Michigan House Bill HB5553

Michigan 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/6/24
• Refer: 3/6/24

Caption

Natural resources: fishing; allowable catch per species and percentage quota for commercial fishing; provide for. Amends secs. 47301, 47303, 47305, 47306, 47307, 47308, 47309, 47310, 47311, 47312, 47313, 47314, 47315, 47316, 47317, 47318, 47319, 47320, 47321, 47322, 47323, 47324, 47325, 47326, 47327 & 48724 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.47301 et seq.); adds sec. 47304 & repeals pt. 461, secs. 47301a, 47302, 47329 - 47362, pt. 479 & sec. 48901 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.46101 et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4568'23, HB 4569'23

Impact

The passage of HB5553 would directly affect the way commercial fishing is conducted in Michigan waters. The bill establishes specific regulations under which commercial fishers must operate, including setting limits on the size and number of fish that can be harvested. It also stipulates the responsibilities of the Department of Natural Resources in managing fish populations and enforcing regulations. By introducing more explicit guidelines, the bill is expected to improve the transparency and accountability in the sector, potentially addressing concerns raised by various stakeholders, including environmental groups and the fishing community.

Summary

House Bill 5553 seeks to amend the existing Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, specifically concerning commercial fishing regulations in Michigan. The primary focus of the bill is to clarify allowable catch limits per species and to establish a percentage quota for commercial fishing within the Great Lakes. By updating definitions and regulations around key terms such as 'commercial fisher' and 'aquatic species', the bill aims to foster better management and utilization of Michigan's fishery resources, ensuring a sustainable and profitable fishing industry in the state.

Contention

Some points of contention surrounding HB5553 revolve around the fear of over-regulation and the impact that stricter quotas could have on local fishers’ livelihoods. Opponents of the bill argue that while sustainable practices are crucial, the quotas might limit access to resources critical to many small commercial fishers. There are also apprehensions regarding the enforcement and potential penalties for non-compliance, which could disproportionately affect smaller operators. Supporters, however, argue that the bill is necessary for the long-term health of the fish populations and the ecosystem, as well as for ensuring fair competition among fishers.