The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the primary statute governing fishing activities in federal waters. Last reauthorized in 2007, the Act expired at the end of fiscal year 2013 and is currently due to be reauthorized. While MSA has made considerable headway in ending overfishing, the commercial model of management on which the Act is based is often unnecessarily restrictive for recreational anglers. Fortunately, with the passage of the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act at the end of the 115th Congress, federal fisheries managers and the regional management councils will have the ability to applying fishery management strategies that are more appropriate for managing recreational components of some fisheries.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) is the primary statute governing fishing activities in federal waters. Last reauthorized in 2007, the Act expired at the end of fiscal year 2013 and the next reauthorization is still pending. While MSA has made considerable headway in ending overfishing, the commercial model of management on which the Act is based is often unnecessarily restrictive for recreational anglers. Fortunately, with the passage of the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2018, Congress clarified that federal fisheries managers and the regional management councils have the ability to applying fishery management strategies that are more appropriate for managing recreational components of some fisheries.
Since its original passage in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) has made progress in ending overfishing, rebuilding depleted fish stocks, protecting essential fish habitat and a variety of other improvements to the nation’s marine resources. However, until recently, it remained primarily a model for commercial fisheries management and failed to adequately address the significant socioeconomic, cultural and conservation values of recreational fishing. The recreational fishing community should be treated with equal priority because the impact is the same, or greater in certain areas, than the commercial industry in terms of number of jobs provided and total economic benefits. On top of that, recreational anglers account for only a fraction (approximately 2%) of the nation’s total finfish landings according to a Southwick Associates’ study commissioned by the American Sportfishing Association. Furthermore, the study found that the recreational sector added $152.24 in value-added, or GDP, for one pound of fish landed, compared to the commercial sector’s $1.57 for a single pound of fish.
Fortunately, the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act (S. 1520), also known as the Modern Fish Act (MFA), was passed at the end of the 115th Congress and signed into law by President Trump on December 31, 2018. Public Law No. 115-405 takes a significant first step in recognizing the significance of recreational fisheries while offering opportunities to improve current federal fisheries management for recreational anglers. These changes to MSA include:
- Providing authority and direction to NOAA Fisheries to apply additional management tools more appropriate for recreational fishing (e.g., extraction rates, fishing mortality targets, harvest control rules, or traditional or cultural practices of native communities);
- Improving recreational harvest data collection by requiring federal managers to explore other data sources that have the potential to improve the accuracy and timeliness of harvest estimates, such as state-driven programs and electronic reporting (e.g., through smartphone apps);
- Requiring the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the process of mixed-use fishery allocation review by the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Regional Fishery Management Councils and report findings to Congress within one year of enactment of MFA;
- Requiring the National Academies of Sciences to complete a study and provide recommendations within two years of the enactment of the MFA on limited access privilege programs (catch shares). This will include an assessment of the social, economic, and ecological effects of the program. It will also consider each sector of a mixed-use fishery and related businesses, coastal communities, and the environment and include an assessment of any impacts to stakeholders in a mixed-use fishery caused by a limited access privilege program. This study excludes the Pacific and North Pacific Regional Fishery Management Councils.
For the first time, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended by the Modern Fish Act, recognizes that commercial and recreational fisheries are fundamentally different activities and require different management approaches. However, it remains to be seen how different management approaches will be implemented at the regional level in the coming years. Thus far, NMFS has made no effort to suggest or encourage using alternative management methods for any given recreational fishery. Any change in the management of a particular fishery will have to be pushed through the Council process by the recreational fishing community and state fisheries management agencies. Furthermore, as the GAO and NAS studies are completed and reported to Congress, additional amendments to MSA will likely be necessary to ensure the law fully realizes the social and economic contributions of recreational angling.
Last updated 10/16/2020
|2015 Kenai Roundtable Powerpoint||Download file|
|2015 Kenai Roundtable Press Release||Download file|
Share this page
Your opinion counts
In the past year ammunition sales have surged for a variety of reasons. As a result, many ammunition retailers have struggled to keep up with the demand and prices have increased dramatically for some of the more popular rounds. Has this affected your ability to enjoy hunting and recreational shooting activities?Vote Here
- Yes, I have been unable to purchase needed ammunition. (51.72%)
- Yes, I have had to pay higher costs to purchase needed ammunition. (18.97%)
- Yes, I have been unwilling to pay higher costs for ammunition and have decreased my participation in hunting and/or recreational shooting. (24.14%)
- No, my participation in hunting and/or recreational shooting has not been affected. (5.17%)