Last week, the National Marine Fisheries Service issued its
annual Status of Stocks report. Status
of Stocks 2014 provided the good news that the number of overfished
stocks, as well as the number of stocks experiencing overfishing, both hit
all-time lows by the close of last year.
NMFS manages 469 separate stocks of fish. The status of some of those stocks has not
yet been determined. However, of the 308
stocks for which the mortality status is known, only 26—about 8%--remain
subject to overfishing, which is roughly a 50% reduction in the past 15
years. Six stocks were removed from the
overfishing list in 2014, including Gulf of Maine haddock, South Atlantic gag
and snowy grouper, the Gulf of Mexico jacks complex, northern Atlantic albacore
and western Atlantic bluefin tuna.
Of the 228 stocks for which the biomass status is known,
about 16% remain overfished, which is down by about one-third since 2000. Gulf of Mexico gag grouper and north Atlantic
albacore were both declared to be no longer overfished last year.
In addition, three stocks, Gulf of Mexico gag grouper,
golden tilefish and Gulf of Maine/Cape Hatteras butterfish, were declared fully
rebuilt last year; including those three, a total of 37 once-overfished stocks
have now been rebuilt since 2000, the year that a court decision in Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Daley put teeth in federal fisheries law
and ushered in the modern era of salt water fisheries management.
Given how low the abundance of many fish stocks had fallen
prior to the enactment of the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, which for the
first time required United States’ fisheries managers to promptly end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks,
that’s a pretty striking improvement in the health of our fish populations.
Eileen Sobek, the assistant administrator for fisheries at
NOAA, gave both her agency and the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries
Conservation and Management Act, which governs fishing in U.S. waters, some
well-deserved praise, saying
“This report illustrates that the science-based management
process under the Magnuson-Stevens Act is working to end overfishing and
rebuild stocks…
“Our agency wants to let consumers know that the United
States’ global leadership in responsible fisheries and sustainable seafood is
paying off. We are moving forward more
than ever with efforts to replicate and export stewardship practices
internationally. As a result of the combined
efforts of NOAA Fisheries, the regional fishery management councils, and all of
our partners, the number of stocks listed as subject to overfishing or
overfished continues to decline and is at an all-time low.”
Ms. Sobek is entitled to crow just a bit about a job well
done.
Yet at the same time that NMFS celebrates its latest
achievements, there are people on the waterfront and in the United States Congress
who are striving to make fundamental changes in the way America’s fish stocks
are managed.
Back in 1977, “Bert” Lance, who served as the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget early in President Jimmy Carter’s
administration, said
in an interview
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That’s the trouble with government. Fixing things that aren’t broken and not
fixing things that are broken.”
Since then, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” has become a cliché,
but one that has proved both useful and appropriate when applied to any number
of issues.
It certainly applies to the Magnuson-Stevens Act today.
There is no better fisheries law in the world. The Magnuson-Stevens Act regulates fishing on
hundreds of stocks, along thousands of miles of coastline as different and
distant from one another as those of Puerto Rico, Alaska and the islands of
Saipan and Guam. It is a law designed to
benefit all species and all user groups by placing the focus where it needs to
be placed, on the long-term health of fish populations, rather than on a
favored industry sector and/or the short-term economic benefits that might accrue from overharvesting already stressed stocks.
Still, there are too many people who are looking for some way around the management process.
Their motives are perfectly clear. The harvest restrictions needed to rebuild
stocks with any kind of certainty, and within a reasonable time frame, cut into
folks’ short-term profits, whether those folks are commercial fishermen, who
sell fish to the public, charter and party boat operators, who
take people fishing, or boat builders, tackle manufacturers or tackle shop
owners, who sell folks the merchandise that they need to catch fish on their
own.
Using benevolent-sounding language such as “flexibility”
and “strengthening fishing communities,” they are actively working to weaken the very measures that have made Magnuson-Stevens a
success.
Right now, most of the impetus for “fixing” the law is
coming from the recreational fishing community located on the shores of the
Gulf of Mexico, who are unhappy with red snapper management. For years, the red snapper stock was badly overfished,
and so long as the Gulf’s anglers could blame the problem on commercial harvest
and the bycatch of juvenile red snapper in shrimp trawls, they were all for conservation
measures that targeted those sectors.
However, once commercial harvest issues were largely
eliminated, and managers began to focus on chronic recreational overharvest, the
same recreational interests declared the federal management system to be
broken, and are trying to
convince federal legislators to introduce bills that would take red snapper
management out from under the aegis of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, so that
red snapper anglers in the Gulf would no longer be bound by the sort of
science-based management system that has successfully ended overfishing and
rebuilt stocks on every coast of the United States.
That would be bad enough if it only harmed red snapper, but
those “anglers rights” and angling industry organizations have also banded together, under the banner of the
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership’s report, A
Vision for Managing America’s Saltwater Recreational Fisheries, to take their efforts one step farther, and weaken the
conservation and management provisions of Magnuson-Stevens, which would
“allow fish stocks to recover gradually while diminishing
socioeconomic impacts.”
In other words, it’s OK if we have fewer fish in our own, so long as
they can kill a few more, and make some more money…
Recreational angling groups that have always looked
askance at commercial interests and long pretended to cleave to a higher,
conservation-oriented standard have pretty well taken the same position as the
New England trawlers who have devastated cod populations, and some of the party
boat fleet in the mid-Atlantic, which would have halted the recovery of summer
flounder, scup and black sea bass if the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management
Council and the NMFS regional office hadn’t stuck to their guns.
Their idea of “fixing” Magnuson is to change the very provisions that makes the law work.
If your idea of success is a healthy ocean, with abundant
fish populations, it’s pretty clear that the Magnuson-Stevens
Act is a success, even if all of its work isn't yet done.
Magnuson-Stevens “ain’t broke” at all.
And it’s in no need of “fixing.”
No comments:
Post a Comment