Caught in the Net: The Magnuson-Stevens Act, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, and Pompano Fishery Management in Florida

Authors

Thomas Webb, University of Miami School of Law

Document Type

Notes and Comments

Abstract

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act delegates to regional councils the authority to create Federal Fishery Management Plans that regulate fisheries within the federal Exclusive Economic Zone. Should no federal Fishery Management Plan exist, the act allows for the extraterritorial enforcement of a state’s regulations on fishermen registered from that state and physically within the federal Exclusive Economic Zone. This grant of extraterritorial jurisdiction creates gaps in federal regulations that allows states to implement state fishery management plans in federal waters. These state plans can produce confusing results like criminalizing federally legal behavior under the guise of allowable state fishery management enforcement, crippling the fishing industry, or even causing more fish to be harvested from the ocean.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission promulgated Regulation 68B-35.005, which created the Pompano Endorsement Zone that allows for the use of gill and entangling nets within a designated stretch of water off the gulf coast of Florida that exists only in the federal Exclusive Economic Zone. This regulation sits in a regulatory gap created by section 1856 of the Magnuson-Steven Act that allows for states to extend their jurisdiction into federal waters without regulating any of their own territorial waters. Florida’s application of this regulation, and exploitation of the regulatory gap, has led to the decline of the commercial pompano fishing industry in Florida, and caused more pompano to be harvested from the ocean. This comment explores the broad regulatory framework under the Magnuson- Stevens Act that enables extraterritorial application of a state’s regulations, while also discussing the constitutionality of Florida Fish and Wildlife’s regulations, its impact on Florida’s fishing industry, and possible solutions to the problem generally like establishing a federal Fishery Management Plan for the pompano or a consistency review process that would provide broad protections to all federal fisheries and close the regulatory gap created by section 1856.

Recommended Citation

Thomas Webb, Caught in the Net: The Magnuson-Stevens Act, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, and Pompano Fishery Management in Florida, 32 U. MIA Bus. L. Rev. 190 (2024)
Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umblr/vol32/iss2/4