Yesterday, the House Committee on Natural Resources marked
up H.R. 3094, Rep. Garret Graves’ (R-Louisiana) so-called Gulf States Red
Snapper Management Authority Act.
The
approval came on a 24-14 vote, with Republicans from important coastal states
such as Idaho, Arizona and Utah enthusiastically supporting the bill, and most Democrats
expressing real doubts.
The support of inland Republicans shouldn’t come as too much
of a surprise to anyone, for the bill, which would strip the National Marine
Fisheries Service of all authority to manage red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico,
and turn such authority over to the states, is very much in line with the
landlocked legislators’ philosophy.
In the same session, the Committee also approved H.R.
3650, sponsored by Don Young (R-Alaska), and H.R.
2316, sponsored by Raul Labrador (R-Idaho).
H.R. 3650, titled the “State National Forest Management Act
of 2015,” it would permit each state to take over up to 2 million acres of
National Forest Service land within such state, and included provisions that
would assure that both the timber and hard rock mining interests would be able
to exploit any such natural resources found on the relevant lands.
H.R. 2316 had somewhat more modest goals. Titled the “Self-Sufficient Community Lands
Act,” it would allow state “Advisory Committees” appointed by each state’s
governor to manage parcels of federal land.
Such parcels, designated “community forest demonstration areas,” would
be no less than 200,000 acres in size, and
important federal conservation laws, including the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, the Clean Air Act and the
Endangered Species Act, could only be enforced to the degree that they could be
imposed on a state or private party, and not as they would normally apply to
federal lands.
Taken together, H.R. 3650 and H.R. 2316 are the sort of
bills that are usually supported by the sort of folks who drill for oil, strip
mine coal, clearcut timber and, in the not so recent past, occupied
a federal bird sanctuary in order to demonstrate their patriotism and defend
their Constitutional rights.
Now, with H.R. 3094, the anti-government folks in Congress have
taken their fight to the coast, in an effort to de-federalize red snapper.
Another Utah
Congressman, Chris Stewart, has argued that states should take over land
currently owned by the federal government because
“The federal government has been a lousy landlord for western
states and we simply think 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 sounds benign. However,
it’s hard not to suspect that the real motivation of Rep. Stewart’s (and Rep.
Bishop’s) Federal Land Action Group is to get out from under federal
regulations intended to prevent overgrazing, unsustainable timber harvest and unsound
energy extraction practices.
It also sounds a lot like some of the rhetoric being spouted by anglers’
rights groups supporting H.R. 3094, which have said that
“The state approach is simply a better way to manage a
fishery as a whole. State agencies put
more stock in what a fish population actually looks like and how it’s responding
to management in real time, rather than basing everything on estimates of what
is caught…
“The federal government has had decades to get red snapper
management right. It’s time to let the
states finally provide the remedy.“
Again, it all sounds good, but federal law is already
rebuilding the stock, based on the best scientific information available. Thus, it's hard not to suspect that the state
management proponents just want to kill more red snapper than federal law or
good science allows.
Still, the Committee’s approval of H.R. 3094 is the sort of
thing that should make the states’ rights folks proud. It's the sort of thing that might make some of the “patriots” who bailed out of Malheur want to go out
to the Flower Garden Banks and drag around some illegal anchors in a show of
support…
The myth that state fishery managers do a better job than
their federal counterparts persists, despite evidence to the contrary.
The Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority proposed by
H.R. 3094 would be peopled by the salt water fisheries directors of each of the
five Gulf states, and is modeled upon the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission, which is responsible for managing a number of inshore stocks that
inhabit the waters between Florida and Maine.
Ironically, ASMFC was only given real management authority
in 1984, after Congress passed the Atlantic
Striped Bass Conservation Act, in order to gain some control over squabbling
individual states that were unable to put their parochial concerns aside long
enough to begin rebuilding a collapsed striped bass stock.
Once given that authority, ASMFC did manage to recover the
striped bass stock, which was declared fully rebuild in 1995. However, it has failed to rebuild even one
other stock since then, while federal
managers, acting pursuant to federal law, have fully recovered 39
once-overfished populations since the year 2000.
The success of federal fisheries managers can be attributed
directly to the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which requires that overfished be
promptly halted, that overfished stocks be rebuild within a time certain that,
in typical circumstances, should not exceed ten years, and that fishery
management plans be based on the best available science.
ASMFC’s failure to rebuild a single stock in the past 20
years can be attributed to the fact that it is not subject to Magnuson-Stevens,
leading its various management boards to perpetuate overfishing, delay
rebuilding overfished stocks and ignore scientific advice when there is a
short-term economic benefit in doing so.
And if one looks hard enough, such short-term benefits can
almost always be found…
One of the most striking examples of the failure of state
fisheries managers can be found in North Carolina. In a recent
op-ed piece published in the News-Observer, Chris Elkins, President of the
North Carolina chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association, notes that
“At best, North Carolina has a sordid history of fisheries
management, with only four of 16 managed finfish stocks listed as viable. In large part, that is because North Carolina
has the most relaxed commercial fishing regulations in the country. The decline of the commercial fishing
industry in N.C. is not due to regulations, but to the lack of regulations that
have depleted state-managed stocks…”
To explain why state fisheries management in North Carolina
is so weak, Mr. Elkins describes the state’s failure to enter into a “joint
enforcement agreement” with the National Marine Fisheries Service, which would
give North Carolina the right to enforce federal fisheries regulations, and in
return, would see federal money flow into the state to aid fisheries
enforcement efforts.
Every coastal state
except for North Carolina has entered into such agreements, but as Mr. Elkins
explains
“the [Joint Enforcement Agreement] committee composition was
predetermined by the legislature and thus the outcome was predetermined. The committee voted not to recommend entering
into a JEA. Only commercial fishermen or
charter fishermen were allowed to sit on this committee; all recreational fishermen
were excluded. Of the one million or so
total saltwater N.C. fishermen, about 99 percent are recreational
fishermen. Nonfishing North Carolinians, (about 9 million) were also not represented.
“So only 1 percent of the stakeholders, those who have a
financial interest, will provide input as to whether federal regulations are
enforced properly and whether our nation’s marine resources in territorial
waters off the N.C. coast are protected.
The majority of us, who truly own the resource, are denied a voice in
improving law enforcement…”
In other words, the reason that North Carolina’s fisheries
are badly managed is purely political.
So is H.R. 3094.
Loggers, miners and ranchers perpetuate the myth that state
land managers can do a better job than their federal counterparts, in an effort
to exploit natural resources to a degree, or in a manner, that federal law
would not allow.
Similarly, H.R. 3094 argue that state fisheries management
provides a “better way” to manage red snapper because it would allow them to
harvest more fish than the current science-based federal rules permit.
Whether we’re talking about red cedar or red snapper, state
management is only “better” because it allows more such resources to be
harvested now. It is worse if we look to
the future.
Yet, if we take the long view, it’s only the future that matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment