PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 15, 2011
American Angler Preservation Act - Amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to require each scientific and statistical committee of the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils to provide its respective Council with ongoing risk neutral scientific advice (current law does not specify that such advice be risk neutral) for fishery management decisions.
Prohibits such a committee from recommending to increase or decrease an annual catch limit by 20% or greater unless the recommendation has been approved in a peer review process conducted exclusively by nongovernmental entities.
Requires fishery management plans, amendments, or regulations for overfished fisheries to specify a time period for ending overfishing and rebuilding the fishery that is as short as practicable (under current law, as short as possible). Modifies the exceptions to the requirement that such period not exceed ten years.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires consideration, in evaluating progress to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks, of factors other than commercial and recreational fishing.
Requires, when the Secretary of Commerce extends the rebuilding period under specified provisions, that the maximum rebuilding time not exceed the sum of the initial ten-year period, the expected time to rebuild the stock absent any fishing mortality and under prevailing environmental conditions, and the mean generation time of the stock.
Directs the Secretary, within 60 days after receiving a request from the governor of an affected state or a fishing community, to determine whether there is a commercial fishery failure due to a fishery resource disaster resulting from certain causes.
Sets forth procedures for certification of a fishery management plan (or amendment) requested by a percentage of eligible fisherman to establish a limited access privilege program to harvest in fisheries under the authority of the New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council.
Prohibits the Secretary, acting through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), from closing a fishery that would have an affect of at least $50,000 on each of more than 25 small businesses related to the recreational, charter, or commercial fishing industries involved in the fishery being closed, unless the Secretary certifies that specified conditions have been met.
People & committees
Rep. Runyan, Jon [R-NJ-3] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1646 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1646 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1646 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1646 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.