Overview
Title
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Hearings
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The people who help decide how many fish can be caught are asking folks to join online meetings to talk about changing the rules for catching certain fish, like summer flounder and black sea bass. They want to know if they should share the fish differently between people catching fish for fun and people catching fish to sell, since the old way of counting isn't as good anymore.
Summary AI
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission are holding five online public hearings and a period for written comments. These hearings are to gather public input on changes to how fish like summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass are divided between commercial and recreational fishing. The existing allocations are based on historical data from the 1990s, which may no longer be accurate due to recent changes in how recreational catches are estimated. The aim is to review whether adjustments are needed and if some catches should be transferred between sectors based on their respective needs.
Abstract
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) will hold five public hearings via webinar and a written comment period to solicit public comments on a developing management action to consider potential changes to the allocation of total catch or landings between the commercial and recreational summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The document from the Federal Register details an important initiative by the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission to solicit public input on potential changes to how summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass fisheries are managed. Specifically, it involves reallocating the division of total catch or landings between commercial and recreational sectors. Given that the existing allocations are based on historical patterns from the 1990s, there is a significant concern that these figures are outdated due to recent changes in recreational catch estimation.
General Summary
The document announces five public hearings, scheduled between February 17 and March 2, 2021, and invites written public comments until March 16, 2021. These hearings are part of a management action to consider adjustments to fishery allocations, which may lead to reallocating resources between commercial and recreational fishermen. This consideration comes after acknowledging a discrepancy in how recreational harvest levels are currently estimated compared to past allocations.
Significant Issues and Concerns
One issue apparent in the document is the lack of clarity on how public feedback gathered during these hearings will be integrated into the decision-making process. The process's transparency might raise concerns among stakeholders who hope their input will meaningfully impact policy adjustments. Additionally, the document uses technical jargon, such as “recreational catch estimation” and “FMP addendum/framework action,” which might not be easily understood by the general public, potentially limiting effective public participation.
The document does not specify how potential changes might financially impact stakeholders, making it difficult for interested parties to assess if such changes may result in wasteful spending or favoritism.
Public Impact
The proposed changes have broad implications. For the general public, changing the allocation of fishery resources may impact local economies, especially in communities that heavily depend on fishing as a primary source of income. Addressing outdated data to align with current realities could entail more equitable resource distribution and possibly healthier fish populations over time by adjusting catch expectations to recent data.
Stakeholder Impact
For specific stakeholders, the repercussions could differ significantly. Commercial fishermen might be concerned about potentially reduced quotas if the reallocation leans towards the recreational sector. Conversely, recreational fishermen might benefit if new data suggests that their share should increase based on current catch estimations. The document's failure to clearly outline how these changes might be practically enacted can add to stakeholder unease.
Each sector's needs vary widely, so the option to transfer quotas between sectors based on necessity could provide flexibility. However, the absence of detailed explanations about the potential impacts leaves many uncertainties.
Overall, while the document invites public involvement in an important decision-making process, it necessitates clearer communication regarding its intentions and potential outcomes to enable effective stakeholder and public participation.
Issues
• The document does not outline any specific spending, making it challenging to assess potential wasteful spending or favoritism toward organizations or individuals.
• There is no clear indication of how public feedback will be integrated into the decision-making process, which could be a concern for stakeholders.
• The use of technical terms like 'recreational catch estimation' and 'FMP addendum/framework action' might be difficult for the general public to understand without additional context or explanation.
• While it provides ample details on the hearing locations and logistics, the document lacks a summary of potential impacts of the proposed changes, which might be important for public understanding.