The Magnuson-Stevens Act is local AND national?
YES! Most people in the nation probably haven't heard of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and most people in the nation probably have no clue that their tax dollars are being spent to put workers right here in NJ's 6th district out of work, but the local people in NJ District 6 know what this act is and what it does. Most people probably read the summary of this bill and think "great, the federal government is protecting our fish." What? The Magnuson-Stevens Act, officially the "Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act", is an act that was instituted in 1976 and was then amended in 1996 with the "Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996" and then again in 2006 with the "Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006". What does this act do? The act effectively creates the National Marine Fisheries Service, which in turn seeks to spend our tax dollars to protect the fish we humans harvest and eat.

I knew you were anti-environment, man
Not so fast, let us consider a few things. First, the US Constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate the fishing industry. Second, would some average tax payer in land-locked Nebraska be happy to hear that their tax money is being spent to fund an agency that is putting workers in New Jersey's District 6, as well as workers in many other coastal states, out of a job? These tax dollars are first spent to regulate an entire industry, then since we're regulating the industry, more tax dollars are spent to subsidize the private companies that are failing, because of the restrictions the federal government put on them in the first place, and finally, tax dollars are spent when these fisherman join the unemployment line because of the irrational, increased demands of the NMFS.

So what is the complaint/problem? Who's complaining?
I'm not a politician, and I'm not a fisherman, keep in mind that I'm just a "computer guy" who happens to read the news and talk to people who are my neighbors, and I don't mean that literally, my neighbor isn't a fisherman, I mean neighbors in the sense of "people who live in the general area", for example, the workers at the Belford Sea Food Co-op. They are the ones complaining. And they have complained to Frank Pallone and Frank Pallone has failed to represent them and have the issue addressed for the 20 years he has been in office; unacceptable Frank. This issue didn't start in 2006 with the second amendment to the act, and it didn't start in 1996 with the first amendment to this act, it started before you even took office, which means Frank could have addressed the issue years ago and had he represented the people of this district adequately over the course of his career, this part of the local economy here in our district might not be so bad off.

The local fishermen complain that the regulations are far too strict and contend that there are plenty of fish, they just aren't permitted to catch them. They also complain that the way the laws are designed, they can use their fuel and time to head out to a fishing spot, catch the daily limit, and then have to spend the time and fuel to return to port, only to spend the time and fuel to return the same spot again the next day to catch the daily limit. They cite the costs of "mantime" and the cost of fuel associated with the repeated and unnecessary trips as a severe cost issue and are instead suggesting that a weekly, or monthly limit (or no limit, just traditional fishing sense) would allow them to be more fuel efficient and thus more environmentally friendly, and more profitable, and thus a "better" economy, and suggest that no additional impact on the fish population would exist as they understand the concept of over fishing as well as the laws of supply and demand (and fish freshness). I'm not a fisherman, but their logic seems sound to me, not to mention, as a consumer, I wouldn't buy month old fish, and the fisherman can't sell month old fish, so we're looking at a case where these fisherman might catch every fish in the allowed quota for the year in a day, but because the demand wouldn't be high enough, for a year's quantity they catch in a day, to profit, and waste would occur quickly, there is no incentive for these fishermen to overfish. In addition, I would like to think that commercial fisherman understand that *IF* they were to catch every fish in the sea, they would put themselves out of a job, so with the risk of over fishing possibly causing these guys to be out of work, I believe we need to revamp, or repeal, the Magnuson-Stevens Act before the act puts these working Americans out of work instead. To the best of my knowledge, the Constitution does not call for the federal government to regulate fishing in the waters of the US. Should one suggest that it does allow for laws regarding interstate commerce, then I content that in order for there to be commerce, a product needs to be sold, and if unconstitutional laws prohibit a product from being obtained through private industry, then no commerce has occurred and thus the laws only cause hardship for workers along with increased costs to the consumers in light of decreased supply. So essentially, we the tax payers are paying taxes that fund laws and regulators that put us out of work, which means we need to pay more taxes to pay unemployment (or subsidies) for these people.

Finally, local fisherman also claim, and I have been unable to independently verify these claims, that they randomly are forced to take an "agent" of the NMFS along with them on their ships when they leave port. Their actual complaint is that these people SUPPOSEDLY (again, unverified by me personally but so far I have no reason to not believe the people I've spoken with) make upwards of $1000 in a night just to sit on the ship and make sure that all laws are adhered to at all times. The contention of ship owners and workers is that THEY don't make $1000 in a night and so they view the cost as "theft on the high seas" by the government. They also have suggested (and again, it's unverified) that often these agents often demand an early return to port in order to suit the schedules of the agent which also has an impact on the efficiency and operations of the business. Aside from talking to a few ship owners based out of the Belford Sea Food Co-op (in Middletown/Port Monmouth Section) and Atlantic Highlands Marina randomly about the issues, I have no additional information and since I'm just a computer guy who can't help them right now anyhow, I've never spent the time (or money) to gather any additional information or try to aid their efforts in resolving the "problem". I do think that Frank could have helped these people in the past 20 years, which would help the economy, and maybe help these employers and workers afford healthcare, but instead, Frank has done nothing for these people, just as he's done nothing for anyone else in the district he is supposed to represent.

Get the federal government out of the fishing industry. It is not only unconstitutional, but it is causing American workers and their families to suffer as well as hurting privately owned small businesses. As a congressman, I will make every effort to have this act repealed and allow American workers to work freely.