Magnuson - Stevens act makes dipnetting illegal?
- Thread starter kgpcr
- Start date
IMO if our inriver fisheries are deemed to be required to adhere to MSA standards (I don't think they currently are), dipnetting would probably have to be open for all U.S. residents to be legal. MSA has a requirement that conservation measures cannot differentiate between residents of different states. The intent of that language is debatable because it was aimed at places where residents of different states compete for the same fish (i.e. Great Lakes), but I think it would still apply.
That's just my opinion. I'm sure you will get plenty of other opinions.
cdubbin
Well-known member
Sounds like the council laid this issue to rest at the meeting last October:
Written public comments on the salmon FMP are being accepted until Feb. 1:
https://www.npfmc.org/fishery-management-plan-team/salmon-fmp/
Written public comments on the salmon FMP are being accepted until Feb. 1:
https://www.npfmc.org/fishery-management-plan-team/salmon-fmp/
Cohoangler
New member
I believe your reasoning is correct but your example is not. M-S doesn't apply to the Great Lakes. All Great Lakes fisheries are governed by State and Provincial regulations. The Feds don't regulate GL's fisheries under M-S.
But you're correct that M-S would not make dip-netting illegal, per say. It might require residents and non-residents to be treated equally. So restricting dip-netting to only Alaska residents might be inconsistent with M-S.
Even then, if the bag limits on dip-netting were the same as recreational angling (e.g., 2 - 6 fish per day, depending on run-size), dip-netting could continue if non-residents are allowed to participate. And, as I've said many times on this BB, the difficult logistical issues with dip-netting (e.g., crowd control) could be easily solved by drastically lowering the daily bag limit.
hoose35
Well-known member
I disagree that crowd control would be solved by lowering bag limits. By the nature of the fishery, the bigger the crowd, the harder it is to catch fish. More people would mean people would have to fish longer to catch their limit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
FairbanksFlies
Member
What if they drop the silly hours of operation and let the season coincide with the sport season, with the same bag limits? What if they let dipnetters jump in the conga line with the flossers? Allow snagging? There are plenty of ideas about crowd control that might work but will never come to fruition.
Per MSA:
b) BEYOND THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE.--The United States claims, and will exercise in the manner provided for in this Act, exclusive fishery management authority over the following:
(1) All anadromous species throughout the migratory range of each such species beyond the exclusive economic zone; except that that management authority does not extend to any such species during the time they are found within any waters of a foreign nation.
It would seem that national standards should apply to salmon throughout their migratory range, which would include the inlet and river. I'm not arguing that changing this would make the world a better place, just that I think UCIDA might have a point. Perhaps I missed something...
Gotcha. I figured something like that, but was just trying to come up with an example of a lake that bordered more than one state. Bad example
cdubbin
Well-known member
Not much....ANILCA, AK Constitution, yadda yadda yadda....
I did not know that a State Constitution could trump federal law.
cdubbin
Well-known member
They can't....but the feds can decide not to enforce laws that are in conflict with a state's.....marijuana legalization for example. But nobody, not even the drifters, is calling for federal salmon management, or stricter adherence to MSA...definitely not ACL's!!! This is about allocation, that's it...
Choosing not to prosecute someone for breaking a law is different than choosing not to enforce federal standards governing resource access/management. The feds can certainly choose who they prosecute, but they have less options on which federal standards they are bound to uphold. In my opinion...
cdubbin
Well-known member
Fact is, the industry, and the Alaska delegation, are pushing hard right now to strip down the MSA....a quote from Don Young:
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2017/12/21/magnuson-stevens-fight-to-resume-early-in-2018/
Oh barf.
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2017/12/21/magnuson-stevens-fight-to-resume-early-in-2018/
Oh barf.
You are wrong on that in a big way. If the state will not follow the M S Act the state is not following the court ruling.
I don't want federal management, and I don't support UCIDA's lawsuit. I think they are playing with fire.
Realizing that UCIDA has a point, I also think that Alaskans could be playing with fire in just how far we play the Personal Use card.
Fishermen seem to have an affinity to fire.
Realizing that UCIDA has a point, I also think that Alaskans could be playing with fire in just how far we play the Personal Use card.
Fishermen seem to have an affinity to fire.
I am a ucida member and I don't want federal management. I can't speak for ucida, but I don't believe they want federal management either.What I want, and what I hope ucidas goal with this lawsuit is, is for the salmon runs of cook inlet to be managed biologically and scientifically. Let us give the management biologists the in season flexibility to manage harvests and escapements with consideration of run strengths,timing,entry patterns, weather etc. And not be handcuffed by restrictions and decisions made by board members in a stuffy board room at the capt. Cook in january.
I was not in support of the lawsuit, but that ship has sailed. The ruling in favor of UCIDA was handed down from the highest court. Now it is time to move forward. This is the time to manage the fish for the best for all user groups. If it is done right it will be a good thing. Just so everyone knows UCIDA wants the state to manage the fishery under the law that they have to under the M S Act.
I do not think MS makes dip netting illegal. The State makes each person buy a sport fish lic and I assume that they will just move personal use fishing to sport fishing methods and means. It is an Administrative issue and I have seen the State do this numerous times in UCI fisheries. Relative to users it will be interesting to see what the courts say. If the Federal agencies do not define who can participate in the PU fisheries then someone in the State or out of State would have to sue. UCIDA has spent probably 1 million dollars to get to this point and they still do not have anything new for UCI. In fact, the Federal Gov seems hell bent to stifle meaningful discussion. This is obvious in their lead lawyer saying the Federal agencies only have to deal with the EEZ and not anything else. Of course this is not consistent with what they have done in other areas of the country. So again UCIDA will have to go to court to get some resolution of this question or an adult in the room will stand up and say lets work this out and get it done. The Federal Gov certainly has oversight of State actions when it comes to salmon. So we are years away from a solution in my opinion. I would say that one has to be very watchful when users groups start or want to control the process and when the State is taking a position that is defensive. I think if the State was smart they would go for it and then ask for money to implement the Federal mandates. Escapement goal monitoring, invasive species control, habitat studies, monitoring of the harvest .... are all Federal mandates.
Cohoangler
New member
My reasoning is that with a three fish bag limit (for example), the hordes of folks coming down from Anchorage would stay in Anchorage rather than drive three hours for three fish........ They're better off buying those three fish at Freddies. Or at 10th and M Seafood.
cdubbin
Well-known member
Of course it doesn't make it illegal....because by the same token, it makes discrimination towards nonresidents by making them purchase a more expensive fishing license illegal too, no? So if that occurs, the state not only loses that revenue (over $15 million last year, for nonres licenses and king stamps), but matching federal funds at a rate of 3 to 1.... money that goes directly to fisheries management, without which, how many commercial fisheries will be curtailed? Playing with fire? No sh#t, Sherlock.....
