For the past couple of years, we’ve been hearing angling industry interests down in
the Gulf of Mexico crying out, calling for the federal government to cede its
authority to manage red snapper and hand such responsibility over to the
states.
A joint
industry letter written to key United States senators early this year
stated that
“We support Senator David Vitter’s Red Snapper Management
Improvement Act, S. 105. Last Congress,
we supported several other bills fixing red snapper for Americans, including
Congressman Jeff Miller’s Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper Conservation Act, H.R.
3099. These bills give the states the
responsibility to manage this fishery in a manner that ensures not only a
robust, healthy resource, but one that is not systematically put out of the reach
of ordinary citizens. With their proven
track record managing fisheries and recovering stocks such as red drum and
speckled trout, and with superior recreational data collection systems, the
states have earned the trust and respect of Gulf Coast anglers and
conservationists…”
While the assertions made in that letter are open to
question, that’s not the point.
What is really interesting is how the rhetoric surrounding
the issue, particularly the attacks leveled against federal fisheries managers
and the claims that the states could manage fish better, parallel attacks that
have long been leveled against federal land and resource managers in many
western states.
Out West, the attack on federal stewardship have been led by
the mining, energy, timber and ranching industries, along with the host of
politicians that are well-supported by such folks’ campaign contributions.
In the Gulf, the attack comes from the recreational fishing
and boatbuilding industries and the politicians… Well, let’s just say that the Gulf industry
groups have come together under an umbrella known as the Center for Coastal
Conservation, which says of itself
“The Center for Coastal Conservation’s role is to affect
public policy…with broad abilities to pursue political solutions. The organization…focuses on having an impact
in the national political arena, particularly Congress and national regulatory
agencies.
“…the Center has established the Center for Coastal
Conservation Political Action Committee (Center PAC), so that its members can
fully participate in elective politics…”
“Fully participate,” of course, means “make campaign
contributions”…
So what we ultimately end up with is a recreational fishing
and boating industry that seems to have a lot in common with the folks seeking
to bring more mining, more drilling, more grazing and fewer trees to America’s
public lands.
Given that is the case, it might make a lot of sense to take
a closer look at what’s going on west of the 100th meridian.
Earlier this year, there was an article in The Salt Lake Tribune, a Utah newspaper,
headlined “Bishop,
Stewart launch action group for states to take over federal lands.”
The article goes on to explain that
“Two Utah congressman are launching a ‘Federal Lands Action
Group’ to identify ways Congress could to push a transfer of lands to state and
local governments.
“GOP Reps Chris Stewart and Rob Bishop announced the new
working group…and said that it would hold a series of hearings with experts on
public lands policy with the end goal of introducing legislation to move the
federal units into state and local control.”
And yes, that’s the same Rob Bishop who was one
of just three cosponsors of H.R. 1335, the so-called “Strengthening Fishing
Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act,” which
would seriously weaken the conservation and rebuilding provisions of current
federal fisheries law, so there’s more than a casual connection here.
At any rate, the Salt Lake Tribune went on to quote
Congressman Stewart as saying
“The federal government has been a lousy landlord for Western
states and we simply think that the states can do it better. If we want healthier forests, better access
to public lands, more consistent funding for public education and more reliable
energy development, it makes sense to have local control.”
That’s not very different from a statement made by the Coastal
Conservation Association (an “anglers’ rights” group that helped to
organize the similarly-named Center for Coastal Conservation and, like the
Center and Congressman Bishop, a
supporter of H.R. 1335), which argued that
“State-based fishery management has been proven to be far
more effective than the federal system and has engineered some of the greatest
conservation victories in the country.
Whereas federal management of red snapper has been marked by crisis
after crisis, the states have proven far more capable of not only conserving
and managing robust fisheries, but also providing greater access to those resources
for their citizens.”
When you have different people in different places saying
about the same thing about the management of natural resources, it’s not
unreasonable to believe that their motivations are about the same, too.
What are those motivations?
“the federal land can be developed for oil shale, logging,
raising of cattle and for recreation.”
Thus, it’s not very surprising to see the Coastal Conservation Association
argue that the states should take over red snapper management and abolish “overly
restrictive” regulations that restrict landings
“and are negatively impacting the thousands of recreational
fishing dependent businesses all along the Gulf coast.”
For Congressman Bishop and Senator Hatch are far more
interested in the short term profits of energy, logging and ranching businesses
than they are in intact ecosystems, clean, flowing waters or the survival of
imperiled species such as the sage grouse.
And the Center for Coastal Conservation is far more concerned with the
short term profits of the recreational fishing and boating industries than it
is in the long-term health of red snapper.
At first glance, the Western politicians and the Gulf
angling industry seem to be dealing with very different issues. But if you listen closely, you’ll realize
that they’re just singing different verses of the same old song.
They all are trying to replace responsible federal stewardship
of publicly-owned natural resources with weak, politically-driven state
management that will put those resources at risk so that resource-dependent
industries can pocket a little more cash.
Yes, it’s the same old song, but these days, it sounds badly
off-key, particularly to sportsmen who know that they, like the nation, do not
own the fish, the game, the land or the oceans, but merely hold them in trust
for not only their children and grandkids, but for the children and grandkids
of other sportsmen who are not yet born.
No comments:
Post a Comment