The Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which governs fishing in federal
waters, is currently up for reauthorization.
That’s a really big deal, and I’ll be writing about it a lot, perhaps
beginning this weekend.
However, in between the big Magnuson debates, there are always
a host of lesser legislative essays that are rarely signed into law—few bills
of any kind make it that far—but are filed by various federal legislators who
wish to please, or appease, a particular constituency within their state or
Congressional district.
Such bills are intended to address some real or imagined
wrong—most often the latter—and with few exceptions would let folks kill more
fish than is good for the stock. It
doesn’t always happen that way; the Atlantic Striped
Bass Conservation Act was the lynchpin of the successful effort to rebuild
that stock after it had collapsed.
However, that happened thirty years ago, and I can’t recall Congress
passing another “small” bill with anything close to the same conservation
impact, so it’s safe to say that the good bills are pretty rare.
But the bills intended to up fishermen’s kills, well,
they’re pretty common--in fact, too common by far.
The grandfather of them all is probably the Flexibility in
Rebuilding America’s Fisheries Act, which was sponsored by Frank Pallone, a
Democratic Congressman from New Jersey, and Charles Schumer, a Democratic
Senator from New York. That bill has
taken a fewdifferent forms over the years, but all employ the guise of
“flexibility” to gut the most important conservation provisions of current law.
The “flexibility” bills were darlings of groundfish trawlers
up in New England, who were still trying to kill the last cod, and with recreational
fishing industry interests in New York and New Jersey—primarily, but not
exclusively, the party boat operators—who were doing their best to kill enough
summer flounder to stall their eventual recovery.
Such bills never came close to passage. Unfortunately, a bill that included many of
the worst aspects of “flexibility”—and some other bad stuff besides—was
introduced in the House last year by Washington Republican Doc Hastings as part
of the Magnuson Act reauthorization process.
The bill was so bad that it was quickly dubbed the “Empty
Oceans Act,” by the conservation community, who was glad to see it die and
maybe equally glad to see Hastings retire.
Unfortunately, Don Young, a Republican representative from Alaska, has
reintroduced his version of “Empty Oceans” this year.
But that is a story for another day. For now, there are plenty of other bad bills
to discuss.
A lot of them are being pushed by malcontent anglers in the
Gulf of Mexico, who want to kill more red snapper than either the science or
current law would allow.
The most recent
of these is the so-called Red Snapper
Management Improvement Act, introduced by David Vitter, a Republican senator
from Louisiana who has been a long-time opponent of unpolluted
rivers, unmined
mountaintops and undrilled
wilderness, and who is now apparently adding healthy fisheries to the list of
things he's against.
Vitter would
create a “Gulf
States Red Snapper Management Authority” to replace federal fisheries
managers, a thoroughly cynical and senseless idea that I
discussed in detail about three blogs ago.
That came on top of a bill called the Gulf of
Mexico Red Snapper Conservation Act, which was introduced by Congressman
Jeff Miller, Republican of Florida. The
so-called “conservation act” was an earlier and cruder version effort to turn
red snapper management over to the states, and appeared to define
“conservation” as allowing Gulf red snapper anglers, who were regularly
exceeding their quota, to kill even more fish.
About what you’d expect for these interim bills.
Lately, along with Vitter’s red snapper debacle, we have
seen Republican congressman Rob Wittman of Virginia introduce something called
the Healthy
Fisheries Through Better Science Act, a bill in some ways reminiscent of
the Fisheries
Science Improvement Act introduced a few years ago by the normally
pro-conservation Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat from Florida, at the behest
of—yes, you guessed it—red snapper anglers in his home state who were trying to
discredit existing science in an effort to kill a few more fish (although in
that instance, they were concerned with tightened regulations in the South
Atlantic rather than in the Gulf).
Wittman’s bill, unlike Nelson’s, would require stock
assessments every 5 years for all of the 500+ stocks that NMFS currently
manages.
That’s a laudable goal in
theory, and I for one would like to see it achieved. However, that’s not very likely to
happen. Wittman’s bill doesn’t appropriate
a penny to get the work done and, as a practical matter, even if the funds were
available a shortage of qualified stock assessment scientists would probably be
an even greater obstacle to completing all of the assessments on time.
On the surface, it’s not clear why Wittman felt it necessary
to introduce such a bill, as his constituents in the Mid-Atlantic region have
little problem with unassessed stocks; all are assessed on a regular basis. But if you consider the fact that Wittman is
co-chair of the Congressional Sportsman’s Caucus, along with the fact that such
Caucus is heavily lobbied by—once again—the red snapper folks, the likely
motivation becomes all too clear.
There’s only one stock assessment that matters to them, and for the
record, it’s neither George’s Bank cod nor summer flounder…
Wittman’s bill is likely to meet the same fate as most bills
of its kind, but that’s not the real point.
Bills such as the Red Snapper Management Improvement Act,
the Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Conservation Act, the Fisheries Science
Improvement Act and the Healthy Fisheries Through Better Science Act—along with
all of their infernal spawn and misbegotten lookalikes—don’t actually improve
anything, conserve anything or make anything better, nor are they intended to.
Without exception, each such bill is a cynical effort
to sidestep conservative, science-based management efforts, and undermine the
current federal fisheries management system.
So far, such bills have been shot down in flames, with none
coming anywhere close to passage.
But there is no assurance that will continue to happen.
One day, in the case of one bill, the stars may align. An influential congressman and
equally influential senator will manage to get one of these bills through
committee and onto the floor, either on its own or, more likely, attached as a
rider to another piece of legislation, passed by both houses and signed into
law.
Should that day ever happen, be prepared for the
deluge.
The Red Snapper Management Improvement Act will be joined by
the Gulf of Maine Cod Management Improvement Act, the New England Winter
Flounder Conservation Act, the Better Data for Mid-Atlantic Black Sea Bass Act,
the Blueline Tilefish Science Improvement Act and…well, you get the idea.
Any sort of rational management, based on sound scientific
principles, will be undermined, and a free-for-all of species-specific bills,
giving relief for management measures, will be loosed on the management world,
reversing years of progress in rebuilding stocks.
It’s a pretty bleak picture, but it’s not going to change
unless and until the leaders of the angling community begin living up to their
obligations to actually lead, and to treat America’s anglers
as adults capable of understanding and appreciating the need for sound
fisheries management rather than as spoiled children who need to be indulged
with pointless and potentially harmful legislation.
After what we’ve observed in the past couple of years, it
may be that such leaders just aren’t up to the task. They may lack enough good sense and
guts. But unless they get serious about
fisheries bills, and stop supporting dangerous fluff, I fear that they’ll leave
future generations with nothing save an empty and desolate sea.
No comments:
Post a Comment