On the recordJune 1, 2015
I understand and appreciate the motivation behind the gentleman's amendment. Recreational fisheries are inherently different from commercial fisheries. The language is similar to the alternative rebuilding strategy section in the underlying bill, one of the few parts that does not harm conservation efforts. However, that provision states clearly that the alternative strategies must be in compliance with the requirements of the Magnuson- Stevens Act, including ending overfishing, setting science-based catch limits, and sticking to rebuilding timelines. This amendment does not include those safeguards and, therefore, could be construed as to allow overfishing or delay the rebuilding of overfished stock. We have made too much progress in managing fisheries to backtrack now. I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment and reserve the balance of my time.
