Overview
Title
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by Vessels Using Pot Gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The people in charge said boats can't catch a specific fish called Pacific cod in a certain part of Alaska because too many have been caught already, and they want to make sure there are enough fish left. This will last for three months, from March 10 to June 10, 2025.
Summary AI
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is implementing a temporary rule to stop fishing for Pacific cod using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska. This is because the limit for how much Pacific cod can be caught during the "A" season in 2025 is about to be reached. The action will be in effect from March 10, 2025, to June 10, 2025, to ensure that the fishing limits aren't exceeded. The decision was based on recent data, and the usual notice and comment period was waived to act quickly.
Abstract
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2025 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific cod by vessels using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The government is taking action to protect Pacific cod populations in the Gulf of Alaska by implementing a temporary rule that affects how fishing can be done in the region. Specifically, fishing for Pacific cod using pot gear in the Western Regulatory Area is being stopped. This temporary ban will be in place from March 10, 2025, to June 10, 2025. The reason for this decision is that the catch limit for cod in this area is on the verge of being exceeded, and the closure is necessary to ensure that the regulations around fishing quotas are respected.
Key Issues and Concerns
One primary issue with this document is the use of technical language that could be difficult for the general public to understand. For instance, there are references to specific sections of the Code of Federal Regulations, which may not be familiar to everyone. This could make it challenging for fishermen and interested parties to fully grasp the implications without assistance.
The notice also skirts the usual process of public discussion and comment, which might raise concerns among stakeholders who value transparency and public input. Typically, public comments are a chance for groups involved to express their views or concerns.
Another concern is that setting aside 0 metric tons for bycatch without providing detailed reasoning could be seen as opaque. Bycatch allowances relate to the incidental capture of other species during fishing, which can impact other fisheries. Without explanation, this decision may affect other fishing operators and communities dependent on these resources.
Impacts on the Public
For the general public, this rule primarily represents a commitment to sustainable fishing practices. It highlights efforts to preserve fish populations for future generations, which is a positive environmental goal that benefits society as a whole. However, it could also carry indirect effects on availability and pricing of Pacific cod in markets during the closure period, as supply might decrease.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
The fishing communities and operators using pot gear in this region will most directly feel the negative impacts. Their ability to fish for Pacific cod will be temporarily halted, which might lead to immediate economic hardships. Without the opportunity to catch or sell this particular species, income could be affected for these stakeholders. On the other hand, fishermen using different methods may benefit as they could face less competition for the same resource.
Overall, while the regulation might serve sustainable fishing practices and ensure long-term benefits, its immediate execution comes with concerns, particularly around the lack of public participation and potential economic consequences for those directly involved in the industry.
Issues
• The document uses specialized regulatory language that may be difficult for the general public to understand, particularly the references to specific sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (e.g., § 679.20(d)(1)(i)).
• The notice waives prior notice and public comment, which might be of concern to some stakeholders who are interested in the process and transparency.
• The decision to set aside 0 mt as bycatch could be seen as lacking transparency without detailed context or justification, especially for stakeholders involved in other groundfish fisheries.
• There might be concerns about potential impacts on specific fishing communities or operators due to the closure, but the document does not address potential economic impacts.