MARINE RESOURCES; FISH;

FISH AND GAME;

You asked for information about the Freedom to Fish Act, including its consideration in Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey.

SUMMARY

The Freedom to Fish Act would require the federal government to prove scientifically that a type of fishing is a problem and include timetables for reopening closed areas when it seeks to ban recreational or sports fishing in a marine sanctuary (called a marine protected area (MPA)). It is a response to recent “no take” (i. e. , no fishing) MPAs in which all forms of fishing in parts of the ocean are banned, despite recreational fishing having much less of an impact on fisheries than commercial fishing, according to the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) website.

Two Freedom to Fish Act bills were introduced during the 107^th Congress, one by Senators John Breaux and Kay Bailey Hutchison and the other by Representative Collin Peterson. Both bills died in committee, but ASA is attempting to have a bill reintroduced in the 108^th Congress.

Delaware, Maryland, and New Jersey are all considering state versions of the proposed federal legislation this year. The bills remain in committee in New Jersey and Delaware, but the Maryland bill received an unfavorable report from the Environmental Matters Committee.

THE FREEDOM TO FISH ACT

Over the past 30 years, more than 300 activity restricting MPAs have been created in the U. S, including federally designated National Parks and Seashores, estuarine reserves, sanctuaries, and others. But in the past three years, MPAs have designated large portions of the oceans as no take zones for fishery management purposes. Presidental Executive Order 13158, issued by President Clinton in 2000 and reaffirmed by President Bush in 2001, allowed MPAs as a fishery management tool (i. e. , banning fishing), according to the Recreational Fishing Alliance website.

The Freedom to Fish Act seeks to limit such bans on recreational fishing, requiring that areas not be closed to recreational fishing unless:

1. any restriction is based on a “clear indication” that recreational fishermen cause a specific conservation problem and that less severe restrictions would not satisfy the conservation needs of the area;

2. the regulation of the closed area includes specific, measurable criteria and provides for periodic review to determine if the restriction is still necessary;

3. the closed area is only as big as necessary, based on the best available scientific information; or

4. provision is made to reopen a closed area to recreational fishermen when a condition for closing an area in the above cases ceases to exist.

It seeks to ensure:

1. that federal regulations promote open access for recreational fishing as much as is practical,

2. recreational fishermen are actively involved in regulatory procedures that deal with a fishing access restriction, and

3. areas that restrict fishing are as small as is scientifically necessary to meet conservation needs.

It also makes a conforming change.

A copy of the House version (identical to the Senate’s) is attached or click Freedom to Fish Act.

JRH: ts