You couldn’t imagine two more politically different Congress Members than Richard Pombo and Barney Frank, but they are co-sponsoring the same bill, H.R. 5018, that reauthorizes the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

Pombo is a conservative Republican from Tracy, California and chairman of the House Resources Committee. He has made his reputation as a supporter of the “wise use” movement and has devoted much of his time in Congress to dismantling the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws.

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has consistently given him some of lowest annual vote “scorecard” ratings of anybody in Congress for his attempts to gut the ESA, to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge up to oil drilling and his attempt – thwarted by a broad coalition of hunting, fishing and environmental groups - to sell off public lands in November 2005. The LCV gave him a 6 percent –pro environment rating in 2005 and a 3 percent rating 2003-2004.

In contrast, Frank is a liberal Democrat from New Bedford Massachusetts who has made his reputation as a devout supporter of pro-environment legislation, normally taking the opposite positions from Pombo on environmental issues. LCV, Defenders of Wildlife, the Wilderness Coalition and other environmental organizations have consistently given Barney Frank among the highest “pro-environmental” vote ratings.

In 2005, he supported the interests of the American Wilderness Coalition 100 percent, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund 100 percent and the League of Conservation Voters 94 percent. He received similar ratings from the groups the previous year.

In spite of their ideological differences, the two Congressmen are co-sponsoring H.R. 5018, the American Fisheries Management and Marine-Life Enhancement Act, along with Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Magnuson-Stevens, originally passed in 1976, oversees fisheries resources and fishing activities in federal waters and established the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils responsible for the conservation and management of U.S. Fishery resources, including the Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC).

Both Pombo and Frank tout their bill as having more “flexibility” in managing fisheries than the existing legislation. “It is critical for fishery managers to have the tools they need to develop flexible rebuilding plans that do not also devastate the local economy, especially for the many New Englanders who consider fishing to be more than just a vocation - it's a way of life,” Pombo said.

The process of managing fisheries is accomplished through the preparation of a fishery management plan (FMP) for each fishery, according to Pombo. These FMPs require scientific assessments of the fishery resources and then the issuance of conservative allocations of catch for the domestic fishing fleet.

Congressman Frank explained his support for the bill. “Of course, in an ideal setting, I would prefer my own legislation,” Frank said, “but I have been pushing for some time for a full reauthorization of the Magnuson Act, and Congressman Pombo’s bill is a responsible contribution to that effort.”

He noted that his legislation focuses on many of the ideas he included in his bill, such as allowing greater flexibility in the fishery rebuilding process, taking into account economic conditions in developing management plans, and improving scientific research on fisheries.

“While I have disagreements with some aspects of the bill, I believe that cosponsoring it will both help push the legislative process forward and give me more opportunity to influence the details of the bill as it moves ahead,” said Frank.

H.R. 5018 includes the following key provisions:

• Requires each of the eight Councils to set annual catch limits at or below the Acceptable Biological Catch level as recommended by the Council's Science and Statistical Committee.
• Authorizes Councils to develop incentives for reducing bycatch.
•  Includes provisions to protect seabirds and reduce seabird interactions with fishing gear both domestically and internationally.
• Includes provisions to acquire better recreational harvest data.
• Adds new funds for socio-economic data collection activities.
•  Clarifies that Councils may use time/area closures and gear restrictions as a management tool.
• Requires Councils to meet two new requirements similar to National Environmental Policy Act requirements.

The bill also gives the Secretary and the Councils the authority to create cooperative research projects; changes the vessel capacity reduction program authority to require retired vessels will not be used on the high seas or in any foreign fisheries; requires independent and transparent peer review; and requires training for new Council members.

In addition, the bill provides authority and guidance for the development of Limited Access Privilege Programs and includes the authorization for Councils to include fishing community allocations and regional fishery association allocations.

Two national fishing organizations, the Recreational Fishing Alliance and the American Sportfishing Association, are supporting Pombo and Frank’s legislation, albeit with some amendments.

In addition to Pombo’s bill, Representative Gilchrest (R-MD) has also introduced a Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization bill. “Of the two, ASA supports Rep. Pombo's bill as it more closely follows the Senate bill,” according to a statement by the American Sportfishing Association. “The Gilchrest bill has several sections that are unworkable and would adversely affect sportfishing. It does have some elements of the Senate bill omitted in Rep. Pombo's bill.”

The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee approved the Senate version of the legislation, the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act, with strong bipartisan support on December 15, 2005. Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the bill’s sponsor, is now trying to bring the legislation to the Senate Floor.

Carol Forthman, Director of Ocean Policy for the ASA, noted that all three bills – the Senate Version sponsored by Senator Stevens and the two House bills sponsored by Reps. Pombo and Gilchrest – are 90 percent similar in the provisions, but differ in a few significant aspects.

ASA likes two things that are present in the Senate bill that are lacking in both Congressional versions.

First, ASA likes the registration of all saltwater anglers required by the Stevens bill. “Many anglers in the Northeast are opposed to saltwater licenses, but the need for recreational fishing data is so bad that registration is a small price to pay,” said Forthman. Pombo’s bill gives $5 million as an incentive for states to adopt saltwater license programs, but doesn’t require registration.

Second, neither the Pombo nor Gilchrest bills include economic considerations in developing fishery allocation data. “We must consider the impact of both the commercial and recreational sectors upon the economy,” said Forthman.

Jim Donofrio, executive director of the RFA, also supports H.R. 5018, but said he is concerned that the bill will push states that do not currently have saltwater licenses – and may not want them – to implement new license programs.

“In states where there is currently a saltwater license, the results of the associated data collection system have been varied at best,” said Donofrio in testimony at a House Resources Committee Hearing on the bill on May 3. “We suggest that the Committee consider language that was included in sec. 201 of the Senate bill, as introduced. It would create a registry program for recreational fishermen in each of the eight fishery management regions. It would also require the Secretary to improve the quality and accuracy of information generated by the Marine Recreational Fishery Statistics Survey.”

Donofrio praised the bill for “injecting a modest amount of flexibility into the rebuilding requirements” that “will provide fisheries managers with an additional capability to tailor specific solutions to complex and different challenges related to the nature and circumstances of particular fish stocks.”

Zeke Grader, executive director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, likes language in the Pombo bill that urges the National Marine Sanctuaries to stay out the business of creating fishing regulations, as leaders of the Monterey Bay and Channel Island Sanctuaries have tried to do. However, Grader blasted H.R. 5018 for going backwards on maintaining sustainable fisheries.

“This bill exempts the program from NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act,” said Grader. “Managers and executive directors of fishery management councils complain that they have to comply with the paperwork of NEPA. However, NEPA provides for transparency and openness in the process. It makes sure that the public is able to participate in the process. Otherwise the process will slide back to where only the powerful get in and the decisions are made behind closed doors.”

Grader also believes that there is some backsliding in the fishery rebuilding plans under H.R. 5018.“I understand the concerns of the New England fishermen, but I’m concerned that unlike salmon fisheries in California and the Northwest, the primary impact upon their resource is fishing. This backsliding is not a good precedent – it’s better off to rebuild the fisheries than to see declines as a result of too much fishing effort. It is better to provide assistance for fishermen through bad times until you have strong fisheries again.”