Originally enacted in 1976 to assert control of foreign fisheries that were operating within 200 nautical miles off the U.S. coast, the legislation has since been amended, in 1996 and 2007, to better address the twin problems of overfishing and overcapacity (i.e., too much fishing power).

The plans are amended frequently to adjust management policies and measures to changes in fish stock abundance and to meet the goals of the MSA as they are revised by the Congress.

200, was introduced by Representative Gerry Studds (D-Mass), who obtained bipartisan support for the bill from Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) through common concern over the fishing power of the foreign fleets operating off their respective coasts.

The most recent version, authorized in 2007, includes seven purposes:[8] Additionally, the law calls for reducing bycatch and establishing fishery information monitoring systems.

[9] The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) aids the Secretary of Commerce, who evaluates, approves, and implements the Councils' FMPs.

Regional Fishery Management Council members are nominated by the governors of their respective states, and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce.

The Marine Fish Conservation Network highlighted the most significant changes in the mechanisms utilized in a 2010 report: "To achieve the goal of ending overfishing … Congress strengthened the role of science in the fishery management process and required fishery managers to establish science based annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for all US fisheries with a deadline of 2010 for all stocks subject to overfishing… The new fisheries law requires the councils' science advisors, the scientific and statistical committees to make recommendations for 'acceptable biological catch' (ABC) which managers may not exceed…"[11] The ACL is the centerpiece of the report which is supplemented by other mechanisms regulating the types of gear used, licensing vessels, and using of observers on fishing boats.

Fishers, corporations, activist groups and the public all share interest in protecting fishing eco-systems and economies via the MSFCMA.

Fishers advocate measures that encourage regulatory processes to be scaled to the local level and which ensure fishing privileges aren't concentrated into small groups.

[7] Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) focusing on fish conservation and environmentalism were key forces behind the incremental improvements in the law's regulatory mechanisms.

This includes the failure of the Secretary of Commerce, acting through NOAA, to require regulations that minimize catches of non-target species (referred to as "bycatch") or to ban discarding at sea undersized or unwanted catches of target species, and to hold accountable regional councils that don't enforce or implement fisheries management plans.

[21] Additionally, some of the regional councils' policies, such as restarting the timeline for rebuilding overfished stocks, appear to critics to have shielded commercial fishermen from the consequences of their poor business decisions and thereby inadequately protected the marine ecosystems they depend upon.

[23] Other critics claim the regulatory framework is too "top-down" and alienates local fishers, thereby reducing the likelihood to achieve the cooperation needed to enforce many provisions.

Sectors were pioneered by fishermen as voluntary, cooperative and community-based, and were designed to protect fleet diversity and coastal communities.