has successfully 

rebuilt 39 once-overfished stocks. 

Unfortunately, the most important and effective provisions of the Act are coming 

under attack by some members of the recreational fishing community, persons and 

24 

organizations who apparently value the short-term exploitation of America’s marine 

resources more highly than the long-term health and abundance of the Nation’s fish 

stocks. Years of experience as an angler and as a participant in the management 

process have taught me that such an approach is ultimately self-defeating; while it 

may provide a greater short-term economic benefit, in the end, it depletes fish populations and causes far greater economic hardship than the fishing industry would 

have experienced had adequate regulations been imposed, and the stocks rebuilt to 

sustainable levels. 

Nothing illustrates that better than the recreational winter flounder fishery in the 

state of New York. 

New York fishes on what is known as the southern New England/Mid-Atlantic 

stock of winter flounder (Southern Stock). Such flounder spawn in inshore bays and 

estuaries during late fall and early spring. When waters warm in late May and 

June, much of the population moves offshore for the summer, then returns to the 

bays when the waters cool in the fall; the remainder of the population remains in 

inshore waters, where it once supported a modest fishery during the summer. 

When winter flounder are offshore, in Federal waters, they are managed by the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), acting in conjunction with the New 

England Fishery Management Council, which refused to impose hard quotas on the 

fishery until compelled to do so by the most recent reauthorization of the Act. As 

a result, the Southern Stock became seriously overfished, and remains so today. 

When winter flounder are in state waters, they are managed by the states, acting 

collectively through the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 

While in state waters, winter flounder may be particularly vulnerable, both when 

they are aggregated on their spawning grounds and when they group together in 

thermal refuges near ocean inlets during the summer. Despite such vulnerability, 

ASMFC has been reluctant to adopt regulations more restrictive than those adopted 

by NMFS (although when NMFS imposed a brief moratorium on harvest of the 

Southern Stock a few years ago, ASMFC refused to impose a similar moratorium 

inshore, instead merely imposing more restrictive regulations that allowed both the 

commercial and recreational fisheries to continue). 

In the late 1980s, when New York recognized that the Southern Stock had begun 

to decline, it proposed rules to limit the recreational harvest, which had previously 

been completely unregulated. The recreational fishing industry objected, arguing 

that their customers needed the ‘‘perception’’ that they could have a ‘‘big day,’’ and 

bring home a large number of fish, or they wouldn’t bother to go fishing at all. That 

argument won the day, inadequate regulations were imposed, and the fishery entered a cycle of decline in which regulations, always opposed by the recreational 

fishing industry, were never stringent enough to halt the Southern Stock’s decline. 

The effect on both the fish and the recreational fishing industry was catastrophic. 

New York’s winter flounder population collapsed, and so did the fishery. NMFS’ 

recreational effort estimates show that in 1986, New York anglers made over 1 

million fishing trips targeting winter flounder. Thirty years later, in 2016, New 

York anglers made only about 74,000 such trips, less than 7 percent of the trips 

made three decades before. 

Because they sought to avert the whatever minor economic impacts might have 

accompanied regulations restrictive enough to rebuild, or at least stabilize, the 

Southern Stock, New York’s recreational fishing industry has now lost the economic 

benefits that would have accrued from nearly 1 million winter flounder fishing trips 

each year. That is not income that can easily be replaced by anglers fishing for 

other species, because the winter flounder fishery was most actively prosecuted during seasons when few other inshore fish are available; in the 1980s, I used to have 

my boat in the water by mid-March, so that I could fish the entire winter flounder 

season. Today, I launch the boat in mid-May, as without the flounder, there is little 

reason to be on the water any sooner. Most other local anglers have done the same 

thing. That delay represents 2 months’ income denied to tackle shops, gas docks, 

boat liveries and other fishing-related businesses, all because the industry fought 

needed fishery regulations that could have kept the stock healthy and kept anglers 

on the water. 

When some angling spokespersons argue that Magnuson-Stevens doesn’t 

adequately address the needs of recreational fisheries, that ‘‘alternative management measures’’ are needed to properly regulate anglers or that Magnuson-Stevens 

needs to be more ‘‘flexible,’’ they are, in effect, arguing that Magnuson-Stevens 

should be weakened, to allow other fish to be managed in the same way as winter 

flounder, with economic concerns given parity with biological imperatives. The story 

of the Southern Stock winter flounder demonstrates that such management, while 

superficially attractive to the recreational fishing industry, will ultimately cause 

such industry serious harm. 

25 

Critics of the Act, who claim that the law needs more ‘‘flexibility,’’ are essentially 

arguing that firm rebuilding schedules and hard-poundage catch quotas often do not 

allow anglers to take home enough fish. They ask that the Act be amended to allow 

longer rebuilding times and the less restrictive regulations that such longer rebuilding times would bring. 

However, most anglers are more concerned with the abundance that comes from 

a fully rebuilt resource than they are with bringing a lot of fish home. 

In 2013, the National Marine Fisheries Service released a report titled ‘‘Attitudes 

and Preferences of Saltwater Recreational Anglers: Report from the 2013 National 

Saltwater Angler Survey, Volume I.’’ That report, developed from a survey of 

anglers on every coast of the United States, found that more than 80 percent of anglers just thought that it was important (either ‘‘extremely important’’ or ‘‘somewhat 

important’’) to merely catch fish when they go fishing. More than 60 percent said 

that it was important to ‘‘know that I will encounter abundant fish.’’ On the other 

hand, only about 40 percent said that it was important ‘‘to catch as many fish as 

I can for consumption,’’ while fewer than 40 percent thought it was important to 

catch the bag limit of whatever they were fishing for. Most anglers surveyed, roughly 90 percent, valued spending fishing time with family and friends more than they 

did any fish-related aspect of the sport. Thus, the need to add ‘‘flexibility’’ to the 

Act in order to keep anglers fishing appears to have little objective support. 

Striped bass, although not a federally-managed species, illustrate the importance 

of abundance. In 1986, when the Atlantic striped bass stock was in the midst of a 

collapse, NMFS data reveals that East Coast anglers made about 300,000 trips 

targeting the species. Strict harvest regulations imposed by ASMFC managed to 

successfully rebuild the population; in 1995, the year that the stock was officially 

declared ‘‘recovered,’’ increased abundance caused that effort figure to increase by 

more than an order of magnitude, to more than 5,000,000 trips. As the stock continued to grow, anglers fished even more, making over 8,700,000 million trips in 2003, 

the year the biomass peaked, and more than 10,500,000 trips in 2007, when larger 

fish from the dominant 1993 and 1996 year classes were readily available to 

recreational fishermen. 

However, as the striped bass stock began to decline, plagued by the twin problems 

of below-average recruitment and overfishing, effort declined as well, dropping to 

about 6,100,000 million trips—nearly as few as were made in 1995, when the stock 

was newly recovered—in 2014, when the flexibly managed striped bass population 

again hovered just above the threshold that denotes an overfished stock. 

ASMFC left recreational striped bass regulations unchanged from 1995 through 

2014; for all of that time, it allowed coastal anglers to take home two striped bass 

per day, provided that they were at least 28 inches long (regulations were slightly 

different, but still consistent, in the waters of Chesapeake Bay). 

Thus, it is clearly abundance, rather than the size of the allowable harvest, that 

drove angler effort, and what is true in the striped bass fishery is true in other fisheries as well. Abundance, that allows anglers to reliably encounter fish, is far more 

important than bag and size limits in encouraging angler participation. 

There is another strong argument against adding flexibility to the Act: It doesn’t 

work. 

On the East Coast, fishermen exist in a living laboratory that allows us to experience the consequences of various approaches to fisheries management. In the MidAtlantic, where our regional fishery management council was quick to adopt 

regulations consistent with the intent of the Act, we enjoyed a number of years 

where no council-managed stock was either overfished or experiencing overfishing. 

Although a combination of 6 years of below-average recruitment and recreational 

overharvest has recently subjected one species, summer flounder, to overfishing 

again, other species under the jurisdiction of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management 

Council remain abundant and support active fisheries. 

In New York, we once fished for species such as cod, pollock, various hakes and 

winter flounder, all of which are managed by the New England Fishery Management Council. The New England Council, unlike the Mid-Atlantic, inevitably tried 

to temper the Act’s mandates with various economic considerations. Thus, it eschewed hard-poundage annual catch limits for most species until it was compelled 

to impose them. Instead, it adopted alternative management measures such as trip 

limits, limits on days at sea and other so-called input controls, which theoretically 

complied with the Act, but never managed to get overfishing under control or rebuild most overfished stocks. As a result, New York’s recreational fisheries for cod, 

pollock, silver hake (‘‘whiting’’) and white hake have declined precipitously, winter 

flounder have collapsed and red hake (‘‘ling’’) are far less abundant than they were 

a few decades ago. 

26 

New York’s inshore fisheries are managed in cooperation with ASMFC, which employs a ‘‘flexible’’ management system that does not require overfishing to be ended, 

stocks to be rebuilt by a particular deadline or the best scientific information to be 

used when evaluating the health a stock. It hasn’t worked. 

The fate of tautog, an inshore food fish caught between Massachusetts and 

Virginia, demonstrates that fact. ASMFC knew as early as 1996 that fishing mortality had to be significantly reduced. However, since the reduction would inevitably 

involve some economic distress to the fishing industry, and there was no legal requirement to end overfishing or rebuild the stock by any time certain, ASMFC kept 

putting off the required reductions. Today, 21 years later, the species remains overfished and subject to overfishing, as large segments of the local recreational fishing 

industry are again girding to fight the regulations needed to rebuild the stock. 

Since the Act was amended in 1996, and provisions that required managers to end 

overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks by a time certain became a part of the law, 

Federal fisheries managers have successfully rebuilt 39 stocks, and many others are 

well on the road to recovery. During the same period, ASMFC, employing its flexible 

management approach, has failed to rebuild a single stock that falls under its sole 

jurisdiction, and has seen a number of stocks, including American eel, the southern 

New England stock of American lobster, American shad, northern shrimp, tautog 

and weakfish, decline during that time. 

It could also be easily argued that ASMFC, and its failure to impose adequately 

restrictive restrictions on its member states, is responsible for the overharvest in 

the recreational summer flounder fishery, as it is ASMFC, and not NMFS, which 

approves all recreational regulations for that species. 

Even striped bass, ASMFC’s singular fisheries management success story, are 

now far less abundant than they once were. Although the stock was declared fully 

recovered in 1995, and became even more abundant shortly after that, the lack of 

an annual catch limit, coupled with a failure to respond to increased recreational 

fishing effort, led to a decade-long decline that now has the population hovering just 

above the biomass threshold that determines an overfished stock. 

It is thus clear that the Act, with its current, mandated annual catch limits and 

clear rebuilding deadlines, provides the only framework for fisheries management 

that has met with consistent success. It should also be clear that so-called flexibility 

provisions would only weaken the Act and render it less effective. 

The same can be said of so-called ‘‘alternative management measures’’ that would 

replace hard-poundage annual catch limits with other means of regulating 

recreational fisheries. 

Annual catch limits are established to prevent overfishing that could threaten the 

health of the stock. Because any regulatory scheme involves judgment calls, there 

will sometimes be miscalculations and overfishing will occur. However, a single incident of overfishing, so long as it is quickly detected and remedied, is unlikely to 

harm a healthy stock, although undetected overfishing can cause real harm, particularly if a stock is already in decline. 

Some angling and boating organizations have argued that poundage-based catch 

limits should be replaced with limits based on a fishing mortality rate. On its face, 

such suggestion is pointless, as poundage and fishing mortality rates are just two 

ways to express the same value. An instantaneous fishing mortality rate is easily 

translated into the percentage of fish that may be removed from a stock each year; 

multiplying that percentage by the biomass estimate yields a hard-poundage annual 

catch limit. Similarly, the number of fish removed from the stock over the course 

of a year, divided by the biomass estimate, yields a percentage that can be translated into the fishing mortality rate. Thus, from a management standpoint, there 

is no real difference between the two values. 

However, what proponents of a fishing mortality rate standard seem to be seeking 

is not an annual evaluation of fishery performance, but rather a longer-term process 

that requires a full stock assessment. While estimates of recreational landings are 

available 45 days after the close of each 2-month ‘‘wave,’’ so overfishing can be 

detected, and addressed, relatively quickly, preparing even an interim stock assessment is a much longer process. 

Because of that, using assessment-based fishing mortality rates, rather than 

annual catch limits, to regulate a recreational fishery could allow overfishing to continue unabated for a substantial period of time; depending upon the frequency of 

the assessments, it could take several years before it is even detected. 

Again, striped bass provide an example. 

Transcripts of ASMFC Striped Bass Management Board meetings, along with 

Striped Bass Technical Committee reports and stock assessment updates show that 

there was concern about a decline in striped bass abundance as early as 2007. A 

2011 stock assessment update indicated that the striped bass stock would probably 

27 

become overfished by 2017. However, the Striped Bass Management Board chose to 

take no action because the stock was not yet overfished. A new stock assessment 

was finally undertaken in 2012, and completed in 2013. Based on that assessment, 

which showed that overfishing had occurred in 6 of the previous 10 years, more restrictive regulations were adopted in 2014, but not imposed until the 2015 fishing 

season. Because of the long delay, a stock that had still been very abundant, if already declining, in 2007 nearly became overfished a decade later due to a delay in 

adopting needed harvest cutbacks. 

While the once-abundant striped bass stock could survive such a dilatory process, 

applying it to populations that have already suffered sharp declines in abundance, 

such as summer flounder, or to still-overfished but rebuilding stocks such as Gulf 

of Mexico red snapper, could easily result in undetected years of overfishing driving 

the stock well below the biomass threshold before any action is taken, an event that 

would do serious harm to both the stock and those who fish for the affected species. 

The same problems occur when efforts are made to change the way fisheries data 

is gathered. 

As a rule, fishermen don’t understand the concept of unbiased surveys, which are 

needed to properly assess fish stocks. Instead, they constantly complain that 

scientists aren’t fishing ‘‘where the fish are,’’ and argue that if they could do the 

sampling, they would prove that there are more fish in the ocean than managers 

believe. Thus, we see some pending legislation propose that data obtained from fishermen and fishing communities be used by fishery managers when preparing stock 

assessments, without providing any standards that should be used to assess the 

quality and accuracy of such data. 

When the striped bass population collapsed in the late 1970s and early 1980s, 

there were anglers on Cape Cod, Massachusetts who didn’t believe that there was 

any scarcity, because they happened to have a local abundance of big fish off their 

shores, and were catching plenty of them. Winter flounder have become so scarce 

in New York’s bays that they are suffering from inbreeding, yet the few fish that 

remain tend to be found together, so the angler that happens to know where to find 

them can catch a number of flounder in a short time. The same thing is happening 

with cod off New England; some commercial fishermen are saying that they are 

catching more cod than they ever have before, because the remaining fish school 

tightly together, and those who know where to find them quickly fill their nets. The 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts has created its own cod survey, hoping to find that 

its fishermen are right, but up to now, the survey, conducted according to scientific 

protocols, is confirming NMFS’ contention that the cod population has fallen into a 

very deep decline. 

Using anglers’ reports, whether voluntary or required, to supplement or contradict 

NMFS’ Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), is flawed for similar reasons. Historically, anglers’ reports, even when mandated by law, are not reliable. 

When I attended NMFS’ recreational fishing conference in 2014, I spoke with a 

member of the agency’s Highly Migratory Fisheries division, who lamented that only 

about 20 percent of anglers report their bluefin tuna landings, even though reporting within 24 hours in required by law. More recently, according to the Tuscaloosa 

News, the state of Alabama has revealed that, during the state red snapper season, 

only about 7 percent of anglers that caught red snapper reported those catches to 

the state, even though such reporting is mandatory. Such discouragingly low compliance rates cast serious doubts on the validity of angler-generated data. 

Accurate stock assessments, and the effective regulations that are based on such 

assessments, require unbiased data collected in accordance with a statistically valid 

methodology, which can survive the rigors of a scientific peer review. Thus, data obtained from non-scientific sources should be viewed with great skepticism. 

Having said that, some of the criticism of MRIP is valid, not because MRIP is 

flawed, but because the data isn’t being used properly. The Act states that stocks 

of fish should be managed as a unit, and the MRIP Handbook issued by NMFS 

makes it clear that MRIP accuracy increases with the number of samples taken. 

That being the case, when NMFS permits the states to adopt state-specific 

regulations, that differ from those of their neighbors, will inevitably cause problems. 

MRIP estimates for landings in any particular state are based on far fewer samples than estimates for landings along the entire coast, and thus are less accurate. 

When the state data is broken down further, to allow states to change size and/or 

bag limits during the same fishing year, as is the case with black sea bass, samples 

become smaller yet, and the data even less accurate. Regulations that are based on 

such data cannot properly govern harvest, as they are not based on reliable information. Language that clarifies the requirement that a stock be managed as a single 

unit, with consistent regulations, would significantly improve the accuracy of fishery 

management measures. 

28 

In the end, we must all realize that if we want a fishing industry, it helps to have 

fish. Not just small, overfished populations, but an abundance of fish so that even 

anglers will very modest skills can go down to the shore with a reasonable expectation of catching something, even if they don’t catch too many at any one time. 

The decline of New York’s recreational fishing industry parallels the decline of its 

recreational fishing experience. At one time, we had a vital, year-round recreational 

fishery. 

Throughout the year, angling businesses did well. Some season saw some fish 

more abundant than others, but there were always enough fish of some sort to keep 

anglers active and content. 

Today, New York’s angling industry sits atop a tippy, three-legged stool. One leg 

of that stool is made up of striped bass, another of summer flounder. The third is 

made up of everything else, none of which is abundant enough or popular enough 

to support the stool by itself. 

The spring mackerel and pollock runs, and the New York bight silver hake 

fishery, are entirely gone. Swordfish no longer fin out within sight of Montauk 

Lighthouse. Winter flounder have collapsed, and the cod, weakfish and tautog fisheries are badly diminished. Offshore, white marlin are rarely seen on the inshore 

grounds, the canyon tuna fishery is a shadow of it was and giant bluefin are scarce. 

Atlantic bonito and inshore yellowfin tuna are also scare, and even sharks have become smaller and harder to find. Only black sea bass, bluefish and scup, all managed by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council in strict compliance with the 

Act, give this leg strong support. 

That should cause concern, because if any leg of that three-legged stool collapses, 

New York’s angling industry will collapse right along with it. The fact that populations of both striped bass and summer flounder are close to their biomass 

thresholds should make that concern greater still. 

Making the Act more flexible, weakening its requirements to use the best 

available science, or allowing anglers to overfish will not, in the long run, help fishermen, and the businesses that they support. Our fishery cannot long survive if it 

depends on a handful of still-available species; we must return currently depleted 

species to real abundance, so that anglers and angling-related businesses can spread 

their effort over a number of stocks, instead of concentrating on just one or two. 

Thus, it is critical that the conservation and management provisions of the Act 

remain strong, so that stocks are promptly rebuilt and not subject to overfishing. 

Only the best, peer-reviewed science should be used in assessments, and managers 

must act on such science, whatever its conclusions. Finally, the Act must not concentrate merely on the species we fish for, but on the habitat in which such fish 

live, assuring that there are adequate forage species for them to feed on, healthy 

corals, sponges and other sessile life to provide habitat and nursery areas, and intact ecosystems in which our fish function. 

By achieving those goals, Congress can assure that the Act remains the most comprehensive and most effective fisheries management law not only in the United 

States, but in the world. 

Thank you for considering my comments. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. GRIJALVA TO CHARLES WITEK, 

RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN, WEST BABYLON, NEW YORK

Question 1. The 10-year time frame for rebuilding that is currently provided in the 

law has an exception for situations when rebuilding is not possible within 10 years. 

Opponents to the 10-year time frame speak of it as an ironclad mandate, but what 

percentage of rebuilding plans are subject to a strict 10-year time frame and what 

percentage are not? 

Answer. According to a list of rebuilding plans in effect or in preparation provided 

by the National Marine Fisheries Service, as of December 31, 2016, there were 47 

stocks that were either overfished or subject to a rebuilding plan. Of those stocks, 

only 13, or about 28 percent, are subject to rebuilding time frames of 10 years or 

less. One of the stocks subject to a 10-year rebuilding deadline, the Georges Bank/ 

Gulf of Maine stock of white hake, is no longer overfished, but has also failed to 

completely rebuild within 10 years; it is in its 13th year of rebuilding, and fishing 

continues at levels consistent with the recovery of the stock. 

29 

1a. Can you please elaborate on those situations that are given an exemption to 

the 10-year time frame, and explain how those are determined? 

Answer. Of the 34 overfished and/or rebuilding stocks not subject to the 10-year 

time frame, 6 (13 percent) fall under the exception for stocks managed ‘‘under an 

international agreement in which the United States participates.’’ Three others (6 

percent) have no set rebuilding deadline due to insufficient knowledge regarding the 

life histories of the relevant species, while two stocks (4 percent) have only recently 

been declared overfished, and no rebuilding plans have yet been developed. The remaining 23 stocks (49 percent) fall under the exception to the 10-year timeline 

created for cases ‘‘where the biology of the stock of fish’’ requires a longer rebuilding 

period. While I am not familiar with how the rebuilding times have been determined 

for each of those 23 stocks, current guidelines adopted by the National Marine 

Fisheries Service, which may be found at 50 C.F.R. 600.305 et seq., provide three 

methods for determining rebuilding timelines for stocks that, for biological reasons, 

cannot be rebuilt within 10 years. The relevant regional fishery management council 

may select a rebuilding time that is equal to (1) the minimum time it would take 

to rebuild the stock in the absence of any fishing mortality, plus one mean generation (the average time it takes a fish to mature and first produce young) for the 

species in question; (2) the time it would take to rebuild the stock if it was fished 

at 75 percent of the maximum fishing mortality threshold; or (3) twice the time that 

it would take to rebuild the stock in the absence of any fishing mortality. 

Question 2. We heard from Mr. Wiley that alternative management measures do 

not give recreational fishermen a ‘‘blank check’’ when it comes number of fish. 

However, the ‘‘blank check’’ is what happens when it comes to recreational reporting. 

Mr. Kaelin stated that the accountability measures that we see in the commercial 

fishing industry are much stronger in comparison to the recreational side. Can you 

please provide some potential remedies for the lack of data and accountability in 

recreational fisheries? 

Answer. Lack of data and lack of accountability in recreational fisheries are two 

different problems with different solutions, although they do intersect when 

recreational fishermen challenge the need for accountability measures by citing allegedly poor data. 

The lack of data, or at least the alleged lack of reliable data, is by turns the simplest and the most difficult problem to remedy. It is the simplest problem to remedy 

because it could readily be addressed if more funding was made available to pay 

for data-gathering efforts. That is particularly true in the case of the Marine 

Recreational Information Program (MRIP), used to estimate recreational landings, 

as the precision of the landings estimates is directly related to the number of anglers surveyed (In the case of MRIP’s forerunner, the Marine Recreational Fishing 

Statistical Survey, the precision of the estimates was inversely related to the square 

of the number of surveys made; that is, to cut error in half, it was necessary to 

interview four times as many anglers, etc. As far as I know, the same rule applies 

to MRIP.) Additional funding would also permit more stock assessments to be made, 

additional research to be conducted to inform such assessments, etc. Having said 

that, the data issue is, as a practical matter, a very difficult problem to remedy because Congress has historically been very reluctant to appropriate adequate funds 

to the National Marine Fisheries Service for data-collection purposes; the budget 

proposal recently adopted by the House continues such practice of underfunding 

needed research. 

Accountability measures in the recreational fishery present a more complex issue. 

In the commercial fishery, mandatory reporting makes it possible to accurately estimate landings in near real time. In the recreational fishery, landings are estimated, 

and such estimates are only available 45 days after the end of each 2-month ‘‘wave.’’ 

Because of that combination of estimated landings and the delay before such estimates are finalized, the recreational fishery is not amenable to the in-season 

accountability measure most often used in the commercial fishery—shutting down 

the fishery when the annual catch limit is reached. Uncertainty inherent in the recreational landings estimates also make the most common retrospective accountability measure used in the commercial fishery—pound-for-pound paybacks in the 

following season—difficult to impose in the recreational fishery; when such paybacks 

are employed, as they are in the Gulf of Mexico recreational red snapper fishery, 

they are frequently subject to challenges based on the quality of the landings data. 

Thus, the most appropriate, and arguably the most effective, accountability measure 

for use in recreational fisheries is a prospective one, reducing the Acceptable 

Biological Catch by some percentage that reflects the management uncertainty created by imprecise landing estimates to produce a more conservative Annual Catch 

Limit. Creating such a buffer for management uncertainty would inevitably meet 

30 

initial resistance from the angling community; however, a properly constituted buffer that leads to regulatory stability would, in the long term, be welcomed by anglers 

previously frustrated by constantly changing regulations that appear unrelated to 

the health of the relevant fish stock. 

2a. Can you elaborate on tools like mandatory reporting, descender devices, or 

others, and how these can help increase access for recreational fishermen? 

Answer. Tools like mandatory reporting and descending devices could increase access for recreational fishermen by reducing uncertainty in estimates of recreational 

fishing mortality and thus lead to relaxed regulations; mandatory reporting could 

reduce the management uncertainty arising out of recreational harvest estimates, 

while tools such as descender devices could reduce actual discard mortality and the 

scientific uncertainty arising out of estimates of such mortality. Unfortunately, despite how beneficial such tools might be for recreational fishermen, there is little 

reason to believe that anglers are willing to embrace their use. 

Mandatory reporting is already in place in some recreational fisheries. In the 

recreational Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery, anglers are required to report all fish 

landed within 24 hours, yet when I spoke with someone employed by the National 

Marine Fisheries Service’s Highly Migratory Species Division at the agency’s 2014 

Recreational Fisheries Conference, I was told that the Service believes that only 

about 20 percent of anglers report their harvested bluefin. A similar situation exists 

in Alabama’s red snapper fishery, which also requires that all red snapper caught 

be reported to the state before or immediately after landing. According to a June 

24, 2017 article in the Tuscaloosa [AL] News, the Alabama Marine Resources 

Division estimates that a mere 7 percent of anglers reported their red snapper landings during Alabama’s 2017 state season; that figure improved slightly, to 22 

percent, during the original, 3-day 2017 Federal season, but even that figure is dismally low for what is supposed to be a mandatory reporting program. There are 

many reasons for such noncompliance. Some anglers undoubtedly just forget. Others 

feel that they can forego the trouble of reporting with impunity. And there is a significant portion of the angling community who believes that, if they don’t report 

their catch, harvest estimates will be lower, and lead directly to more relaxed regulations in the future (at least in the northeastern bluefin tuna fishery, which I have 

actively participated in for more than 40 years and so know very well, there is also 

a significant number of anglers who do not adhere to the regulations, and so don’t 

report in an effort to avoid self-incrimination). As a practical matter, only mandatory reporting requirements that can be easily enforced (e.g., the operator of the 

vessel must call in and report catch prior to landing, so that an enforcement officer 

meeting the boat at the dock can easily determine whether the required report was 

made) and carry significant sanctions for noncompliance are likely to be followed by 

the majority of anglers. 

Descending devices offer a similar challenge. Research has demonstrated that 

they are effective in reducing the impacts of barotrauma and so in reducing discard 

mortality. The key question, however, is whether anglers, well out of sight of both 

land and the eyes of enforcement officers, will employ them on a regular basis, particularly when the fishing is fast and time spent employing descender devices is 

time when anglers could, instead, be catching more fish. I suspect that many (but 

far from all) private boat anglers would employ descenders, particularly when fishing is relatively slow. I suspect that many (but also far from all) charter boat operators would use them as well. However, they probably would not meet with much 

acceptance in high-volume deep water party boat fisheries where, as a practical 

matter, a three- or four-person crew would be physically unable to employ descender 

devices to return all of the fish released by 40 or more passengers over the course 

of a trip. They would simply become overwhelmed. Anti-regulation sentiments in the 

party boat fleet, particularly those boats that sail from the upper Mid-Atlantic ports 

that I am most familiar with, would also militate against the use of descenders. The 

problem is encapsulated in a February 2012 article in the Asbury Park [NJ] Press, 

which described an incident aboard the party boat Jamaica, which sails out of 

Brielle, New Jersey. According to that article, although the boat sailed in search of 

cod and other groundfish, it returned to the dock with 819 illegal (out-of-season) 

black sea bass. As the reporter noted, ‘‘Black sea bass are not catch-and-release fish. 

They have a swim bladder that enables them to maintain their buoyancy in deep 

water. When the fish are reeled up from the depths, their swim bladder expands 

. . . The fish can then no longer return to the bottom . . . Instead of swimming, 

the fish float on the surface and die.’’ Thus, black sea bass are exactly the kind of 

fish that would benefit from the use of descenders. However, when the captain of 

the Jamaica was asked whether he knew that his passengers were keeping so many 

illegal fish, he reportedly responded ‘‘I didn’t think it was that many. And I’m not 

31 

getting paid by the state of New Jersey to take fish out of people’s buckets.’’ While 

one can only speculate as to whether someone with such an attitude would bother 

to use descenders to release 819 black sea bass, caught by roughly 40 anglers, over 

the course of a trip, the quote does give reasonable cause to believe that, absent a 

viable enforcement mechanism that can lead to substantial penalties, regulations requiring descenders would meet with only limited compliance. 

Regardless of the tools involved, and how beneficial the use of such tools might 

be to recreational fishermen, regulations requiring their use would probably not currently meet with widespread buy-in by the angling community. Various angling 

rights groups and angling industry members have, over the past several years, campaigned against Federal fisheries management and Federal fisheries regulations. 

Such campaign has undercut the stature of fisheries managers and damaged the 

credibility of the regulatory process in anglers’ eyes. In such an environment, the 

greater angling community is unlikely to cooperate with any regulatory requirements that they view as burdensome, including mandatory reporting and the use 

of descenders. Such situation is unlikely to improve unless and until spokesmen for 

the industry and for major angling organizations accept their responsibility to work 

with regulators to improve the conservation and management process, rather than 

standing outside the process while attempting to undercut it in an effort to increase 

anglers’ short-term landings, as is currently the case. 

Question 3. Some argue that scientific uncertainty makes data unreliable or overly 

conservative. Can you please explain why it is important to manage for uncertainty, 

and why it is important to build in buffer room around catch limits and rebuilding 

timelines? 

Answer. Estimates of stock size, spawning potential, fishing mortality and other 

parameters critical to the management process inevitably include some degree of 

uncertainty, which is set out in the relevant scientific paper (e.g., ‘‘We believe that 

the current spawning stock biomass for species ‘X’ is 40,000 metric tons; there is 

a 95 percent probability that such biomass is no lower than 35,800 mt and no higher 

than 43,200 mt’’). From a biologist’s perspective, such uncertainty doesn’t make the 

data unreliable; however, the uncertainty must be considered when establishing 

management measures. Fishermen will often argue that uncertainty means that the 

actual size of a population may be higher than the point estimate used to estimate 

the biomass, and so regulations based on such point estimate are unduly conservative; however, in making such statements, they seem to forget that the error can 

be in either direction, and that it is just as likely that there are fewer fish in the 

population than the point estimate indicates. Thus, if a regional fishery management council establishes an annual catch limit precisely at the overfishing limit, and 

the point estimate actually overestimates the size of the stock, overfishing will occur 

and the stock could fail to recover, and even fall into decline. I saw this happen 

when I sat on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council from 2002–2005, as 

for most of that period, the Council routinely set the summer flounder catch limit 

right at the point estimate that had a 50 percent chance of preventing overfishing. 

For the first year or two, that worked, but because there was no allowance for 

scientific uncertainty, and because the model used to assess the stock was found to 

overestimate recruitment and underestimate fishing mortality, the species’ recovery 

eventually stalled, and more conservative measures were needed. That illustrates 

why language included in Magnuson-Stevens during the 2006 reauthorization, 

which prevents a regional fishery management council from setting an annual catch 

limit higher than ‘‘the fishing level recommendations of its science and statistical 

committee or the peer review process’’ is critically important; it assures that any 

annual catch limit will take account of scientific uncertainty, and be set far enough 

below the overfishing level to prevent overfishing from occurring. 

The same principle applies to rebuilding timelines or any other parameter; without adopting a buffer large enough to take uncertainty into account, managers make 

it less likely that the objectives of the fishery management plan will be realized. 

Fishermen often argue that the data is too uncertain to form the basis for restrictive 

regulations; in fact, the opposite is true. When data is highly uncertain or unavailable, the likelihood of inadvertently overfishing the stock is correspondingly high. 

Thus, more uncertain the data, the more conservative regulations need to be to 

avoid harming the stock and also to avoid harming the people who depend on 

healthy fish populations. 

32 

3a. How does this protect stocks from being overfished? 

Answer. As mentioned in the response immediately above, uncertain data raises 

the risk of overfishing. The best way to avoid harm to the stock is to adopt management measures conservative enough to take full account of such scientific 

uncertainty. 

Question 4. Some suggest that the use of the ‘‘best available data’’ has severely 

restricted councils, and there is often contention with how stock assessments are conducted. However, we’ve seen in the cod fishery that the state managed assessments 

found the same results as NOAA Fisheries—there simply aren’t enough fish. Despite 

this, many in the industry say otherwise. Would you say that it’s advisable to mandate incorporation of any data source, including those that do not require a scientific 

assessment process, to make management decisions? 

Answer. The accuracy and quality of stock assessments is directly dependent upon 

the accuracy and quality of the data on which such assessments are based. Thus, 

it is of the utmost importance that all such data is statistically valid and collected 

using methodologies capable of passing rigorous peer review. Fishermen often question the validity of the data (or, at least, the validity of data showing that the population is at low levels; data that shows that fish are more abundant than expected, 

such as the 2008 assessment of Gulf of Maine cod—now known to be wrong—are 

rarely if ever questioned, but instead are enthusiastically accepted by fishermen 

willing and eager to increase their catch), arguing that scientists aren’t sampling 

‘‘where the fish are’’ and instead conduct random surveys that primarily sample 

places where they are no fish (e.g., samples taken during the National Marine 

Fisheries Services’ northeast trawl surveys). Such criticism demonstrates a lack of 

understanding of how statistically valid surveys are made; random trawl tows, made 

in a consistent manner each year, create an abundance index that reliably reflects 

the state of the stock. Such criticism also ignores that fact that the most important 

data may not be the fish that are caught over the course of a trawl survey in the 

places where they remain, but instead the fish that are not caught over the course 

of a trawl survey in places where they should be and historically were. Even when 

a fish population has fallen very low, there will be places where the remnants of 

such population congregate and fish can be readily caught. New England cod, cited 

in the above question, are a good example of this phenomenon; when the population 

level falls, the remnants of the stock tend to school tightly together, and fishermen 

trawling through such aggregations can catch many fish in a very short time. Yet 

vast areas of bottom may hold very few, if any, cod at all, even though fish abounded there a few decades ago. It is this fact that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ 

trawl survey, referred to in the question, has confirmed. 

Information provided by fishermen and other non-scientific sources, which is not 

collected pursuant to a statistically valid survey, should never be included in stock 

assessments. Such information is at best anecdotal, and reflects the fishermen’s spatially and temporally limited perspective with respect to abundance. It reflects the 

fisherman’s biases, and his/her propensity to fish in places where fish can be found; 

it in no way reflects a stock’s abundance throughout its entire range, and it in no 

way reflects a stock’s historical abundance. The latter can be particularly significant. When summer flounder were in the midst of their recovery a decade ago, 

critics of the management process constantly called (and sometimes still call) the 

biomass target ‘‘unrealistic,’’ arguing that the population was ‘‘the highest that it 

has been in 30 years.’’ What was missing from their argument was the fact that 

the stock had been overfished for a very long time, and that it had not been truly 

abundant for more than three decades. We see the same thing today in the Gulf 

of Mexico red snapper fishery, where anglers claim that ‘‘red snapper are more 

abundant than they have ever been.’’ While there is no question that the red 

snapper rebuilding plan is working, the stock first fell into decline during the 1960s. 

An angler would have to have been fishing no less than 55 years ago to have experienced a healthy stock; today’s stock levels may seem high when compared to the 

stock 15 years ago, when abundance was near all-time lows, but only because few 

people fishing today remember what a truly abundant stock looks like. They may 

be ‘‘more abundant than they have ever been’’ during a complaining angler’s lifetime, but that only demonstrates that such angler is too young to have experienced 

a healthy stock. That sort of ‘‘shifting baseline’’ increases the level of bias inherent 

in information provided by anglers. 

Thank you for requesting answers to the above questions. Please feel free to 

contact me with any other questions that you might have. 

33 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. And now we will hear from Mr. Martin for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SEAN MARTIN, PRESIDENT, HAWAII 

LONGLINE ASSOCIATION, HONOLULU, HAWAII 

Mr. MARTIN. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and aloha, members of 

the Committee. My name is Sean Martin. I am President of the 

Hawaii Longline Association, which represents the interests of the 

Hawaii-based commercial longline fishery. I thank the Committee 

for inviting me to testify on the successes and challenges of the 

MSA. 

Over 140 vessels participate in the Hawaii longline fishery. We annually land around $100 million in dockside value of tuna and 

other species. The fishery supports 2,500 jobs, and accounts for several hundred million dollars in the seafood industry. The longline 

fishery is the number-one domestic food supplying industry in 

Hawaii. We land fresh fish, and the Port of Honolulu ranks within 

the top 10 fishing ports in the United States for the last three decades. We operate in a very competitive arena, both for the fishing 

grounds in international waters, and for the U.S. domestic market. 

The recent marine monument designations under the Antiquities 

Act prohibit us from fishing in more than half of the U.S. EEZs in 

the Western Pacific Region. Access to the high seas is being challenged by United Nations initiatives, as well. Closure of the U.S. 

waters and the high seas reduces our ability to compete, and increases the vulnerability of our markets to foreign takeover. 

The MSA is a success. Overfished stocks have been rebuilt and 

few stocks are now overfished. Management measures are precautionary and based on the best-available science. The fishery 

Councils provide regional expertise in utilizing an effective bottomup decision-making process that includes the fishing industry. I 

would like to highlight three key issues. 

First, the MSA is being circumvented by other statutes and 

authorities. This includes the Endangered Species Act, the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, National 

Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the Antiquities Act. These authorities 

do not require the same level of public consultation and transparency as the MSA. 

Fisheries should be managed primarily through Fishery Councils 

under MSA. This ensures a transparent, public, science-based 

process which allows the fishing industry and stakeholders to be 

consulted. Impacts to fishery-dependent communities are considered, and it prevents regulations that might otherwise be duplicative, unenforceable, or contradictory. 

Past administrations have established huge national marine 

monuments in the Pacific, totaling more than 760 million acres of 

U.S. waters under the Antiquities Act. Marine monuments have 

been designated around Hawaii, American Samoa, Guam, Northern 

Marianas Islands, and the remote Pacific island areas. All commercial fishing is prohibited in monument waters. In our view, prohibition of fishing in these pristine waters was unnecessary and 

harmful to U.S. fisheries. Fisheries operating in these areas were 

sustainably managed for decades under MSA and the Western 

Pacific Council. 

34 

HLA recommends that the MSA be amended to assure that the 

MSA process is the only process by which regulations affecting U.S. 

fisheries can be adopted. 

Second, in 2016, Congress passed legislation that directs the 

Secretaries of Commerce and State to prevent U.S. tuna fisheries 

operating in the Central and Western Pacific from being disadvantaged, relative to other fisheries in the regions. The law is intended 

to level the playing field between U.S. and foreign fisheries. U.S. 

fisheries managed under MSA are sustainable, yet often 

marginalized within international fisheries commissions. 

U.S. fishing interests require strong negotiators to advocate and 

support U.S. fisheries. While our fleet has been limited to 164 

permits since 1991, some other nations have been expanding their 

fleets dramatically, and are continuing to do so. 

The U.S. bigeye tuna catch limit has been cut over recent years, 

while other nations’ catches threaten to supply U.S. markets with 

poorly monitored seafood. HLA recommends that MSA be amended 

to ensure that U.S. fisheries are not disadvantaged with regard to 

internationally imposed catch or effort limits. 

And last, HLA supports the Regional Councils’ efforts to achieve 

a more streamlined process for regulatory action. A fisheries management plan document contains a full discussion of impacts on 

fisheries, fish stocks, and associated species, including endangered 

species. 

The National Environmental Policy Act requires duplicative evaluation. The analytical duplication between the MSA and National 

Environmental Policy Act is unnecessary, delays actions, and has 

a high cost. The Hawaii Longline Association recommends amending the MSA to authorize a single analytical document for any proposed regulatory action. This will streamline the process, eliminate 

duplication, and allow for more meaningful industry input. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide our views on the 

successes and challenges of MSA. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SEAN MARTIN, PRESIDENT, HAWAII LONGLINE

ASSOCIATION, HONOLULU, HAWAII

My name is Sean Martin. I am President of the Hawaii Longline Association 

(HLA) in Honolulu, Hawaii. HLA is a nonprofit organization representing and advancing the interests of the Hawaii-based commercial longline fisheries in fishery 

conservation and management decisions. I thank the Committee for inviting me to 

testify on the successes and challenges of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act (MSA). 

The Hawaii longline fishery consists of 140 active vessels. We land around $100 

million (dockside value) worth of tuna (bigeye and yellowfin) and tuna-like fish 

(swordfish, marlins, mahi-mahi, opah, wahoo) annually, supporting 2,500 jobs and 

producing several hundred million dollars in the associated seafood industry. The 

fishery provides jobs on fishing vessels, on the docks, at suppliers, and in the fish 

wholesale and distributor markets. We are the largest food producing industry in 

Hawaii, and we supply almost all the fresh tuna available in Hawaii. We operate 

in a very competitive arena, both for fishing grounds in international waters and 

for the U.S. domestic market. The recent marine monument designations established under the Antiquities Act prohibits us from fishing in 51 percent of the U.S. 

Exclusive Economic Zone in the Western Pacific region. Access to the high seas is 

also being challenged by recent United Nations initiatives. Closure of U.S. waters 

and the high seas hurts us, reducing our ability to compete and increasing the vulnerability of our markets to foreign takeover. 

35 

The MSA is a success and should be the principal source of authority for management of U.S. fisheries. Overfished stocks have been rebuilt, and few stocks are now 

overfished. Management measures are precautionary and based on the best 

scientific information available. The regional fishery management councils provide 

regional fishing expertise and utilize an effective bottom-up decision-making process 

that includes the fishing industry. The MSA also requires the evaluation of impacts 

on fish stocks as well as fishermen and fishing communities. 

HLA has worked with the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Western 

Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council for over 25 years. Our intent has 

been to ensure that sound fishery data would be used in stock assessments and that 

this would be joined with solid market and fishing industry information so the 

Council would have a good basis for establishing regulations. We have collaborated 

on research into such areas as gear modifications to protect sea turtles, seabirds, 

and marine mammals. We are proud of our efforts and the Hawaii longline fishery 

is an iconic, internationally recognized model fishery. It is the most highly monitored, strictly regulated longline fishery in the Pacific. 

HLA provides the following recommendations with respect to the MSA. 

1. Manage U.S. ocean fisheries through MSA processes. In recent years, the 

management of fisheries covered by the MSA has been circumvented by other statutes and authorities. This includes the Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal 

Protection Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and 

the Antiquities Act. These Acts do not require the same level of public consultation 

and transparency as compared to the MSA. For our fishery, the biggest gains in protection have been achieved through the Council process. For example, sea turtle and 

seabird interactions were reduced by 90 percent as a result of industry cooperative 

research and Council developed regulations. In HLA’s view, fisheries should be managed primarily through the fishery management councils under the MSA. This 

ensures a transparent, public, and science-based process which allows the fishing 

industry and stakeholders to be consulted. It provides that analyses of impacts to 

fishery dependent communities are considered, and prevents regulations that might 

otherwise be duplicative, unenforceable, or contradictory. 

Past administrations have established huge national marine monuments in the 

Pacific totaling more than 760 million acres of U.S. waters under the Antiquities 

Act of 1906. In our view, marine monument designations were politically motivated 

and addressed non-existing problems. Fisheries operating in these areas were 

sustainably managed for several decades under the MSA and the Western Pacific 

Council. There was no serious attempt to work with the fishing industry in the designations of these marine monuments. Public input was minimal. See attached map 

identifying U.S. waters closed to commercial fisheries. 


26390.001.eps
36 

HLA recommends that the MSA be amended to ensure that the MSA 

process is the only process by which regulations affecting U.S. fisheries can 

be adopted. 

2. Strengthen support for U.S. fisheries in the international arena. In 

2016, Congress enacted ‘‘Amendments to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries 

Convention Implementation Act’’ (16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The amendments direct 

the Secretaries of Commerce and State to seek to minimize any disadvantage to 

U.S. fisheries relative to other fisheries of the region and to maximize U.S. fisheries’ 

harvest of fish in the Convention Area. The amendments are intended to level the 

playing field between U.S. and foreign fisheries. U.S. fisheries managed under the 

MSA are sustainable, yet they are often disadvantaged within international 

fisheries commissions. U.S. fishing interests require strong U.S. government 

negotiators to advocate and support U.S. fisheries. For example, the Hawaii longline 

bigeye quota has been reduced to 3,345 metric tonnes (mt), while quotas for other 

countries have not been reduced (e.g. Indonesia). The WCPFC-imposed quotas are 

based on historical catch and do not match current fishing capacity. For example, 

Japan has a bigeye quota of nearly 17,000 mt, but only catches around 11,000 mt. 

China has been expanding its longline fleet from about 100 vessels in 2001 to over 

430 vessels in 2015, and has a bigeye quota of around 7,000 mt. Our fleet has been 

limited to 164 permits since 1991. China is continuing to expand its longline 

fisheries and supplying U.S. markets with poorly monitored seafood. 

HLA recommends that the MSA be amended to ensure that U.S. fisheries 

are not disadvantaged with regards to internationally imposed catch or 

effort limits. 

3. Simplify the MSA regulatory process. HLA supports the regional councils’ 

efforts to achieve a more streamlined process for approval of regulatory actions. A 

fishery management plan document from a regional council typically contains a full 

discussion of impacts on the fisheries, on the fish stocks, and on associated species 

(e.g., endangered species, marine mammals, seabirds, etc.). The National Environmental Policy Act requires duplicative evaluation and incongruent public comment 

periods. The analytical duplication between the MSA and NEPA is unnecessary, 

delays needed actions, has a high cost, and provides more avenues for legal 

challenges and delays on non-MSA grounds. Also, it is often very confusing to the 

industry with regards to timing and where we should apply our input in the process. 

HLA recommends amending the MSA to authorize a single analytical 

document for any proposed regulatory action that will streamline the 

process, eliminate duplication, and allow for more meaningful industry 

input. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide our views on the successes and 

challenges of the MSA. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you all for being here and for your testimony. At this point we will begin our questions for the witnesses. 

To allow all of our Members to participate, and to hear from all of 

the witnesses, under Committee Rule 3(d), Members are limited to 

5 minutes for their questions. 

I will yield the first opportunity to ask questions to the Full 

Committee Chairman, Mr. Bishop of Utah. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn, and I apologize to the 

Committee, as well as the witnesses, that I have to go to another 

meeting in a few minutes. I apologize for that. 

I thank you for being here. In the short time that I have been 

Chairman of the Committee, I think I have been to each of the regions you represent, so in the Northeast and in Florida, as well as 

in the Pacific. 

I have heard many of the same complaints that you have highlighted today: simply, poor data to justify fishing management decisions, whether it be for commercial or recreational fishing. There 

simply seems to be a lack of scientific justification either for the 

data or even the methodology by which the data was collected. And 

37 

I think you have identified that in both your written and oral testimony. Access has simply been impacted. 

Let me start with Mr. Martin, if I could. Thank you for being 

here and traveling the distance that you came here. Access seems 

to be impacted, not just in marine protected areas, but also because 

of the Antiquities Act, one of my favorite pieces of legislation. 

Could I ask you about the abuses of the Antiquities Act? How 

critical is it to the economy of Hawaii and our Pacific territories 

that federally managed fisheries be managed by the principles of 

Magnuson-Stevens, and not by the impositions of the marine monuments and sanctuaries? 

Mr. MARTIN. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. I do think that the importance of access to all of the waters that are available to us are important to U.S. fishermen. If you restrict access in one area, you 

oftentimes are just focusing the access, or focusing the effort on 

another area. 

So, having access, particularly the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, 

which is the largest marine-protected area, or national monument 

in the United States, is very important to the longline fishery in 

Hawaii. Somewhere between 8 and 12 percent of the catch takes 

place in that particular area, and of course it varies from year to 

year. So, I do think that we are very focused on sustainable fishing, 

but sustainable fishing throughout a broad range. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK. Mr. Kaelin, you have a new monument over in 

your area, too. Do you agree with what Mr. Martin just said? 

Mr. KAELIN. Yes, sir, I do. I do, Mr. Bishop, and I want to thank 

you for the work that you have done. The Northeast Canyons and 

Seamounts designation was contrary to the approach that the MidAtlantic Council had taken to protect deep-sea corals, and also the 

approach that the New England Council was pursuing to do the 

same thing, and freeze the footprint of fishing. 

The new monument designation set a shoreward boundary that 

needlessly eliminates commercial fishing with no biological benefit. 

So, we are absolutely opposed to that process, and would like to see 

those boundaries changed. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And you guys had a compromise that 

could have worked and should have worked for everybody. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Martin, I would go back to you. Do you see any scientific 

justification to support the Pacific Monument expansion? 

Mr. MARTIN. No, we don’t. I don’t think—— 

Mr. BISHOP. That is good enough. You won me over with that 

answer there. 

Mr. MARTIN. OK. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. But that also means, were there existing protections 

under Magnuson-Stevens? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, there were. In the 1990s, through Council 

action, there were areas that were set aside and prohibited from 

particularly longline fishing within those areas because of concerns 

about habitat and protective species within the area. 

Mr. BISHOP. Look, I appreciate that. Mr. Wiley, it is good to have 

you here again. It has been a while. I think it has been a couple 

of years since the first time we saw you and you were talking about 

38 

red snapper. I believe you are still talking about red snapper, and 

I think there are going to be some questions about red snapper 

here again today. 

I am appreciative of what Secretary Ross did in his action to give 

some relief, but that was, at best, a Band-Aid. We need to have a 

longer-term solution to that. 

Can I just ask you—if you compare the Gulf of Mexico and South 

Atlantic, would you say that the issues are caused in both those 

places by a systemic problems with Federal fisheries management? 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir, I would. I think the fact that we cannot provide access as the fishery grows and rebuilds is the fundamental 

problem, and that is part of the Act. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you for that. Under my imposed self rules, 

I only have 44 seconds left, so I won’t start the other question here, 

but I want to thank you. Once again, thank you all for being here. 

It is extremely important. This is an important piece of legislation 

we need to move. Don Young has to get his act together and get 

this thing passed. 

Thank you for holding the hearing, and I appreciate the courtesy 

of allowing me to go first so I can go to my next meeting. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will now hear from 

Representative Huffman of California. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Martin, in terms of the impact of the monument designation 

in your region, at least so far your industry has been having no 

trouble catching fish. Is that fair to say? 

Mr. MARTIN. No trouble in catching fish, no. That is correct. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I mean the numbers I have seen—well, certainly 

last year was a banner year. The quota was reached by July 22. 

This year, NOAA shows that around 80 percent of the quota had 

been used as of July 11, and that is post-monument designation. 

I just wanted to point that out. 

Mr. Wiley, you spoke about something we hear pretty regularly, 

and that is that recreational fishermen feel that the data collected 

on red snapper and other highly sought-after species is not good 

enough or timely enough to manage fisheries. And I wonder if 

there might not be something we can agree on here. 

Do you support additional funding from Congress for NOAA and 

the interstate fishery commissions to conduct more fishery independent data collection and more frequent stock assessments? 

Mr. WILEY. If it were steered properly to address the shortfalls, 

yes, sir, we would. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. OK. I think that would be a good idea. Commercial fishermen are required by law, of course, to report their 

catches and discards, which is the reason why we have better data 

for commercial fisheries than we do on the recreational side. But 

I want to ask if you think there is more that we can do on the 

recreational side to try to answer this data challenge. 

Do you think that mandatory reporting of recreational landings 

and discards, for example, would be a good idea? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, I would not go to mandatory before we fully 

worked with the recreational community to go for tools that we already are putting in play, like using cell phone applications for reporting. Anglers are already reporting dead discards for our snook 

39 

harvest that feeds into our models and gives us great information. 

Very, very timely. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. OK. That is a form of reporting, though. But you 

would prefer to give that a chance before making it mandatory? 

Mr. WILEY. Sure I would. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Witek, what about you? Do you think 

recreational anglers can do more to see better data, more robust 

data, so we can manage these fisheries? 

Mr. WITEK. I think they should. But, to date, the success has not 

been great. There is now mandatory reporting on bluefin tuna, and 

I spoke to someone in NMFS’ highly migratory species unit a while 

ago and only about 20 percent of anglers who catch bluefin tuna 

actually report their catch, even though it is mandatory reporting. 

In Alabama, they instituted mandatory red snapper reporting. 

Yet, there was an article—I believe it was in the Tuscaloosa Times 

a week or two ago—that said during Alabama’s state season this 

year they estimate only 7 percent of anglers actually complied with 

the reporting requirement. 

So, yes, we should. But we have to find a way to put some teeth 

in the requirement. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. We heard from one of the witnesses about the 

very limited number of days on the Atlantic for red snapper. And 

I am hoping maybe you can correct me if I am wrong, but I know 

on the Pacific side one way we have been able to allow more fishing 

is to require recreational anglers to use descender devices, so that 

if they catch a fish that we are trying to protect, that we don’t 

want them to keep, that fish can actually survive being returned 

back in to the water. 

Yet, I understand that that is not used on the Atlantic side. Is 

that the kind of thing that the recreational fishing community can 

do, so that we cannot just answer this data problem, but also give 

them more days on the water? 

Mr. WITEK. Yes, efforts to avoid barotrauma would be a very 

good idea, descenders or other devices. 

Actually, some members of the recreational fishing industry have 

offered to make such devices available. But to date they are not 

used often enough. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. OK. Mr. Witek, while I have you, I want to ask 

you about the decision by Secretary Ross to extend the private boat 

recreational red snapper season in the Gulf of Mexico well beyond 

what some, at least, feel is a sustainable level. And one of the witnesses praised that decision. 

This decision, of course, over-rides the science-based Fishery 

Management Council process. It is believed by many that it will result in a harvest exceeding the science-based annual catch limit. 

We know that it is being challenged in court, and I have heard 

some pretty credible assessments that that challenge is likely to be 

successful. 

So, we could have long delays in rebuilding this economically 

valuable fish stock. I am wondering if you would speak to why you 

believe—if you believe—that this action is damaging. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I am afraid we have run out of time. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. To be continued. 

40 

Mr. LAMBORN. I would now like to recognize, with unanimous 

consent, out of order, Representative Hice, who has a conflict in a 

few minutes. 

Dr. HICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 

holding this hearing. There are a lot of Georgians who go to the 

Gulf for recreational fishing. 

I also, Mr. Chairman, want to thank you for having Mr. Scott 

here. I don’t know that there is anyone who is any more informed 

in Congress on this issue, and more passionate about it, so I 

welcome him and his work on this area, as well. 

Mr. Wiley, let me just go to you. Mr. Witek’s testimony talks 

about alternative management measures, and that they are weakening MSA. Can you give a couple of examples of alternative 

measurements? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, yes, sir. In Florida, our near-shore fisheries like 

red drum, spotted sea trout, snook, we manage more to a biomass 

scheme, where we actually use spawning potential ratios. We monitor closely, we do 3-year stock assessments, use solid science, and 

we also—the key to really making it work is we stay in tune with 

the anglers. We let anglers help provide data voluntarily to help us 

manage particular issues like discards and discard mortality. 

We also creatively use slot limits, size limits, season limits. But 

the thing is we can move quickly. We are nimble, we can adjust, 

and we can manage the fishery very much in tune with what it will 

provide to be able to optimize fishing opportunity and access. 

Dr. HICE. Do any of these alternative management measures— 

do any of them give a blank check to recreational fishermen, as it 

relates to the number of fish they can catch? 

Mr. WILEY. No, sir. Absolutely not. 

Dr. HICE. OK. Now, the quotas, explain to me how the quotas are 

divvied out. Who has them? Who gives them away? How does that 

process work? 

Mr. WILEY. The quotas with regard to, like, the red snapper 

fishery? 

Dr. HICE. Right, mm-hmm. 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir. That is through the Council process, and 

there is an allocation process based on analysis of historic landings 

and such. So, it is partitioned out or allocated to the commercial 

sector and then, now, through the Council, are further allocated to 

the charter-for-hire sector and then the private boat recreational 

sector. 

Dr. HICE. OK. So, the charter-for-hire or whatever, who is giving 

it to those individuals? In other words, are the commercial 

fishermen—who gets them and then actually divvies them out? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, it is done through NOAA fisheries. I mean it 

is actually, the actions are taken through NOAA fisheries’ actions, 

at the recommendation of the Councils. 

Dr. HICE. I guess what I am getting to, from my understanding, 

are there fisheries, there used to be professional fishermen, whatever the case may be, you have all these quotas and they will sell 

a certain part to charter fishermen, or whatever. 

Mr. WILEY. Well, those are designed, given the fishery. But in 

red snapper, for example, the commercial piece, those fishermen 

were allocated a share of the fishery, and then that fisherman that 

41 

was allocated that share can then sub-lease or sell their interest 

in those shares, or access to those shares—— 

Dr. HICE. And that is a common practice? 

Mr. WILEY. I believe it is a fairly common practice. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HICE. OK. So, my understanding is many of those people are 

now out of the fishing business, themselves. They make money by 

selling certain quotas to other individuals. 

Mr. WILEY. I have read about that, but I don’t have personal 

knowledge of any individual that—whether they are still in or out 

of the business. But I do know that they outsource or lease out access to their shares. 

Dr. HICE. Is that something that would be worth monitoring, so 

that we know who is doing that? Because there is, obviously, an 

issue there. There is a problem there. If a person is not even fishing, all they are doing is becoming a broker for a certain quota, 

that is not the way the system was designed, was it? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, I don’t think that is the way most people want 

to see the system work, many people. But I do think it is something worth monitoring and watching, because I know it has 

created a lot of concern and a lot of feeling that fisheries just—— 

Dr. HICE. I would agree, because here is the deal—my time is 

about to run up—if you are a fisherman, you are the one that 

wants the quota. And if you are not fishing, but you are just a supplier of all this, and now you are going to sell them and you are 

going to make, potentially, millions of dollars selling quotas, and 

you are not even fishing, yourself, you have become a broker. That 

is not the way this system was designed. And that is an enormous 

weakness and a flaw. 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir. 

Dr. HICE. OK. I would want any clarification on that. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Kaelin, a couple questions for you. Your testimony mentions 

multiple times this notion of best-available science, and how it is 

required under law to be used to justify Federal fishery management decisions. Is the Federal Government using the best-available 

science today in all of their management decisions? 

Mr. KAELIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In all of the management decisions? That could be arguable. But I think, to the extent 

the data exists, the government does do a pretty good job of using 

the best-available science. And I think our position is that we can 

improve on that science dramatically by things like using industrybased platforms to do auxiliary surveys, which Congressman 

Young’s bill refers to. 

I think it is a matter of nuance. I think additional flexibility 

around many of the elements in the bill will help create better 

scientific information and allow for better decision making. 

I do think the processes work. When I started dragging in 1972, 

there were no rules. We operated against the foreign fleets. And we 

have made a tremendous amount of progress. So, please don’t think 

that our comments in support of changes and targeted reform are 

contrary to the purposes of the Act. We strongly support sustainable fisheries, hard caps, and good enforcement. Our point is 

science can be improved dramatically. 

42 

And I think if we work with the commercial and the recreational 

fishermen to develop the science that is used in management, we 

will also get more buy-in for the outcomes of the management 

process. 

I think the science center in New England is doing a particularly 

good job, honestly, in trying to move us ahead and be flexible within the constraints of the law. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. What about scientific uncertainty? Does that 

factor in here? 

Mr. KAELIN. Scientific uncertainty is killing us. It really is. I 

wish I took statistics when I was in school, I never did, but the 

error bars are like this. And all the decisions are being made down 

at the lower part of the error bars, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. 

Mr. KAELIN. There is so much room for improvement there. And 

things like stretching out an ACL over a 3-year period, the 

National Standard One guidelines allow a softening of the blow of 

a cut-to-go to be used over 3 years. I think you are codifying some 

of that in the bill. These are the kinds of things, I think, that will 

give us more flexibility. 

We don’t want to throw the bill away. We are not about destroying the Magnuson Act, but there absolutely are a number of things 

that could be done to give the SSCs and the Councils more flexibility in making the decision. 

And the scientific uncertainty is absolutely killing us. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. That indicates that we need to be 

passing this legislation. At least that is what I read into all this. 

Now, Mr. Wiley, you and Mr. Kaelin indicated in your testimony 

that the 2006 reauthorization of the MSA may have created more 

problems than solutions for Federal fisheries managers. Can you 

elaborate on that, please? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, the main thing that changed there were the 

annual catch limits, really restrictive annual catch limits that were 

applied wholesale over all the recreational programs. It works well 

on the commercial side, but on the recreational it just, again, is not 

fitting well. And the tools we have to manage to annual catch limits are not working. We are living proof of that in Florida. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Does H.R. 200 help the situation? 

Mr. WILEY. It sure does. We see a lot of things in H.R. 200 that 

would be very helpful. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And last, Mr. Wiley, changing the subject, domestic shark fisheries are sustainably managed by Federal fishery 

managers. The United States ranks eighth in the world for shark 

exports, and Florida ranks second in the United States for shark 

landings. And there has been legislation, H.R. 1456, that would 

ban the sale of shark fins in the United States. 

Does the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and the state of 

Florida support such legislation? Why or why not? 

Mr. WILEY. My agency, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, does not support that legislation, because we 

believe we have sufficient laws in place that provide for sustainable 

shark fishing. This law would hinder legitimate, sustainable shark 

fishing in the state, and we already have laws in Federal and state 

waters that prohibit landing sharks that have been finned, prohibit 

43 

shark finning. You have to land the sharks whole. And we feel like 

the laws are very much sufficient for that. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. And thank you all for being here 

once again. I now recognize the Vice Chairman, Mr. Webster of 

Florida. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Florida is known as the 

fishing capital of the world. And, Mr. Wiley, I would credit you and 

your agency for doing a fantastic job in promoting the state’s fisheries resources and also doing a great job of managing. We really 

appreciate it. 

The state is not subject to Magnuson-Stevens Act, so you still do 

a fantastic job. You talked a little bit about it. Can you describe, 

kind of in layman’s terms, how you are able to, without using 

standard procedure like annual catch limits, and so forth, how you 

are still able to keep healthy fisheries resources, and not necessarily do that? How do you do it? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, it would take a while to give you all the background. I first want to say thank you for your kind words, but also 

your leadership in Florida at the state level has always been helpful and supportive. So, thank you. You have been a part of our 

story. 

One of the fundamental things we do, and I mentioned it earlier, 

is we work closely with the fishermen in the recreational and the 

commercial community. We have strong relationships and strong 

bonds. We can be very transparent, we are very transparent, and 

we listen. And we can move quickly and be nimble to adjust. 

For example, just a few weeks ago we had a charter fisherman 

coming in and saying we are seeing trouble with the cobia fishery. 

That is a federally managed fishery, but cobia is important to our 

charter fishery. And they were seeing their catches go down. Well, 

there was no indication at the Federal level that was a problem. 

So, we are sitting down and working with them and having 

workshops to contemplate whether we need to implement some restrictions in state waters. That is just an example of how we listen, 

we have relationships, we work hard to reach out and have a good 

trust with our stakeholders, and work on problems on a daily basis. 

Mr. WEBSTER. You mentioned a little bit about using 

smartphones and using that with the recreational anglers to do 

your survey on what is happening in your waters and what is being 

caught, and so forth. Can you say a little bit more about that? How 

does that work? 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir. I love it, we call it citizen science, and it is 

very valid. You have to design a program that allows our anglers 

to input the information. 

And now, with technology, iPhones and things like that, you can 

actually use an application, download it, and you can record and 

it will submit then right into our scientific data, and can be used 

in our modeling, where we are starting to see it used in other 

states. There is an iSnapper and an iSnook, and there are all these 

ways that we can get good information from anglers that is very 

valid and very helpful with regard to assessing stocks, and looking 

at those measures. So, we appreciate that. 

We also, just within the last 2 years, implemented a Gulf Reef 

fish survey, which is our own survey, particularly to get the 

44 

snapper and grouper. It really narrows down the universe of 

people. We know who is fishing, and we know who to sample and 

who to send surveys to. So, we are really working hard to refine 

our tools all the time, to try to improve the data, improve the 

science, and make it more helpful. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Once they sort of chime in the first time, then you 

have their information and you communicate with them after that? 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir. They just sign up for the app, and then they 

are plugged in. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Is it your app? 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir. Well, no. Actually, it was designed by an individual entrepreneur and some of the fishing community worked 

together to design it. We just looked at it, essentially certified it, 

and said this will work, and we figured out ways to allow it to plug 

right in to help our data. 

Mr. WEBSTER. Thanks for being here. 

Mr. WILEY. Thank you. 

Mr. WEBSTER. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Young of Alaska. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I make this clear? 

You all like the flexibility in H.R. 200, right? Raise your hands. 

All right, I figured that out right quick, because that was the 

bone of contention, that flexibility hurt the Act itself. And I personally watched where, because of the Federal management, some of 

the science was not—by the way, the worst thing that has ever 

happened to this Congress is best science available. The best 

science available may not be any science at all, and that is what 

hurts us. 

I would like to see NOAA—and I am trying to figure out how we 

get more money into the private or industry—the scientific community could verify what is being told. The deal in the Gulf now, and 

the red snapper, is really NOAA. I think it has done a fair job, but 

the people running it won’t convey that science to the limitation or 

the catch cap on red snapper. 

And, by the way, I will not say anything other than Mr. Scott 

and Mr. Graves are really the ones that led the charge against that 

33 days or 39 days for additional recreational fishermen. And I give 

them credit for it. 

I want to solve the problem of the red snapper, if I can, in this 

legislation, without necessarily picking out on the red snapper. 

The Chairman brought up the shark fin program, and I think the 

idea of throwing away edible product is a criminal act. If you are 

going to catch a fish, use everything but the squeal, that is the appropriate way to do it. And that is the way pig farmers make a 

living, by the way, and we are doing a good job on our salmon, now. 

We are using everything on that fish. 

What if we were to extend the state land mass mileage out to 

12 miles, as it was before the Magnuson-Stevens Act? A lot of people don’t remember that. It used to be 12 miles. And to get to 200 

miles managed federally, the states gave up 9 miles. What if we 

put it out? Would that help the species at all? 

Anybody want to talk about that? What would it do? Anybody 

have any idea? 

Mr. WILEY. If I may, Mr. Chairman? 

45 

Mr. YOUNG. Yes. 

Mr. WILEY. I think we should talk about looking at that as a creative tool. I am not sure 13 miles would be enough to make a big 

difference, but that concept sure has merit. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, mainly for fish management, because someone 

is going to say, well, you know, there are resources out there—fish, 

and we don’t want to give the ownership—just management. 

What about depth? I think the 30 or 35 fathoms, the state could 

control out that far. What would that do? 

Mr. KAELIN. Mr. Chairman—or Mr. Young, excuse me. 

Mr. YOUNG. I am a Chairman. Once a Chairman, you are always 

a Chairman. 

Mr. KAELIN. Always a Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. And, by the way, there is another side. Once an 

SOB, always an SOB. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. KAELIN. Well—— 

Mr. YOUNG. All right, go ahead. 

Mr. KAELIN. Yes, thank you. I am not sure that we are in favor 

of extended state jurisdiction on the Atlantic Coast. We have a very 

wide Continental Shelf. 

But my experience with the Commission and the state-by-state 

management is it has been a tremendous impediment to effective 

coastwide management of resources that do not respect the state 

jurisdictions. So, I am not sure we are ready to see state extra territorial extensions in our region. I think we are better off with 

coastwide catches and landing restrictions that are maybe agreed 

on universally, but we would have to think a little bit more about 

the extension of state—— 

Mr. YOUNG. Again, we are looking for trying to solve this problem about sustainable yield. That was the whole concept of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act. And, by the way, again, it started in the 

House. They are just Senators. 

Mr. Martin, you brought up a couple things that I did not even 

think about. The interference of other agencies on the maintenance 

and management of fisheries, would it be better to have all the 

fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, then the other agencies 

could not get involved in it? 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, certainly, I think that streamlining the process by having MSA be the focal Act for fisheries management 

would be a preferred direction, as far as our Association is 

concerned. 

Mr. YOUNG. One thing, I agree on the monuments. I have never 

understood why they put—fishing does not hurt the monuments, 

Mr. Chairman. We might want to look at rewriting only monuments in the ocean can prohibit mineral exploration, that type of 

thing, but allow fishing, because fishing does not have anything to 

do with it. I just want to think about that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. I am glad you got that title right. 

OK, now I am going to ask unanimous consent because Mr. 

Huffman does not have a colleague to ask time to yield to him for, 

46 

so unanimous consent for 2 minutes for Mr. Huffman to finish his 

line of questioning. 

No, objection? So ordered. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. It is lonely over 

here on this side of the aisle. So, I was just asking Mr. Witek what 

he thought about this decision by the Secretary to extend the recreational fishing periods. We talked about the Gulf red snapper, 

but there was also a similar action taken with respect to summer 

flounder. 

I would like to ask your thoughts, sir, about the longer-term 

consequences of those decisions. 

Mr. WITEK. If I could, I would address summer flounder first, 

because that is my local fishery. And basically, I believe that the 

decision has done very serious harm to the inter-jurisdictional cooperative management of inshore fisheries on the East Coast. 

For many years, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission could enforce its fishery management plans by the threat of 

going to the Commerce Department and having a moratorium imposed on non-compliant states. It operated on a carrot-and-stick 

principle, the carrot being restored fisheries, the stick being the 

moratorium. 

The Secretary’s decision has taken the stick away. And right 

now, last night, I attended a New York State Marine Resources 

Advisory Council meeting, and the Council was already asking the 

DEC, ‘‘Can we go out of compliance with two different management 

plans?’’ Because the threat is no longer there, they are no longer 

afraid of the moratorium. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. So, now everyone is going to want a special pass 

from the Secretary? 

Mr. WITEK. That is correct. I have heard of other states already 

talking about looking for a pass in the striped bass fishery in the 

Chesapeake Bay, for example. 

If I could answer quickly on the red snapper, I think that decision could very well be the death knell to rational management of 

red snapper in the Gulf Coast. Right now the overfishing will be 

serious enough, if predictions I have seen work out, as much as 7 

million pounds of red snapper overfishing. That is going to be deducted from next year’s Federal fisheries quota, which will basically mean there will be no Federal fishery season. Yet the state 

fisheries will remain open, so they will overfish again against the 

Federal quota, creating a death spiral that I see no way to get out 

of. 

Now, the Gulf Council may have a way out of it, because they 

are talking about changing the definition of an overfished stock. 

Now it is a fairly high standard. I don’t recall the exact percentage. 

It may be something like 75 percent of spawning stock biomass, 

but they are talking about dropping it to 50 percent. And by shifting in the goalposts, suddenly the stock would not be overfished 

any more, and accountability measures would not be—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am really grateful for the extra 

time. I am out of time, but I wonder if I might quickly ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from Ranking 

Member Grijalva to the Secretary asking for a justification on this 

red snapper decision. 

47 

Also, a letter from the Atlantic Council objecting to the summer 

flounder action. 

And then six letters from ecotourism business groups across the 

country requesting strong and successful conservation of our 

marine fisheries under the Magnuson Act. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. LaMalfa of California. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Being from the West 

Coast, we deal with a lot of issues inland, as well as on the coast. 

The lack of management of the salmon stocks, the consequences 

have been enforced as justifying reductions in water supply to 

California’s farms and cities. The environmental groups, in assessing populations, like to conflate the healthy populations of salmon 

with those that are endangered. 

So, the low river flows, that up until last year were caused by 

historic droughts, blame agriculture. All these efforts by the environmental groups have contributed to loss of many, many Ag. jobs 

and billions of dollars in revenue to one of the most fertile places 

in the world, in California. 

So, what you get is that the environmental groups will say that 

populations of salmon are virtually non-existent, but the reality is 

that the Fish and Game Commission, by their own numbers that 

they released just a couple years ago—49 million salmon and 

steelhead, largely raised in taxpayer-funded hatcheries, and funded 

by fishing licenses, fees, et cetera, and water bills. 

What I am getting at here is that I think we can have better 

management that makes less of a strain on our water supply in 

California, arbitrarily, and the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council can play a big role in communicating the various cause of 

impacts to commercial salmon. We have seen time and again it is 

not just agriculture and cities and people use, but historic drought, 

as well as impact of predators, such as the striped bass in the 

Sacramento River, where NMFS, Marine Fisheries, has found in 

2009—I hope we have more recent stats—that 90 percent of 

Sacramento River salmon died before they even left the river. 

Hopefully, we can learn more today about how Fishery Management Councils can help inform all of us, provide a reliable basis for 

decisions based on facts, not on rhetoric. So, that leads to my question for Mr. Kaelin. 

The fishery situation in California is a lot different than from the 

Atlantic, obviously, although many problems go beyond the West 

Coast. As pointed out earlier, you believe that fishery management 

processes that are adaptive would enable fish companies and others 

to learn from the unintended consequences of previous decisions. 

Would you be able to elaborate a little bit on how that adaptive 

process could achieve better results that are better for everybody 

around? 

Mr. KAELIN. Thank you for the question, Mr. LaMalfa. By the 

way, our company operates two squid plants in California under 

the name Suncoast Calamari, so we actually operate on both 

coasts. 

Adaptive management is a great concept. It is not one that is 

used very widely, frankly. I think the Councils are guilty of making 

48 

the decision of not going back and taking a look at what the effects 

of those decisions have been. And that is something—I think I did 

mention this in my testimony—this is where we are, in terms of 

whether or not the reauthorization of the Magnuson Act should 

occur, frankly. And that is to take a look at the data that shows 

us whether there have been pluses and minuses, and then move 

ahead with some targeted reform. 

Also, the cumulative effects of management measures are very 

rarely considered in this process. I think it is an area we really 

have to do a lot of work in. Otherwise, we will not learn from the 

past. So, adaptive management is under-utilized. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Why do you think that is? Is there some kind of 

barrier, or taboo about that, or it just has not been—— 

Mr. KAELIN. I think it is a lack of discipline, frankly, to have this 

be part of the Councils’ regular review of what they have done. 

Maybe it is because there are so many issues in front of the 

Councils, and limited staff, limited days of the year, and we tend 

to continue to forge ahead in new areas, and never go back and 

take a look at what the effects have been. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Let me real quickly—would more input from local 

data or state, instead of just Federal—state and local data, would 

that be more useful? Do you think we can incorporate more of that, 

and get better overall results? 

Mr. KAELIN. Yes, I think so. We are utilizing that data to the extent that it exists now. It is a matter of sitting down and taking 

a look at what the impact has been, and having that be part of the 

process, regularly. It does not happen very often, so I guess it is 

a matter of will, and something that you could help direct the 

Councils to do, perhaps, in this bill. 

Mr. LAMALFA. We will find a way. Thank you for that. I will 

yield back. 

Mr. KAELIN. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Representative Beyer of Virginia. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank all 

of you for being here. 

Mr. Witek, we have heard claims that recreational anglers are 

not getting increased access to fish as fish stocks rebuild. Only by 

osmosis have I learned a lot about red snapper on this Committee, 

for example. But we know that seasons are shrinking faster than 

allowable catches are growing, because ever more people are entering the fisheries, and a growing pie is being split into smaller 

slices. 

We hear a lot about flexibility, and does the Act need more flexibility. But it seems, from emergency rules to allow overfishing to 

continue in the short term, to alternative management measures 

like harvest control rules, Councils can manage fisheries basically 

any way they want to, as long as they do not exceed the sciencebased catch limits. 

Can you opine on flexibility? And give me the confidence that it 

is not a euphemism to allow overfishing. 

Mr. WITEK. Well, it depends who uses it. Certainly, in some 

people’s usage, it is nothing more than an asking for the flexibility 

to overfish, and the flexibility not to rebuild or to delay the rebuilding of overfished stocks. 

49 

But the fact is there is already lots of flexibility that already exists in Magnuson-Stevens. One of the best examples is in summer 

flounder, black sea bass, and scup, where the Mid-Atlantic 

Fisheries Council advises NMFS, and NMFS sets the recreational 

annual catch limit. But then the actual regulations that anglers 

have to comply with are set by the states, acting through the 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. And they can differ 

in season length, size, and bag limit, so long as those regulations 

the states set meet the Federal annual catch limit. That is substantial flexibility. 

We heard Mr. Wiley talk earlier about slot limits. There is absolutely nothing in Magnuson that prevents the use of slot limits, 

again, as long as the ACL is met. 

Using biomass to determine—that is actually how it is determined whether a stock is overfished. It is by the biomass. Does it 

meet the target biomass? Has it dropped below the threshold biomass? All of those things exist in Magnuson today and could be 

used in Magnuson today. 

Mr. BEYER. Good. Thank you very much. The Budget Committee 

is meeting right now down the hall. And in the Administration’s 

budget, NOAA Fisheries was proposed to be cut by 5 percent. And 

in the recently approved House Appropriations bill, the agency has 

recommended funding slightly above it. 

But I am impressed. Again, one of my experiences on this 

Committee is that we often hear about the data on fisheries being 

old. I went with Chairman Bishop to Homestead, Florida to have 

a public hearing there. And they kept saying, ‘‘Well, these counts 

are 10 years old.’’ 

So, the question for all of our witnesses, maybe Mr. Martin. Do 

you support more Federal funding for fisheries science? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, I think it is very important that the science be 

validated as frequently as possible to be able to make sound management decisions. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Kaelin? 

Mr. KAELIN. Absolutely, Mr. Beyer. And I mentioned earlier, I 

think collaborative research with the industries, both recreational 

and commercial, is a very important piece of additional funding. I 

think we need to continue to emphasize the value of the cooperative research programs in the region that we can benefit from, too. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Wiley, an opportunity to weigh in? 

Mr. WILEY. Yes, sir. I do support additional funding, but with the 

caveat that we need to look closely at how priorities are set and 

where the funds are spent, because sometimes they do not sync up 

with where we feel like the greatest need is. 

Mr. BEYER. That is fair. 

Mr. Witek, you said in your testimony that you have seen a 

whole array of different fisheries’ management styles from different 

government entities over your career. What can you tell us about 

whether annual catch limits, as an idea, as a philosophy, is the 

best way to effectively manage marine fisheries? 

Mr. WITEK. On the East Coast, or at least in the Mid-Atlantic 

and New England, it is the only thing that has ever worked. 

In New England, they refused to put annual catch limits in until 

compelled to in the 2006 reauthorization. We lost stock such as 

50 

winter flounder. We lost Gulf of Maine cod. We lost Georges Bank 

cod, we lost a number of other species. Yes, there are still some 

there, but when you are talking about a fish that is at 3 percent 

or 5 percent of target level, as some of the cod are, that is a lost 

stock. 

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission does not, in most 

species, use annual catch limits. They have not recovered a single 

stock in the last 20 years. And striped bass, which is their flagship 

and the one stock they recovered in 1995, was overfished in 6 years 

out of 10 before the last stock assessment, and is now slightly 

above the overfished threshold. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Representative Graves of Louisiana. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to thank you 

all for being here today. 

Mr. Wiley, thank you. I was reading through the testimony of 

Mr. Witek, and he expressed his frustration, as he did in his oral 

testimony, about the lack of action by the Commission there to 

properly manage flounder up in the Northeast. 

I think I share their concerns with the Council’s decisions and 

lack of action and decisions that do not represent the best interests 

of the public, in many cases. I would like to ask you—there was 

some sentiment that was expressed that states perhaps don’t know 

how to properly manage fisheries. Could you tell me some experiences about where you have improperly managed, or your state has 

improperly managed, fisheries and allowed overfishing to occur? 

Mr. WILEY. I can think of no recent history where that has 

occurred. 

Mr. GRAVES. I am from the state of Louisiana. Can you think of 

an instance where that has occurred in Louisiana? 

Mr. WILEY. No, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES. What happened whenever you had ice issues with 

the snook? Can you tell me about that? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, yes. Believe it or not, we had a freeze a number 

of years ago in south Florida, and that is not normal. 

Mr. GRAVES. Is that 60 degrees? What is that? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WILEY. It is, yes. It was real, and it really hurt our snook 

fishery. We did initial emergency assessments and realized that we 

needed to take emergency action to protect that stock, so that we 

had sufficient stock to rebuild as quickly as possible. We immediately closed the season and kept it closed until our science said 

it was ready to open. 

Mr. GRAVES. Large mouth bass in Louisiana after Hurricane 

Andrew was another example of where the state of Louisiana, as 

a result of the impacts from that hurricane, shut down large mouth 

bass fishing in the Atchafalaya Basin area. So, a similar situation 

to what you are facing. 

There was a little bit of talk about the red snapper agreement 

that was reached among the Gulf states and the Department of 

Commerce for this year, and it was suggested that that is going to 

result in overfishing. If you see that your catch limits are exceeding 

what you believe is a sustainable harvest—and let’s keep in mind 

51 

that this is a trade of state days for Federal days—what would you 

do? 

Mr. WILEY. We would move to shorten our season, or take 

whatever measures were necessary to address it. 

And to that, it is really premature to speculate that we are going 

to go any degree over the quota at this point. We have weather systems coming through. The fishing is very dynamic, and so it is 

really too early to speculate what may happen. 

Plus, we are getting a new stock assessment this year, and our 

scientists are telling us that the stock has rebuilt and rebounded 

much more quickly than we ever thought. So, we are expecting to 

get some good news that should reset this debate. 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Wiley, just so you know, I sent a letter to our 

fisheries commission asking them to very precisely manage the 

harvest that is resulting from this swap of seasons, and asked 

them to shut the fisheries down early in the state of Louisiana if 

it appears that we are crossing over sustainable harvest thresholds 

there, as well. 

Mr. Witek, I have heard that you are a proponent of what some 

have called the catch share experience. 

Mr. WITEK. Yes, I am. 

Mr. GRAVES. As I understand, the catch share experience is a situation where a commercial fisher takes someone out and that person pays to go out to catch fish. We can talk red snapper for fun. 

I am struggling with understanding how that is an appropriate 

allocation of resources. It seems, if there is additional demand for 

recreational fishing, and it is being handled by commercial fishers, 

it seems like that is more of a charter activity or recreational activity. It seems like that is almost poaching, which I assume you 

would oppose. 

Mr. WITEK. Well, yes, it feels strange when you first start to 

think about it. But when you look at the process, what we have 

is—— 

Mr. GRAVES. It is kind of like drinking, though? That feeling goes 

away after some time? 

Mr. WITEK. I was a skeptic, too. I will be the first one to admit 

it. But when you realize there is 51 percent of the stock which is 

off-limits to recreational fishermen, period. That is the commercial 

allocation. They get 51 percent of the total ACL. 

Now you have a chance to make some of that commercial allocation available to recreational anglers who are willing to go out, not 

pay for the trip, but pay for fish that they caught on a per-pound 

basis, as much as they would like to buy. The price comes out to 

about the same as if you chartered. 

Mr. GRAVES. Why would you not just give it to the recreational 

folks, or give it to charter folks, instead? I mean that is a charter— 

a recreational—I have 8 seconds left, and I want to ask you one 

other question. 

You wrote a blog about a bill that we actually have not introduced and are still negotiating with various folks. Can you tell me 

where you got a copy of that draft bill? 

Mr. WITEK. Actually, I would prefer not to answer that question. 

Mr. GRAVES. OK, thank you 

Mr. LAMBORN. Representative Barraga ́n of California. 

52 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As a Representative for California’s 44th Congressional District, 

I am proud to say that my home state is leading the way to address 

climate change. We Californians know how vital our marine resources are to the many people, businesses, and communities that 

depend upon them, and we are well aware of the threat that climate change poses, such as ocean acidification and sea level rise. 

There has been abundant scientific evidence to show that climate 

change will impact these marine resources. Unfortunately, not all 

of my colleagues on the Committee agree. In fact, in 2015, the 

NOAA, or NOAA Fisheries Service, released a strategy to address 

the impacts of climate change on fisheries. It was described by 

some Republicans as a radical climate change strategy. 

Addressing climate change is anything but radical, as marine and coastal fisheries support over $20 billion in economic activity, 

and about 130,000 jobs in California each year. 

So, I have a question for each of the panelists today for your expert opinion. It is a yes-or-no answer. Do you think that climate 

change should be considered in fisheries management? 

Mr. WITEK. Yes, I do. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Go ahead. 

Mr. KAELIN. Yes and no. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Yes and no? 

Mr. KAELIN. Yes. It depends on which form that consideration 

takes. I could go on, but—— 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. 

Mr. WILEY. I believe the Magnuson-Stevens Act is well positioned 

to integrate concerns about climate change, if that is determined 

to be the Federal policy. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. Have I heard from everybody? Mr. Martin? 

Mr. MARTIN. I would agree that, if it is done through MSA, 

where it is part of the evaluation of the fishery, then that would 

be an appropriate approach. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. So, only through the bill you believe that you 

should look at climate change? Is that right? Is that a yes, or is 

that what I am hearing? 

Mr. WILEY. That is not what I said. I believe that would be the 

most appropriate avenue. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. 

Mr. KAELIN. If I could clarify my remarks for a moment, ma’am. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. 

Mr. KAELIN. There are winners and losers, and it is not all bad. 

We could go into some detail. I hope I could follow up with you and 

your staff about that. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK, sounds good. I want to move on to something 

else. 

Earlier this year, the Committee held a hearing on the topic of 

marine monuments and national marine sanctuaries. During that 

hearing, Dr. John Bruno, a marine scientist and professor at the 

University of North Carolina, described the importance of marineprotected areas on fisheries. He explained that marine services increase fisheries’ productivity and can benefit the fishing industry, 

contrary to many claims. My colleagues also submitted for the 

record a large body of scientific evidence supporting this. 

53 

In California, we have several important national marine sanctuaries, including the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary 

off the Southern California coast. 

Mr. Witek, do you think it is important to provide refuge for fish 

species through protected spaces, or through catch limits, to ensure 

that healthy fisheries have time and space to reproduce and sustain populations? 

Mr. WITEK. I believe in time and area closures to protect spawning stock, such as the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council 

recently put in place in the Atlantic, from South Carolina down to 

Florida. 

I believe in gear-restricted areas to protect important habitat, 

bottom habitat. For example, you don’t put bottom-tending gear in 

areas where there are fragile corals. 

I believe that there are situations where an area should be closed 

because there is a badly overfished stock—say a deepwater grouper—and there is no way to successfully release the fish, if caught. 

I do not believe in broad marine-protected areas that close areas 

of ocean to all access, to all fishing, including for highly migratory 

species that travel high in the water column and are totally unaffected by the closure and actually will transit it in a matter of 

hours. Because there I don’t think it provides any biological benefit. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. OK. So, would it be accurate to say that—do you 

believe that there is more to ocean conservation than fisheries 

management under Magnuson? 

Mr. WITEK. Than pure fisheries management? Yes, I do. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And last, but not least, Representative 

Scott of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

indulgence in allowing me to participate in this. 

I would like to bring up one of the things that I hope we can talk 

further about as we talk about the money aspect of this. And make 

no mistake about it, when it comes to the red snapper, a lot of it 

is about money. 

When we get the increased allocation, there will be an increased 

allocation that goes to the commercial sector, and there will be an 

increased allocation that we expect that, obviously, would go to the 

recreational sector. The thing I have never understood is why the 

commercial sector does not have to bid on it. 

If it was oil, if it was gas, if it was timber, they would have to 

bid on the increased allocation. But instead, the way it has been 

handled, they get it for free. And then, if I want to take my kid 

fishing—I was a little surprised that you supported this catch 

share experience—but I go down to the local fish market, and I pay 

about $50 a fish to the local fish market, and then I go out back 

and, through a handshake deal between him and a charter boat 

captain, you do a bare boat charter. That is the way the catch 

share experience works. 

I guess I am not aware of any other scenario under which a commercial entity receives something for free that was a public asset, 

prior to the allocation of it, and is then allowed to commercially 

profit from it. 

54 

I am not saying we should go after what is already allocated, although I think there are some questions about whether or not it 

was done legally, to create as much private wealth as has been created with a public asset. But any increased allocation, that should 

be auctioned off from the commercial sector. I mean it is clearly 

going to generate profit for somebody. And then we can put that 

into habitat restoration, additional science, and other things. 

As we go forward, I want you to know I do hope that we 

reauthorize the Magnuson Act. And one of the things I would ask 

for support in is that we get strict conflict of interest language in 

it on who can serve on the Councils. Because we have a very serious problem in the Southeastern Council where too much of the 

input and too many of the decisions are being made by people who 

have the potential to profit from the decisions. 

So, there has to be—I am for the flexibility, but I am also for the 

integrity in the measures. 

I want to ask you, Mr. Wiley. I can’t fish for amberjack in the 

Gulf of Mexico this year. You are one of the few states that—in 

fact, you are the only state, I suppose, that is on two oceans, the 

Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico. But I can fish for amberjack in the 

Atlantic and I can keep them, but I can’t fish for them in the Gulf 

of Mexico. Can you tell me if that was a science-based decision? 

Mr. WILEY. Well, both those decisions are handled independently 

by two different Councils. And there was science supporting each 

of those decisions as they worked through the Council. So, whether 

you feel like it was the right call or not, it is tough being in the 

state, having to work on two different Councils. 

Mr. SCOTT. Absolutely. But I would tell you that Susan Shipman, 

who is a marine biologist in Georgia, I trusted Susan Shipman. I 

trust Spud, who is our current marine biologist in Georgia. I am 

a little taken back at the accusations that state marine biologists 

are not going to operate in the best interests of the biology. People 

who get those degrees do it because they love the ocean. 

And sea bass has been talked about a lot. The size limit in the 

Gulf of Mexico is very different, it is 30 percent larger in the 

Atlantic than it is in the Gulf. I assume that is science-based. 

The gentleman from Lund’s, Mr. Kaelin? Would the catch limits 

and other things that are applied to the recreational sector work 

for the commercial sector? 

Mr. KAELIN. I think maybe it is the other way around, the way 

I would look at it. I think there is a lot of accountability on our 

side of the ledger. 

I would like to see stricter reporting. 

Mr. SCOTT. So, your answer is no? What works for the 

recreational sector won’t work for you? 

Mr. KAELIN. Well, I think you would have to look at it on a caseby-case basis, honestly. But I think the Council’s struggle with the 

lack of accountability on the recreational side, in terms of estimating mortality, more than with the commercial side—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if what works for the recreational sector won’t 

work for you, why do you think what works for you works for the 

recreational sector? 

55 

Mr. KAELIN. If we had the lack of accountability on the commercial sector that exists in the recreational sector, we would not have 

any fish left in some cases. We would lose—— 

Mr. SCOTT. That is because you all fish the spawning grounds 

and other things, though. 

Mr. KAELIN. Yes, and we close areas for spawning and there are 

some measures that clearly benefit both sectors. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, I do want to agree with the time and the area 

closures and the gear restrictions that Mr. Witek talked about, 

even though I think that, certainly, the bare boat charters are a 

scam that needs to go away. 

Mr. KAELIN. Well, those measures are in place in our region, and 

they are important—— 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, I am going to call the hearing to a close, because we are about to have votes, and we need to start heading 

over to the House. 

That concludes our questions. I want to thank each of our 

witnesses for their testimony. 

Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for 

witnesses, and we ask that you would respond to these in writing. 

Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee have to 

submit these questions to the Clerk within 3 business days, and 

the hearing record will be kept open 10 days for these responses. 

If there is no further business, without objection, the 

Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Rep. Grijalva Submissions 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Lamborn and Ranking 

Member Huffman from the Pew Charitable Trusts dated 

July 17, 2017. 

—Letter addressed to the Members of the House Natural 

Resources Committee from the Alaska Marine Conservation 

Council dated July 26, 2017. 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva signed by chefs, restauranteurs, and seafood 

suppliers dated July 12, 2017. 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Lamborn and Ranking 

Member Huffman from the Natural Resource Defense 

Council dated July 20, 2017. 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Lamborn and Ranking 

Member Huffman from the Seafood Harvesters of America 

dated July 17, 2017. 

Rep. Huffman Submissions 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva signed by representatives of local Texas businesses 

dated July 17, 2017. 

56 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva signed by representatives of local Florida businesses 

dated July 17, 2017. 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva signed by representatives of local New Jersey businesses dated July 17, 2017. 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva signed by representatives of local Connecticut businesses dated July 17, 2017. 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva signed by representatives of local Washington State 

businesses dated July 17, 2017. 

—Letter addressed to Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member 

Grijalva signed by representatives of local California businesses dated July 17, 2017. 

—Letter addressed to Secretary Ross and Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, Chris Oliver from Ranking Member 

Grijalva dated June 23, 2017. 

—Press release from the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries 

Commission dated July 14, 2017. 

Æ