Current law requires fishery managers to rebuild overfished marine fish populations (1) in a time period that is “as short as possible,” and (2) generally not to exceed 10 years, except in cases where the biology of the stock, other environmental conditions or international agreements dictate otherwise (16 U.S.C. § 1854(e)(4)(A)). Overfished populations are those that are at unsustainably low levels, usually one-half the target stock size that is estimated to produce maximum sustainable yield (MSY).

Congress reaffirmed the need to rebuild overfished stocks promptly when it reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA) in 2006, upholding the timeframe first enacted in the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) amendments of 1996. At the same time, this provision gives managers ample flexibility to extend the timeline in specific situations in which a stock’s life history or other environmental conditions dictate otherwise.

Overview
On March 18, 2009, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) introduced H.R. 1584, the “Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2009.” On June 11, 2009, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) introduced companion legislation in the Senate, S. 1255. Both bills would amend the MSA to extend the authorized time period for rebuilding of overfished fisheries indefinitely. While couched in terms of providing greater “flexibility,” these bills would roll back the law to a time when fishery managers routinely placed short-term economic considerations over the long-term health of the fishery. Such loopholes in rebuilding only forestall the recovery of depleted stocks to levels that will sustain robust fisheries over time. Some of the bills’ worst features include:

• Change “as short as possible” to “as short as practicable.” This change weakens Congress’ intent to require fishery managers to rebuild overfished as quickly as possible.
• Allow managers to extend the 10-year timeline to minimize economic impacts if a stock is increasing. Prior to 1996, fishery managers were able to put off rebuilding in the name of minimizing economic impacts, but such a policy usually results in chronic overfishing and diminishing returns over time.
• Allow mangers to claim that the status of an overfished stock is beyond their control. This would enable the Secretary of Commerce to consider factors other than fishing when evaluating managers’ progress in achieving rebuilding targets – virtually anything could be used as an excuse to justify failure to rebuild.
• Allow managers to extend rebuilding for an overfished stock if it is caught with other stocks of fish in a stock complex. This provision would delay indefinitely the rebuilding of one or more stocks in a multi-species fishery and allow fishermen to continue targeting healthier stocks at the expense of the overfished stock(s). The result – as seen in New England – is widespread overfishing of many stocks.
• Exempt fishery managers from the 10-year rebuilding requirement if the rebuilding target changes. If the target rebuilding biomass is increased during the 10-year rebuilding period, fishery managers could extend the rebuilding period – and increase fishing levels even though the stock is in worse condition (farther from the rebuilding target).