Bill Proposes Adding Rhode Island to Mid-Atlantic Fishery Council, Boosting Membership

This legislation, titled the "Rhode Island Fishermen's Fairness Act of 2025," proposes a straightforward change to federal fisheries management: adding Rhode Island to the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC). It amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act—the primary law governing marine fisheries—to officially include Rhode Island among the states represented. This adjustment increases the council's total membership from 21 to 23 seats, with the number of obligatory state-specific seats rising from 13 to 14, as detailed in Section 2. The core purpose is to give Rhode Island a formal voice and vote in decisions impacting fisheries from North Carolina to New York.

A Seat at the Table

So, how does this work? Section 2 of the bill directly edits the Magnuson-Stevens Act, literally writing Rhode Island into the list of states that make up the MAFMC. Think of it like adding a new director to a company board. This isn't just symbolic; it grants Rhode Island official representation, meaning state-appointed members will sit alongside those from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina (though NC has limited voting rights on this specific council). This guarantees Rhode Island a direct say in crafting the rules—like setting catch limits, fishing seasons, and gear restrictions—for commercially important species managed by this council.

Ripples Through the Fleet

Adding a new voting member inevitably changes the group dynamic. For Rhode Island's commercial and recreational fishing sectors, this means having a dedicated advocate at the table when debating quotas for key species like summer flounder, black sea bass, or squid—stocks vital to the state's maritime economy. A fisherman out of Point Judith might feel their concerns about local stock conditions are more likely to be heard and factored into management plans. However, the existing council members and the fishermen they represent (from New York down to Virginia) will see a shift in the voting balance. Decisions that require consensus or a majority vote now involve an additional perspective, which could alter outcomes on resource allocation and potentially affect catch shares for fishermen in other states. While aiming for fairness for Rhode Island, this structural change outlined in Section 2 could create new economic pressures or require adjustments for fishing businesses across the Mid-Atlantic region.