Charges NMFS With \”Failure to Comply With The Law\”
November 6, 2009 – In a 40-page legal challenge submitted before the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on November 4, the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) and industry allies have officially brought legal action against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke due to the recent recreational closure of the Atlantic recreational black sea bass fishery. The challenge contends that the recent closure is not only unprecedented for a fish whose stocks are considered rebuilt and not overfished, but that![\"RFA](\"http://origin.ih.constantcontact.com/fs053/1102181706823/img/63.gif?a=1102812022009\")
action is also based upon \”misapplication and misuse of a fatally flawed angler survey which NMFS itself has acknowledged is not to be used for this type of decision.\”
Filed for a dozen specifically named plaintiffs, the official complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief requested expedited consideration in hopes of reversing the six-month sea bass closure as quickly as possible on behalf all saltwater anglers and fishery dependent businesses. According to Capt. Tony Bogan, plaintiff of the United Boatmen, the recent closure of sea bass is only a part of legal equation. \”This goes way behind sea bass,\” Bogan said of the legal argument, adding \”it addresses the potential action by NMFS in the future to arbitrarily close fisheries on a whim or because of survey trends or ideology.\’
80% off Thanksgiving Sale for cell phone accessories. We guarantee the lowest prices online. Coupon Code: cell8
By closing a recreational fishery based on the fatally flawed recreational survey (MRFSS), the suit contends that the government violated numerous provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and National Standard guidelines issued by NMFS. Additionally, it charges the defendants with ignoring countervailing information and for failure to consider less severe alternatives. \”As a result of defendants\’ actions, and failure to comply with the law, the Plaintiffs have suffered, and will continue to suffer, immediate, substantial and irreparable harm, for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and for which they seek expedited relief.\”
This post was imported from a legacy archive. Please excuse any formatting inconsistencies.