Nearly three months ago, the Obama administration’s National
Ocean Council issued its first Report
on the Implementation of the National Ocean Policy. The report depicted a clearly beneficial
program, intended to be
“a comprehensive and collaborative framework for assuring the
long-term health, resilience, safety, and productivity of our coastal and marine
ecosystems and communities, as well as the global mobility of our Armed Forces
and the maintenance of international peace and security.”
Programs being implemented pursuant to the policy include
the creation of a task force to fight illegal fishing on an international
scale, coordinating a “rigs to reefs” policy in which old oil platforms may be
used to create artificial fish-holding structure, developing the means to
rapidly detect dangerous algae blooms and a host of similar worthwhile
projects.
Listed under the heading of “Local Choices” is a marine
spatial planning proposal, which would create
“one approach for regions to identify [the] needs [of
multiple communities] and to use science-based decision making to address
overlaps and potential conflicts in a proactive manner.”
The report suggests that would be done by
“the establishment of regional partnerships among the Federal
government, States, and Tribes, with substantial public engagement…Through this
shared process, Federal agencies are committed to better supporting regional
priorities to enhance regional economic, environmental, social, and cultural
well-being.”
The organized recreational fishing community didn’t have
much of a reaction to the report’s release, perhaps because they were dedicating
all of their efforts and resources toward tearing the heart out of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and could not afford
any distractions.
However, when the National Ocean Policy was first announced
a few years ago, it met with some very strong opposition from the same folks
who are now trying to weaken federal fisheries law. It’s not hard to
imagine that once the Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization is settled, for good or
for ill, the National Ocean Policy will once again be firmly in their sights.
Opposition to the policy took two forms. One was the sort of general hostility to the
President’s executive action that we can see in an
op-ed by the Recreational Fishing Alliance, published in The Hill, which
said
“Enacting laws through Executive order sets a dangerous
precedence [sic], particularly when it threatens to minimize or even supersede
the role of existing law, which in this case is federal fisheries law enacted in
1976 (Magnuson-Stevens Act). The
[National Ocean Policy] itself provides excessive influence to the [White House
Council on Environmental Quality] and works to further exclude much of the decision-making
process at the regional fisheries management level, thereby creating a bias
towards a handful of appointed, potentially connected industry and conservation
groups from the Washington DC area who are removed from the day-to-day needs
and concerns of coastal constituents…”
“The argument in favor of protecting fish populations from
habitat destruction and water pollution is truly admirable. However, when advocates for a cause willingly
accept and promote the circumvention of the legislative process to achieve
their goals, then it’s not just our oceans which are jeopardized but the very
‘health and benefit’ of all America.”
Such rhetoric seems well-intentioned, if a bit
misguided. However, other comments made
by the RFA make it pretty clear that their opposition to the National Ocean
Policy stemmed not from any high-minded desire to protect the Constitution, but
rather from something more prosaic—an overblown fear that conservation
imperatives might shut them out of current fishing grounds.
“The RFA has made it very clear the National Ocean Council
threatens to override all of our current federal fisheries management
processes, threatens the integrity of our recreational fishing councils and
creates an overarching bureaucracy, which could summarily dismiss all input
from stakeholders. It has the very real
possibility of arbitrarily banning sportfishing activities throughout U.S.
coastal waters and we are absolutely opposed to this presidential decree.”
The stance of the seven organizations which now comprise the
Center for Coastal Conservation was more nuanced, but ultimately raised the
same concern. In a
joint letter to the co-chairs of the National Ocean Council, they noted
“the National Objective 2 of [Coastal and Marine Spatial
Planning], to ‘[r]educe cumulative impacts on environmentally sensitive
resources and habitats in ocean, coastal and Great Lakes waters,’ can be
interpreted to mean identifying areas in which certain ocean uses, such as
recreational fishing, will ultimately be restricted. The recreational fishing community is not
opposed to limiting fishing activities to conserve vulnerable habitats or to
stop overfishing when other management options have been ineffective, so long
as these decisions are scientifically sound…
"The final implementation plan and
upcoming CMSP Handbook should clearly state that the authority to manage
fishing activities will remain solely with these existing fisheries management
bodies, which have decades of experience in fisheries management and through
which our community is adequately represented.”
As we move toward implementation of the National Ocean
Policy, it’s probably time to ask whether those concerns have real-world
validity, or whether they are an overreaction to the mere possibility that some small but ecologically critical areas of ocean may be closed to angling.
Decades of land-use management throughout the United States
provides plenty of guidance. The land,
even more than the ocean, presents a Gordian knot of conflicting uses. Heavy industrial plants are not built
alongside places of worship or elementary schools; suburban residential tracts
are kept free slaughterhouses and pig farms.
There is a price to be paid for such orderly land use. Small sacrifices must sometimes be made. A homeowner might not be able to pave over a
two-acre lot, or subdivide his or her land into condos. While that might entail some personal inconvenience
or economic hardship, on the whole,
the neighborhood, and the region, is better off when such
incompatible uses are not allowed.
Things are no different beyond the shore. LNG plants shouldn’t be built on fish-holding bottom, and beds of deep-water corals
need protection from trawls.
Fishing groups protest National Ocean Policy and speak
against special planning, yet right
now, down in Delaware, are celebrating a decision to remove commercial fish pots from
artificial reefs. And in
Rhode Island, a new offshore wind farm is being built away from important fish
habitat, while the cables taking the power to shore avoid beds of eelgrass
and important hard bottom.
Here in New York, a decade ago, fishermen were exultant when
a proposed LNG plant was never built at the mouth of Long Island Sound, and
still fight to prevent another such plant that is proposed for the ocean
off Long Beach.
They don’t connect their celebrations and struggles with spatial planning, yet it is nothing less.
Saying that “This place is wrong for a gas plant,” and “Don’t build a
wind farm where we like to fish” is nothing less than endorsing the same marine planning in practice that they reject in concept.
I was a part of the planning process off Long Island, assisting the New York
Department of State to identify places of value to anglers; birders and divers
and commercial fishermen played their role, too. As a result, our wrecks and our reefs and hard bottom were noted, and
put largely off-limits to developers’ plans.
Right now, the same process that protected our ocean is unfolding in
Long Island Sound.
It is not something to fear. It is something to welcome,
that will benefit us all in the end.
As I sit near my window and write this, the warm summer
breeze blowing into the room, I can say in all honesty that I don’t want to
live next to a pig farm, and can rely on my town’s special planning to keep
swine away.
In just the same way, anglers on every coast should be able
to rely on marine spatial planning to prevent the inappropriate use of waters
important to anglers, and to keep critical fish habitat intact.
Recreational fishing is by its very definition a means of fishing defined by limits. The choice amounts to having fish to pursue, or not. Anglers need to pull their heads out of the sand. We are dependent upon habitat and finite resources.Those whose first concern is profit are focused much more on who will catch the last fish than the future of fishing and the natural resources that support it.
ReplyDeleteThe comment above perfectly explains the issue with commercial fishing. They pretend to care about the environment, but they are the ones who want to abuse our natural resources for profit. The idea that a few folks out with their families will "kill all the fish" is laughable to anyone not blinded by a desire for money.
ReplyDelete