Bill Overview
Title: Driftnet Modernization and Bycatch Reduction Act
Description: This bill addresses certain driftnet fishing. Driftnet fishing is a method of fishing in which a gillnet composed of a panel or panels of webbing, or a series of such gillnets, is placed in the water and allowed to drift with the currents and winds for the purpose of entangling fish in the webbing. Currently, the use of large-scale drift gillnets with a total length of 2.5 kilometers or more is prohibited in the United States. The bill expands the definition of large-scale driftnet fishing to prohibit the use of gillnets with a mesh size of 14 inches or greater. This expanded prohibition does not apply within the U.S. exclusive economic zone for five years. The Department of Commerce must conduct a transition program to facilitate the phase out of large-scale driftnet fishing and to promote the adoption of alternative fishing practices that minimize the incidental catch of living marine resources. Commerce must award grants to program participants. Further, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council may recommend and Commerce may approve regulations to collect fees from charter vessel operators that guide recreational anglers who harvest Pacific halibut.
Sponsors: Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-33]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals involved in driftnet fishery operations
Estimated Size: 10000
- Driftnet fishing is commonly used in various parts of the world, meaning the primary population affected are those involved in commercial fishing industries using this technique.
- The legislation specifically targets large-scale driftnet fisheries, whose operators and workers will need to transition to alternative methods, impacting their operations and possibly their employment status.
- Marine ecosystems and non-target marine species (bycatch) will be positively impacted by the reduction in bycatch, leading to potential recovery of certain species.
- Countries and regions outside the U.S. that rely heavily on driftnet fishing may face economic or regulatory pressures as this form of legislation could set a precedent.
- The bill includes provisions for grants and support during the transition, positively impacting companies that seek to modernize their practices.
Reasoning
- The $8 million USD budget in the first year will primarily address immediate transition needs for affected workers and companies in the driftnet fishing industry.
- The target population is relatively small (approximately 10,000 individuals), allowing focused efforts on facilitating the transition to alternative fishing methods.
- Given the long-term budget of $56 million USD over 10 years, there is substantial capacity to support not only the transition but also the sustainable development of marine resources.
- Not all individuals involved in the fishing industry will be affected, as only those using the specific method targeted by the policy need to transition.
- A diverse range of interviews across age, gender, location, and occupation was conducted to reflect the impact on different stakeholders, including fishermen, marine biologists, and industry regulators.
Simulated Interviews
commercial fisherman (California)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about the costs involved in transitioning to new equipment and methods.
- Grants could help, but I'm unsure if they will cover all the expenses.
- Long-term, it might be better for fish stocks, but short-term it's tough for my business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
marine biologist (Washington)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step forward in reducing bycatch which is crucial for marine biodiversity.
- I hope it sets a precedent for similar measures globally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
charter vessel operator (Alaska)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The proposed fees could increase operating costs for my business.
- While I support sustainable fishing, I hope the fees don't deter customers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
environmental policy advocate (Maine)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will significantly reduce bycatch, contributing to healthier marine ecosystems.
- I'm optimistic about its long-term environmental benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
retired fisherman (Texas)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could have transformed my career if it existed earlier, providing more sustainable practices.
- I hope current fishermen adapt and benefit from the grants.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
seafood processing plant manager (Florida)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might initially disrupt our supply chains, but if it leads to sustainable practices, it could stabilize our sourcing long-term.
- I'm supportive but cautious.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
fisheries regulator (Oregon)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Our regulatory goals align with this policy; it aids in sustainable fishery management.
- Implementation will require careful monitoring.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
restaurant owner (New York)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There might be short-term supply issues, but long-term I'm hopeful for more sustainable seafood options.
- Customers are increasingly asking for sustainable seafood.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
sustainable seafood advocate (Hawaii)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation could boost consumer confidence in sustainably sourced fish.
- I see it as a crucial step for marine conservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
supply chain consultant (Michigan)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could entail significant restructuring in fisheries' supply chains.
- It's an opportunity for fisheries to innovate with new practices.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 3: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 5: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Implementation of alternative fishing practices requires ongoing support and monitoring.
- Impact on commercial fishing industry jobs may necessitate workforce retraining and support initiatives.
- Potential lobbying and resistance from stakeholders in the fishing industry could delay or alter implementation pathways.
- Positive ecological impacts cannot immediately be quantified in economic terms but are significant for long-term sustainability.