69–006 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 110–740 

SHARK CONSERVATION ACT OF 2008 

JULY 8, 2008.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. RAHALL, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5741] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 5741) to amend the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to improve the conservation of sharks, 

having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 

amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Shark Conservation Act of 2008’’. 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING MORATORIUM PROTECTION ACT. 

Section 610(a) of the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium Protection Act (16 

U.S.C. 1826k(a)) is amended— 

(1) by striking so much as precedes paragraph (1) and inserting the following: 

‘‘(a) IDENTIFICATION.—The Secretary shall identify, and list in the report under 

section 607— 

‘‘(1) a nation if—’’; 

(2) in paragraph (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses 

(i) and (ii), respectively; 

(3) by redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) as subparagraphs (A) through 

(C), respectively; 

(4) by moving subparagraphs (A) through (C) (as so redesignated) 2 ems to 

the right; 

(5) in subparagraph (C) (as so redesignated) by striking the period at the end 

and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
2 

1 Baum, Julia K. et al., Collapse and Conservation of Shark Populations in the Northwest Atlantic, Science, April 15, 2008. 2Meyer, RA and Boris Worm. Nature, May 15, 2003, pp. 280–283. 

(6) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(2) a nation if— ‘‘(A) fishing vessels of that nation are engaged, or have been engaged during the preceding calendar year, in fishing activities or practices that target 

or incidentally catch sharks; and ‘‘(B) the nation has not adopted a regulatory program to provide for the 

conservation of sharks, including measures to prohibit removal of any of the 

fins of a shark (including the tail) and discarding the carcass of the shark 

at sea, that is comparable to that of the United States, taking into account 

different conditions.’’. 

SEC. 3. AMENDMENT OF MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT 

ACT. 

Section 307(1) of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(16 U.S.C. 1857(1)) is amended— (1) by amending subparagraph (P) to read as follows: ‘‘(P)(i) to remove any of the fins of a shark (including the tail) at sea; 

‘‘(ii) to have custody, control, or possession of any shark fin aboard a fishing vessel unless it is naturally attached to the corresponding carcass; ‘‘(iii) to transfer any shark fin from one vessel to another vessel at sea, 

or to receive any shark fin in such transfer, without the fin naturally attached to the corresponding carcass; or ‘‘(iv) to land any shark fin that is not naturally attached to the corresponding carcass, or to land any shark carcass without the fins (including 

the tail) naturally attached;’’; and 

(2) by striking the matter following subparagraph (R). 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 5741 is to amend the High Seas Driftnet 

Fishing Moratorium Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act to improve the conservation of sharks. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Sharks are long-lived apex predators with a life history strategy 

featuring slow growth, delayed maturation, long gestation, and the 

production of few young, making them particularly vulnerable to 

fishing pressure. Sharks have been increasingly exploited in recent 

decades, both as bycatch in the pelagic longline fisheries from the 

1960s onward, and as targets in direct fisheries that expanded rapidly in the 1980s. As a result, scalloped hammerhead, white, and 

thresher sharks are each estimated to have declined by over 75% 

in the past 15 years.1 Globally, large predator species such as 

sharks are estimated to have declined by as much as 90%.2

Removing these top predators drastically changes the marine 

food web structure, diversity and ecosystem health. The practice of 

shark finning—which is driving much of this decline—is fueled by 

the shark fin trade, which in turn is driven by rapid economic 

growth in Asia. Reducing shark finning is imperative to conserving 

sharks and the marine ecosystems of which they are a part. 

Congress enacted the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 to 

prohibit U.S. fishermen from removing the fins of sharks and discarding the carcass at sea (known as finning), and from landing or 

transporting shark fins without the corresponding carcass. Since 

the passage of the U.S. law, many other countries and regional 

fisheries management organizations have adopted similar bans. Recent developments with respect to application of the U.S. law, howVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:39 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR740.XXX HR740

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
3 

ever, as well as the ineffectiveness of some international efforts, led 

to the introduction of the Shark Conservation Act of 2008 to further bolster the conservation of these important predator species. 

As originally introduced in 2000, the U.S. prohibition only 

banned the practice of shark finning, but during consideration of 

the bill it became clear that the Committee was very concerned 

with the possibility that vessels could circumvent a ban by going 

to the high seas and buying fins and then transporting them 

ashore or to other vessels. 

On April 13, 2000, during the legislative hearing of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans on this Act, Congressman Eni F. H. Faleomavaega (D–AS) expressed this concern, stating, ‘‘Many shark fins never make it to port, but are transshipped 

at sea to foreign fishing vessels. The volume and value of these 

transshipments are poorly documented * * * I am forced to ask: 

How are we ever going to eliminate the practice of shark finning 

if we allow transshipments to take place under our noses * * *?’’ During the May 8, 2000 Subcommittee markup, Congressman 

Faleomavaega successfully offered an amendment to address the 

transshipment concern by prohibiting the custody, control, or possession of shark fins on fishing vessels or the landing of shark fins 

without the corresponding carcass by any vessel. With this amendment, the Committee assumed that finning, as well as transshipment would be successfully prohibited. 

In particular, the Committee believed that the concerns regarding transshipment had been addressed based on the definition of 

fishing vessel found in the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson). Because the Shark Finning 

Prohibition Act was an amendment to the prohibited acts section 

of Magnuson, the definitions in Magnuson applied to the prohibitions in the bill. Specifically, Magnuson defines a fishing vessel as 

‘‘ any vessel, boat, ship, or other craft which is used for, equipped 

to be used for, or of a type which is normally used for—(A) fishing; 

or (B) aiding or assisting one or more vessels at sea in the performance of any activity relating to fishing, including, but not limited 

to, preparation, supply, storage, refrigeration, transportation, or 

processing.’’ (emphasis added) Recent events have made further 

changes to the law necessary to ensure that the transport vessels, 

which Congress thought it had encompassed in 2000 are, in fact, 

subject to the law. 

The Shark Conservation Act of 2008 includes several measures 

to strengthen the implementation and enforcement of the Shark 

Finning Prohibition Act and to confirm the original intent of Congress to prevent shark finning and the transshipment and landing 

of shark fins without carcasses. 

First, the bill would eliminate an enforcement loophole related to 

the transport of shark fins by prohibiting the transfer of shark fins 

from one vessel to another at sea without the corresponding carcass. This loophole was brought to light when the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals ruled that a U.S. vessel, which had purchased 

fins from several fishing vessels engaged in finning on the high 

seas to transport them to Guatemala, was not considered a fishing 

vessel under the definition of such vessels found in Magnuson (despite what Congress had assumed when they passed the bill in 

2000) and therefore not subject to the prohibition on transporting 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
4 

fins without the corresponding carcasses. H.R. 5741, therefore, 

adds the new prohibition regarding the transfer of fins from one 

vessel to another at sea without the corresponding carcass. This 

would preclude a vessel from circumventing the ban on finning by 

going out and purchasing the illegally harvested fins on the high 

seas and then transporting them back to U.S. ports or elsewhere. 

It would not preclude container vessels or other vessels from transporting fins that were harvested legally and then brought to shore. 

Second, the bill would address the difficulty that has become apparent in enforcing the statute’s percentage-based standard. It 

would delete the rebuttable presumption that any shark fins landed were taken, held, or landed in violation of the law if the total 

weight of shark fins landed or found on board exceeds five percent 

of the total weight of shark carcasses. This ‘‘fin to carcass’’ ratio 

was intended to provide a mechanism for enforcing the finning prohibition by ensuring that the amount of fins landed is proportional 

to the amount of bodies. However, it has proven very difficult to 

determine whether a given set of fins belong to a particular dressed 

carcass. Agency law enforcement personnel have reported incidents 

of fishermen mixing fins and carcasses for maximum profit and 

continuing to discard less desirable, finned sharks at sea. As an alternative to the rebuttable presumption, H.R. 5741 would require 

that sharks be landed with fins naturally attached. This ‘‘fins attached’’ requirement also applies to the custody, transfer of fins at 

sea from one vessel to another, and to the landing of shark fins. 

Finally, H.R. 5741 would amend the High Seas Driftnet Fishing 

Moratorium Protection Act to allow the Secretary of Commerce to 

identify and list nations that have fishing vessels that have not 

adopted a regulatory program for the conservation of sharks that 

is similar to that of the U.S. This amendment would further promote the conservation of sharks internationally and provide a more 

equal playing field for U.S. fishermen. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 5741 was introduced on April 9, 2008 by Representative 

Madeleine Bordallo (D–GU). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 

Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. 

On April 16, 2008, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. 

Dr. Rebecca Lent, Director of NOAA Fisheries’ Office of International Affairs expressed concerns about removing the rebuttable 

presumption absent an alternative enforcement mechanism. Dr. 

Lent referred to the requirement included in the then-proposed 

rule for Amendment 2 to the Highly Migratory Species Fishery 

Management Plan for Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico sharks to require 

that sharks be landed with fins naturally attached, while noting 

the absence of such a requirement in the Pacific. Captain Michael 

Giglio, Chief of the Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Coast Guard, 

also supported the fins-attached approach proposed by NOAA in 

the Atlantic, stating that, ‘‘This will significantly aid at-sea enforcement with respect to Atlantic sharks, but we still face challenges 

in the Pacific due to the current regulatory regime.’’ (Landing 

sharks with the fins naturally attached has, however, been required under Hawaii state law since 2000.) 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
5 

On June 4, 2008, the Subcommittee met to mark up the bill. Responding to the concerns raised by the Administration, Congresswoman Bordallo (D–GU) offered an amendment in the nature of a 

substitute to restore the rebuttable presumption that was eliminated in the bill as introduced. The amendment also tightened the 

language intended to close the loophole related to vessel transport 

of fins. It was adopted by voice vote. The bill was then forwarded, 

as amended, to the Full Committee. 

On June 11, 2008, the Full Natural Resources Committee met to 

consider the bill. Representative Eni Faleomavaega (D–AS) offered 

an amendment once again striking the rebuttable presumption but 

providing an alternative enforcement mechanism by requiring that 

sharks be landed with fins naturally attached. It was adopted by 

voice vote. The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 provides that this bill may be cited as the ‘‘Shark Conservation Act of 2008’’. 

Section 2. Amendment of High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium 

Protection Act 

Section 2 authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to list a nation 

if its fishing vessels are engaged in fishing activities that target or 

incidentally catch sharks and if the nation has not adopted a regulatory program to conserve sharks, including prohibiting shark finning, that is comparable to that of the U.S. 

Section 3. Amendment of Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act 

Section 3 prohibits shark finning, possessing a shark fin that is 

not attached to the carcass on a fishing vessel, transferring a shark 

fin that is not attached to the carcass from one vessel to another 

at sea, or landing a shark fin that is not attached to the carcass. 

Section 3 also strikes the rebuttable presumption in section 307(1) 

of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact this bill. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of 

the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:39 Jul 09, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR740.XXX HR740

cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
6 

rying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides 

that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) of rule 

XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 

308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this bill does not 

contain any new budget authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to amend the High Seas Driftnet Fishing Moratorium 

Protection Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

and Management Act to improve the conservation of sharks. 

4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 

section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 5741—Shark Conservation Act of 2008 

Summary: H.R. 5741 would prohibit certain activities that may 

involve shark finning (the practice of removing a shark’s fins and 

discarding its carcass). The legislation also would direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to identify 

foreign nations that do not sufficiently regulate fishing practices 

that harm sharks. 

Based on information provided by NOAA and assuming the availability of appropriated funds, CBO estimates that implementing 

H.R. 5741 would cost $5 million over the 2009–2013 period. Enacting the legislation would not affect revenues or direct spending. 

H.R. 5741 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would not affect 

the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

H.R. 5741 would impose a private-sector mandate, as defined in 

UMRA, by requiring that shark fins aboard fishing vessels, shark 

fins transferred or received at sea, and shark fins landed at a U.S. 

port be naturally attached to the carcass. CBO estimates that the 

cost of complying with the mandate would fall well below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates 

($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 5741 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources 

and environment). 

By fiscal year in millions of dollars— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009– 

2013 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level .................................................................. 1 1 1 1 1 5 

Estimated Outlays .................................................................................... 1 1 1 1 1 5 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
7 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

5741 will be enacted by the end of fiscal year 2008 and that the 

necessary amounts will be appropriated for each year. 

H.R. 5741 would require NOAA to identify any nation that has 

not adopted a conservation program for sharks similar to that of 

the United States if fishing vessels of that nation catch sharks. The 

bill also would amend the Mangnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to prohibit fishing vessels from possessing shark fins that are not naturally attached to a carcass. 

Based on information provided by NOAA, CBO estimates that the 

agency would need $1 million for each of fiscal years 2009 through 

2013 to expand existing reports on fishing practices, to enforce new 

prohibitions on possessing shark fins, and to help foreign nations 

improve their shark conservation efforts by hiring new regulators 

and developing new laws and enforcement mechanisms. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: H.R. 

5741 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 5741 would impose 

a private-sector mandate as defined in UMRA. The bill would make 

it unlawful to possess shark fins aboard fishing vessels, transfer or 

receive shark fins at sea, or land shark fins at a U.S. port without 

the fin naturally attached to the carcass. CBO estimates that the 

cost to comply with the mandate would fall well below the annual 

threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($136 

million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Current law prohibits the possession of a shark fin on a fishing 

vessel and the landing of a shark fin at a U.S. port without the corresponding carcass. By requiring fins to be naturally attached to 

the shark, the bill would impose an additional mandate on owners 

and operators of those vessels. Because the National Marine Fisheries Service has issued a final rule with the same requirement for 

sharks harvested in the Atlantic Ocean, the mandate would apply 

only to vessels in the Pacific Ocean. If the requirement for Pacific 

sharks is implemented in a manner similar to the rule for Atlantic 

sharks, leaving fins attached by a flap of skin would be considered 

naturally attached and compliant with the mandate. Compared to 

leaving the fins completely attached, that process would provide for 

easier storage aboard the vessel and removal of the fin once landed. 

CBO expects that the mandate in the bill would be enforced in this 

manner and thus would not impose significant additional costs on 

owners and operators of vessels. 

The bill also would impose a mandate on the owners and operators of certain U.S. vessels by prohibiting the vessels from receiving 

shark fins at sea that are not naturally attached to the carcass. 

The cost would be any net loss in income to the owners and operators of those vessels. CBO estimates that the cost would not be significant in relation to the threshold established in UMRA. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis and Jeffrey 

Lafave; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Neil 

Hood; Impact on the Private Sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
8 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

H.R. 5741 does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e) 

or 9(f) of rule XXI. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

SECTION 610 OF THE HIGH SEAS DRIFTNET FISHING 

MORATORIUM PROTECTION ACT 

SEC. 610. EQUIVALENT CONSERVATION MEASURES. 

ø(a) IDENTIFICATION.—The Secretary shall identify, and list in 

the report under section 607, a nation if—¿ 

(a) IDENTIFICATION.—The Secretary shall identify, and list in the 

report under section 607— (1) a nation if— ø(1)¿ (A) fishing vessels of that nation are engaged, or 

have been engaged during the preceding calendar year in 

fishing activities or practices; 

ø(A)¿ (i) in waters beyond any national jurisdiction 

that result in bycatch of a protected living marine resource; or 

ø(B)¿ (ii) beyond the exclusive economic zone of the 

United States that result in bycatch of a protected living marine resource shared by the United States; 

ø(2)¿ (B) the relevant international organization for the 

conservation and protection of such resources or the relevant international or regional fishery organization has 

failed to implement effective measures to end or reduce 

such bycatch, or the nation is not a party to, or does not 

maintain cooperating status with, such organization; and 

ø(3)¿ (C) the nation has not adopted a regulatory program governing such fishing practices designed to end or 

reduce such bycatch that is comparable to that of the 

United States, taking into account different conditionsø.¿; 

and 

(2) a nation if—

(A) fishing vessels of that nation are engaged, or have 

been engaged during the preceding calendar year, in fishing activities or practices that target or incidentally catch 

sharks; and 

(B) the nation has not adopted a regulatory program to 

provide for the conservation of sharks, including measures 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
9 

to prohibit removal any of the fins of a shark (including the 

tail) and discarding the carcass of the shark at sea, that is 

comparable to that of the United States, taking into account different conditions. 

* * * * * * * 

SECTION 307 OF THE MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY 

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 

SEC. 307. PROHIBITED ACTS. 

It is unlawful—

(1) for any person—

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

ø(P)(i) to remove any of the fins of a shark (including the 

tail) and discard the carcass of the shark at sea; 

ø(ii) to have custody, control, or possession of any such 

fin aboard a fishing vessel without the corresponding carcass; or 

ø(iii) to land any such fin without the corresponding carcass;¿ 

(P)(i) to remove any of the fins of a shark (including the 

tail) at sea; 

(ii) to have custody, control, or possession of any shark 

fin aboard a fishing vessel unless it is naturally attached 

to the corresponding carcass; 

(iii) to transfer any shark fin from one vessel to another 

vessel at sea, or to receive any shark fin in such transfer, 

without the fin naturally attached to the corresponding carcass; or 

(iv) to land any shark fin that is not naturally attached 

to the corresponding carcass, or to land any shark carcass 

without the fins (including the tail) naturally attached; 

* * * * * * * 

øFor purposes of subparagraph (P) there is a rebuttable presumption that any shark fins landed from a fishing vessel or 

found on board a fishing vessel were taken, held, or landed in 

violation of subparagraph (P) if the total weight of shark fins 

landed or found on board exceeds 5 percent of the total weight 

of shark carcasses landed or found on board.¿ 

* * * * * * * 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING
(10) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

Due to an mistaken court ruling, a loophole was opened in the 

Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 (Act) which allowed fishermen to transfer fins at sea to transshipment vessels. This was 

clearly a violation of the Act, but the court ruled otherwise. The 

primary reason for the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000 was 

to require fishermen to land the carcasses of the sharks they had 

caught so that fishery managers could determine the level and type 

of shark species being harvested. 

For fish species such as sharks that have long life histories, good 

management is critical and in order to have good management for 

the shark fisheries, we need to have accurate data on the types and 

numbers of sharks being taken by fishermen. It is also important 

to respect the expertise of the fishery managers. It is important 

that those Councils that authorize shark harvests and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determine whether this legislation, as amended, works for the fisheries they manage or not. It is 

important that not only will this legislation produce better information for fishery managers, but also for enforcement purposes. 

A proposal to require similar landing requirements for east coast 

shark fisheries—which are managed by NMFS—has just been finalized; however, the west coast shark fisheries are managed by at 

least two Councils and we have not heard back from them whether 

such a requirement would be acceptable. I am concerned that this 

legislation may be viewed as short-circuiting the ability of people 

from the industry to comment on the proposal through the normal 

Council process and that is unfortunate. 

The court was clearly wrong in their decision and I am glad that 

we are overriding the court decision in this case. I hope that the 

legislation, as amended, will clarify the intent of the original legislation and will not cause unintended consequences that make enforcement more difficult. 

DON YOUNG. 

Æ 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC72 with HEARING