Sending Office: Honorable Salud O. Carbajal
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on H.R. 200. You may be hearing from supporters of H.R. 200 that all the scientists, commercial and recreational fishermen, chefs, and citizens around the country who oppose H.R. 200 are somehow “misinformed.” However,
the facts are NOT on their side. If enacted, H.R. 200 will roll back the conservation gains we have made over the last two decades under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
Before reforms were made to the MSA in 1996 and 2006, many fisheries lacked sustainable quotas and requirements to rebuild depleted stocks. Fisheries and fishermen around the country were suffering the consequences. Since the law was changed to ensure science-based
sustainable quotas were applied and that depleted stocks were recovered, 44 fisheries around the country have now been restored to healthy levels and the number of stocks that remain overfished is at an all-time low. That’s great for fish and fishermen of
H.R. 200 would undermine many of the requirements of the MSA that brought us this success. Let’s not return to the bad days of collapsing stocks and fisheries disasters on every coast. By ending overfishing and rebuilding stocks, we are ensuring the long-term
sustainability of U.S. fisheries and strengthening their economic value for the businesses and communities that depend on them.
This legislation would weaken core sustainability provisions of the MSA in a misguided attempt to provide recreational fishermen short-term access at the needless expense of both commercial fishermen and the long-term health of our fisheries.
The MSA is working, and as chef Michael Cimarustiof said in
this article last month, “We’ve worked hard to get to this point. It doesn’t make sense to move backwards.”
SALUD O. CARBAJAL
Member of Congress
e-Dear Colleague version 2.0