To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to provide for the regulation of fishing in marine national monuments.
- Sponsor
- Del. Radewagen, Aumua Amata Coleman [R-AS-At Large]
- Committees
- Natural Resources Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jun 3, 2026
Bottom line
H.R. 8904 shifts authority for regulating fishing in marine national monuments from presidential proclamations under the Antiquities Act to the established fishery management process under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to explicitly state that fishing in marine national monuments cannot be prohibited or regulated by Presidential proclamation under the Antiquities Act of 1906. It further clarifies that fishing in these monuments will continue to be regulated under the Magnuson-Stevens Act itself, ensuring that regional fishery management councils retain authority over fishing activities in these areas. This effectively reverses any existing or future fishing bans imposed by presidential decree in marine national monuments.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that fishery management decisions should be made by regional fishery management councils, which include scientific experts, state representatives, and stakeholders, rather than through unilateral presidential action. They contend that the Magnuson-Stevens Act provides a robust, science-based framework for sustainable fisheries management, balancing conservation with economic interests, and that presidential proclamations can arbitrarily close vast areas to fishing without adequate stakeholder input or scientific review specific to fisheries.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that presidential proclamations under the Antiquities Act are a vital tool for protecting vulnerable marine ecosystems and biodiversity, especially in areas of significant ecological or historical value. They might contend that removing the President's authority to regulate fishing in these monuments could undermine conservation efforts and expose sensitive habitats to overfishing or destructive practices, potentially leading to irreversible environmental damage.
The bill text is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick read.
Section 1, amending Section 304 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1854) by adding subsection (j).
Prohibiting Presidential Regulation of Fishing in Marine National Monuments and Affirming Magnuson-Stevens Act Authority
This provision amends the Magnuson-Stevens Act to prevent any U.S. President from using the Antiquities Act of 1906 to prohibit or regulate fishing within marine national monuments, including those already established. It explicitly states that all fishing activities in these monuments will continue to be managed under the existing framework of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which involves regional fishery management councils, ensuring that decisions are made through a specific, established process for fisheries.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures that fishery management is conducted by experts and stakeholders through the Magnuson-Stevens Act's established process, which is designed to balance conservation with the economic needs of fishing communities. They contend that presidential proclamations can be overly broad and lack the specific scientific and economic analysis required for effective fisheries management.
Critics contend
Opponents would argue that this provision weakens the President's ability to protect critical marine habitats and biodiversity from fishing pressures, especially in areas designated for their unique ecological value. They might assert that the Antiquities Act provides a necessary mechanism for rapid, comprehensive conservation action when traditional fishery management processes are too slow or politically constrained.
Tradeoffs
The bill navigates the tension between executive authority to establish broad conservation areas and the specific, stakeholder-driven process for managing fisheries. It trades the potential for rapid, comprehensive presidential conservation action for a more deliberative, industry-inclusive approach to fisheries management within protected marine areas.