“He who sups with the Devil should have a
long spoon,”
lest they fall into his grasp.
Yesterday, the various recreational
fishing groups who have been trying for years to change some of the core
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, proved the truth of that adage.
Over the past year or so, we’ve
heard such groups tout a piece of legislation that they call the “Modern Fish
Act,” more formally known as H.R. 2023,
the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017.
“The current federal laws have never properly
addressed the importance of recreational fishing. This has led to shortened or even cancelled
seasons, reduced bag limits, and unnecessary restrictions—none of which is good
news for the recreational fishing industry.
“Fortunately, a solution is on the
horizon. On April 6, 2017, the
Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017, or the ‘Modern Fish
Act’ for short, was introduced in both the House of Representatives and Senate…”
“The Modern Fish Act addresses many of the
recreational fishing community’s priorities including allowing alternative
management measures for recreational fishing, reexamining fisherie, s
allocations, smartly rebuilding fish stocks, establishing exemptions where
annual catch limits don’t fit and improving recreational data collection.”
For those who don’t understand
all of the catchphrases, “alternative management measures” mean alternatives to
the annual catch limits established to prevent overfishing; “smartly”
rebuilding fish stocks means delaying
such rebuilding to allow more fish to be killed each year, to diminish “socioeconomic
impacts.” And “annual catch limits
don’t fit,” among other occasions, when
“fishing mortality [for a stock of fish]
is below the fishing mortality target; and a peer-reviewed stock survey and
stock assessment have not been performed during the preceding 5-year
period, [internal numbering deleted]”
although how one can be sure that
mortality is below target without performing a stock assessment is not
completely clear—particularly because another provision would exempt fisheries
which, in the opinion of the Secretary of Commerce, cannot be adequately
monitored by the Marine Recreational Information Program.
The joint release quotes the
president of the American Sportfishing Association praising the bill, which
“addresses the core issues within federal
saltwater fisheries management that are limiting the public’s ability to enjoy
saltwater recreational fishing.”
It of course goes without saying
that when “issues…are limiting the public’s ability to enjoy saltwater
recreational fishing,” the public might be buying less fishing gear, so it’s easy
to understand why removing such limits are important to ASA.
Jeff Angers, president of the
Center for Sportfishing Policy, an umbrella organization to which all of the entities
on the release, except the Recreational Fishing Alliance, belong, said that
“For decades, the recreational fishing community
has been subjected to antiquated federal policies not designed to manage
recreational fishing. The time is now to
update these policies so families can fully enjoy our nation’s remarkable
marine resources and continue a proud American tradition on the water.”
But just what are the “issues”
and “antiquated federal policies” that are allegedly keeping anglers off the water?
From what the release itself says, not
to mention the text of H.R. 2023, annual catch limits that prevent overfishing,
along with regulations that allow overfished stocks to be promptly rebuilt
appear to be foremost among them.
Despite that, the supporters of the
Modern Fish Act purport to support conservation.
“This new bill will give federal managers
the tools and data they need to both improve access and promote conservation of
our natural marine resources.”
“The role that anglers play as
conservationists and our dedication to having sustainable fisheries in the
future is often misunderstood or even ignored.”
“America’s sportsmen are the original
conservationists, and we fully recognize the importance of keeping healthy,
robust stocks of fish and game.”
And at one time, with respect to
some of the groups issuing the joint press release, that was even true.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act was last
reauthorized in the closing days of 2006.
Back then, there were also two competing visions of what American
saltwater fishery management should look like.
On one hand, there was the bill that was ultimately adopted, sponsored
by the late Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who lent his name to the law. On the other hand was another
bill, H.R. 5018, introduced by Congressman Richard Pombo (R-California).
H.R. 5018 promoted what had come
to be called “flexible” fishery management, which essentially meant management
that was more tolerant of overfishing, less insistent on rebuilding stocks and
generally friendlier to short-term profit than to the long-term health of fish
stocks. For example, it would have
allowed stock rebuilding to be delayed if, among other things,
“The Secretary [of Commerce] determines
that such 10-year rebuilding period should be extended because the cause of the
fishery decline is outside the jurisdiction of the [relevant regional fishery
management] Council or the rebuilding program cannot be effective only by
limiting fishing activities; the Secretary determines that such 10-year
rebuilding period should be extended for one or more diminished components of a
multi-species fishery; or the Secretary makes substantial changes to the
rebuilding targets after the rebuilding plan has been put in place. [internal numbering deleted]”
Back in those days, I sat on the
Coastal Conservation Association’s National Executive Board, and was Vice Chair
of its Government Relations Committee. I
was very proud as I watched CCA’s counsel, in conjunction with Mike Nussman of
the American Sportfishing Association, lead the recreational community’s fight
against the ill-considered “flexibility” provisions of H.R. 5018, and for the strong
conservation and management provisions of Senator Stevens’ bill (although, in
fairness, it should be noted that neither CCA nor ASA supported annual catch
limits for all species, or accountability measures for recreational fisheries).
“The bill does nothing more than delay the
rebuilding of depleted populations…In that way, it is largely fighting last
year’s—or perhaps last decade’s—fight.
For most important recreational species, rebuilding has either been
completed or is well underway, and little is gained by stretching out the last few
years of recovery periods that are already well underway. The exceptions are those complexes of
slow-growing, generally deep-water species which support a mixed commercial/recreational
fishery: New England groundfish,
southern snapper-grouper and Pacific rockfish.
“…The extension of the rebuilding
deadlines in the Flexibility Act are simply designed to drag out recovery in
order to allow the highest level of fishing pressure to continue.”
CCA did criticize requirements
that all overfishing be ended by 2011, what it believed were overly
precautionary provisions of Magnuson-Stevens and a lack of good recreational
data. It also questioned the National
Marine Fisheries Service’s ability to carry out the demands of the law. But its opposition to “flexibility”
legislation, and its commitment to conservation, was very clear.
But after that, things
changed. CCA helped found the Center for
Sportfishing Policy (formerly known as the Center for Coastal Conservation). In doing so, it abandoned
its autonomy and found conformed its legislative positions to
those acceptable to the rest of the Center members, which included various
industry members who were at least as concerned with current income as they
were with conservation.
Early in 2014, CCA and other
Center members collaborated on an
industry-oriented report titled “A Vision for Managing America’s Saltwater
Recreational Fisheries,” which abandoned CCA’s long-held position and
instead embraced “flexibility,” calling for
“Creating reasonable latitude in stock rebuilding
timelines,”
and suggesting that
“Instead of having a fixed deadline for
stocks to be rebuilt…the regional councils and fisheries managers [should] set
lower harvest rates that would allow fish stocks to recover gradually while diminishing
socioeconomic impacts.”
The notion that “flexible” rebuilding
times “are simply designed to drag out rebuilding in order to allow the highest
level of fishing pressure to continue” had officially gone by the wayside,
although the statement was as true in 2014—and is as true today—as it was when
it was made in 2010.
With the commitment to timely
rebuilding abandoned, the Center for Sportfishing Policy, its members and temporarily
affiliated organizations were free to approach federal legislators who were
generally seen as hostile to conservation, in their effort to have the
legislation now known as the Modern Fish Act introduced.
Such effort probably reached its
apex—or its nadir, depending upon one’s point of view—when the
Center for Sportfishing Policy gave its 2016 “Conservationist of the Year Award”
to Congressman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), Chairman of the House Committee on
Natural Resources. Although Rep.
Bishop is probably best known for his efforts to transfer federal lands, which
are critically important to freshwater anglers and hunters, to state and local
governments, who would in turn be free to lease or sell them to private
interests, the Center announced that he earned the award
“for championing policies promoting
healthy fish and wildlife populations and access to America’s land and waters.”
Yesterday, Rep.
Bishop’s committee marked up a number of bills, including H.R. 200,
the so-called Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in
Fisheries Management Act. The Modern
Fish Act was not considered; instead, some provisions of the Modern Fish Act
were included in H.R. 200.
Whether such merging of the bills
was initiated by the Center for Sportfishing Policy, or whether it was a sop
thrown the recreational groups by a Committee intent on passing H.R. 200 is
currently unclear. However, despite the fact
that H.R. 200 contains more egregious exceptions to the stock
rebuilding provision than did H.R. 5018, which was so effectively opposed by the American
Sportfishing Association and Coastal Conservation Association a decade ago, the Center
for Sportfishing Policy is hailing the Committee’s favorable vote on the combined
bill—even though its provisions weaken federal fisheries law so badly that
members of the conservation community are calling it
“The U.S. House Committee on Natural
Resources voted to advance two pieces of legislation (H.R. 200 and H.R. 3588)
today that threaten fish populations and the people who depend on them. Departing from the 40-year tradition of
building consensus around federal fisheries laws, the bills failed to attract
any meaningful bipartisan support and have faced opposition from
conservationists, fishermen, chefs, scientists and other groups.”
It appears that Center for Sportfishing
Policy, its member organizations and affiliates have indeed supped with the Devil.
And it appears that they’ve gone
straight to Hell.
Kudos for your telling the truth.
ReplyDeleteBob Jones
it's great to see someone intelligently explain the flaws in the "Conservation" voices. it's all about the money to them unfortunately. Keep your voice for fish and fishing. Thank you
ReplyDeleteThanks to both of you for your comments.
ReplyDeleteAs they say on The X-Files, "The truth is out there."
But here, too, there's a conspiracy to conceal it...