Thanks to events that have unfolded in Louisiana over the
past couple of weeks, the wheels may be coming off the much-ballyhooed effort
to turn red snapper management over to the states that border the Gulf of
Mexico.
I’ve written about the effort to strip federal fisheries
managers of their authority to manage red snapper on a number of
occasions. Each time, I’ve made an
effort to poke a few more holes in the popular narrative that state officials
can manage red snapper better than the feds.
Whether or not I succeeded in doing so is something for you to decide.
However, whether or not my words were convincing, nothing I
can say could ever equal the words coming out of the mouths of the managers
themselves, or more precisely, out of the mouth of Charlie Melancon,
Louisiana’s top fisheries manager.
I
wrote about Mr. Melancon not too long ago, after he expressed his
opposition to H.R. 3094,
Rep. Garret Graves’ (R-Louisiana) so-called Gulf States Red Snapper Management
Authority Act, which is intended to give the states exclusive jurisdiction
over all red snapper swimming in the U.S. waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
Angling
industry groups, along with the biggest names in the anglers’ rights community,
unhappy with the strict regulations imposed by the science-based federal
management system, have made H.R. 3094 a cause célèbre, and a key part of their
national legislative strategy.
The five Gulf states, in adopting regulations that apply
only in those states’ waters, have already shown a willingness to impose rules
far less restrictive than those imposed by the feds. The militant angling groups expect that, if
H.R. 3094 became law, similar rules would apply in federal waters, too, giving
recreational fishermen a much longer season and a far larger kill.
However, as I noted in the earlier essay, Mr. Melancon
opposes the bill, for the simple reason that the State of Louisiana lacks the
money to pay for the work needed to manage red snapper in anything like a
competent manner.
“At this point, with the state of Louisiana using money from
anglers to pay for a data-collection system in LA Creel that is beginning to be
viewed universally as better than what the federal government is offering, the
optics of the state not being supportive of state fisheries management are
pretty bad.”
“When fishermen in Louisiana asked for the license-fee increase,
they did so with the expectation that a portion of that would go toward
managing red snapper. The department has
been doing a great job of collecting data with that new money, and now all of a
sudden, it can’t? It makes me wonder.”
Well, David Cresson (along with Chirs Macaluso and everyone
else who challenged Mr. Melancon’s statements on the cost of red snapper
management) can now stop wondering, because Patrick Banks,
Assistant Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries’
Office of Fisheries, has laid it out in terms that they can hopefully
understand—at least if they want to.
“LA Creel collects fisheries-dependent data. What fish are caught, what types of fish are
caught—stuff like that.”
But as the Louisiana
Sportsman reporter interviewing Mr. Banks pointed out
“LA Creel doesn’t capture any commercial landings,
fisheries-independent data (think scientific sampling) or enforcement between
state waters and the boundary of federal waters at 200 nautical miles.”
Mr. Banks added that
“We would have to replace all of that offshore sampling
(currently done as part of the federal management program) and enhance that
sampling so we could have a complete Louisiana stock assessment.”
That’s the plain fiscal reality. But if you think that the lack of adequate
funding is the biggest problem with state management of red snapper, or any
other species, you’re wrong.
The biggest problem is politics.
David Cresson was probably surprised by Mr. Melancon’s
revelation because he thought that the state-management advocates already had
Louisiana’s support in the bag. As reported by Louisiana Sportsman,
“For years under then-Gov. Bobby Jindal, the [Louisiana Fish
and Wildlife] department and Coastal Conservation Association Louisiana worked
together to try to strip Gulf red snapper management from the feds because of
brief federal seasons and two-fish daily limits.
“…Graves, a Republican, said the bill was amended this month
and federal funding was removed because then-LDFW Secretary Robert Barham and
other state wildlife department leaders addressed the [House] Natural Resources
Committee last October in Washington, D.C., and they said they didn’t need
federal money for the regional management program.”
However, Robert Barham and those other leaders worked for
Republican Governor Jindal, who has since been replaced by John Bel Edwards, a
Democrat. And that’s when people started
wondering just how Louisiana was going to pay for Rep. Graves’ bill. According to the
current LDFW Assistant Secretary, Mr. Banks,
“I’ve done my best to find what kind of proof (former LDWF
Secretary Robert) Barham and Randy (Pausina, the former head of LDFW’s
fisheries division) had to go to Congress and make those statements.
“There was no cost estimate done.”
Apparently, there was just a Republican Governor sending a
few staffers to testify in favor of a Republican Congressman’s bill, at the
urging of a few of his constituents.
And then Rep. Graves had
the cojones to complain that Mr. Melancon’s statement was
“Political crap,” and question where his numbers came from…
Now, things are threatening to come full circle. The Louisiana
Wildlife and Fisheries Commission, a policy-making body separate from the
Louisiana Department of Fish and Wildlife, will
be examining the costs of state management of red snapper at its next meeting.
That Commission is made up of seven members, three of which
must come from a coastal parish (county) and represent the commercial fishing
or fur industries; the other four must merely be Louisiana citizens who do not represent such industries. It just so happens that at least two of the
seven Commission members are also members of Coastal Conservation Association
Louisiana, which makes it very likely that politics will raise its hoary head
once again.
And that, in the end, is why state management of red
snapper, or any other fish, will never be as effective as federal management of
the same species.
Federal managers must comply with the provisions of the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. They must promptly end overfishing. They must rebuild overfished stocks within a
pre-established time. And all of their
management measures must be based on the best available science.
But state mangers must do none of those things.
Instead, as the Louisiana red snapper saga illustrates so
very well, state management efforts are, more often than not, politically
driven, and just a few individuals, or representatives of just a few organizations, can have a
disproportionate impact on how a fish belonging to every citizen of the state
is managed.
And when an administration changes, fisheries policy can
often change as well.
That’s not the way to manage anything, much less a public
resource. Management must be consistent
over the long haul, and guarantee abundance well into the future.
And when it comes to that sort of management, the states
just can’t do the job half as well as the feds.
No comments:
Post a Comment