One of the most sadly amusing aspects of the current debate
over managing federal fisheries is that the folks who are trying the hardest to wrap
themselves up in the flag of conservation are members of the same coalition of
fishing tackle industry, marine trades, and anglers’ rights
organizations who are trying to weaken the conservation provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
It started in the very beginning of the campaign to weaken
Magnuson-Stevens. A report
titled “A Vision for Managing America’s Recreational Saltwater Fisheries,”
issued by the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, that served as a
manifesto for the industry/anglers’ rights coalition, opens by saying
“America’s sportsmen and women are the backbone of aquatic
resource conservation. For the past
several decades, anglers have played a leading role in helping to rebuild
marine fish stocks and prevent overfishing.
This is a success story of which we should all be proud.”
After thus setting the stage, and invoking the term
“conservation” no less than nineteen times, the report makes its
recommendations—which include freeing recreational fishermen from the strictures
of annual catch limits designed to prevent overfishing, and delaying the
rebuilding of overfished stocks.
It’s the sort of thing that almost makes you wonder whether
the folks who wrote the report’s introductory language had any idea of what its
recommendations were going to be. Or
whether they were merely engaged in a vaudeville
magicians’ game of focusing everyone’s attention on their glamorous assistant—in
this case, the image of the angler/conservationist—so that no one notices
what’s really happening elsewhere on stage…
That report came out about four years ago, and the people
behind it have only doubled down since then.
All of those organizations have gotten behind a piece of
legislation called the Modernizing
Recreational Fisheries Management Act, designated S. 1520 in the Senate and
H.R.
2023 in the House of Representatives, which they usually refer to as the “Modern
Fish Act.” Such bill, as originally
written, would amend Magnuson-Stevens in accord with the recommendation of the “Vision”
report, and so weaken the law’s prohibition on overfishing and its requirement
to promptly rebuild overfished stocks.
“In 2014, the Morris-Deal Commission [which was established
and peopled by Center for Sportfishing Policy members] released ‘A Vision for
Managing America’s Saltwater Recreational Fisheries,” which included six key
policy changes to expand saltwater recreational fishing’s social, economic and
conservation benefits to the nation.
“Many recommendations of the Morris-Deal Commission are
addressed by [S. 1520]. [emphasis added]”
While the Center for Sportfishing Policy, like the “Vision”
report, at least gives lip service to conservation, the quotes of some of its members,
in the same press release, provide a real look at what is motivating support
for the legislation.
Mike Nussman, president and chief executive officer of the
American Sportfishing Association, which represents the fishing tackle
industry, noted that action on the Modern Fish Act
“is evidence that Congress recognizes the economic and social
impact that saltwater recreational fishing has on the nation. There are 11 million saltwater recreational
anglers in the U.S. who have a $63 billion economic impact annually and
generate 440,000 jobs…”
No mention of conservation there; he could have as easily
been talking about strip mining or building beachfront resorts.
And Thom Dammrich, president of the National Marine
Manufacturers Association, hailed the bill because
“For too long, the federal fisheries management system has
limited access for America’s recreational anglers and boaters due to faulty
data and misguided regulations, which in turn has jeopardized the economic
vitality of the recreational boating industry.
On behalf of the estimated 650,000 workers the recreational boating
industry supports, we are eager to continue working with our allies in both
chambers of Congress to get this important legislation to the president’s desk.”
Dammrich’s language isn’t all that different from the
language that coal companies used to attack regulations that prevented them
from dumping mine waste into free-flowing streams, or that the electric
power industry used to attack rules limiting the amount of toxic metals they could
release into the environment as a result of their operations. Conservation is not even mentioned, although
the reference to “misguided regulations” could easily be interpreted as a criticism
of at least some conservation efforts.
To be fair, Patrick Murray, president of the Coastal
Conservation Association, the largest anglers’ rights group supporting the
bill, did say that S. 1520 would
“advance a common-sense policy that remains true to our
conservation goals.”
However, Murray also noted that such bill would do so
“while promoting access to our nation’s healthy natural
resources.”
Given that the only thing now preventing such “access” to
fishery resources are the annual catch limits that help to prevent overfishing
and the restrictions needed to restore overfished stocks—provisions that both
the “Vision” report and the Modern Fish Act would weaken or remove from the law—talking
about “conservation” out of one side of one’s mouth while praising the
weakening of conservation measures out of the other seems like a strange
thing for the president of any organization with “conservation” in its name to
do.
What’s even stranger is that a purported supporter of
conservation would support H.R. 200,
the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries
Management Act, a much more comprehensive Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization
bill that not only incorporates many Modern Fish Act provisions, but would also
do far more violence to core conservation provisions of federal law that
have helped to completely restore 44 once-overfished stocks since the year
2000, and have ended overfishing in many others.
H.R.
200 is so bad that mainstream conservation organizations have called it “another
‘Empty Oceans Act,’” yet not
only Murray’s Coastal Conservation Association, but the entire Center for Sportfishing
Policy cabal, is staunchly behind the bill.
“We know who’s benefitting from cheap product taken by
commercial harvesters—it’s a chef who charges $25 for a fancy meal at a French
Quarter restaurant. The last people on
Earth I would go to for guidance on fisheries management are chefs and fancy
restaurants in New Orleans.”
David Cresson, executive director of the Coastal
Conservation Association’s Louisiana chapter, also chimed in, asserting that
“To claim as some chefs have, that recreational fishermen are
in favor of overfishing is nonsense.”
The Angers’ and Cresson’s response is so vehement that
it’s
hard not to recall the famous line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet,
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks,”
referring to the excessive strength of a one character’s assertions, which were so strong that they cast doubt upon
their veracity.
Fortunately, we have some objective evidence that removes doubt from the question of whether Modern Fish Act supporters support
conservation, and whether recreational fishermen, or at least those such as
Cresson, in the Modern Fish Act camp, support overfishing.
That evidence comes in the form of last year’s reopening of
the private boat red snapper season in the Gulf of Mexico, how folks responded
to the event, and what has since occurred.
I’ve discussed that reopening a number of times, and won’t
go into too much detail again. The key
facts are that the
original, short federal season was intended to prevent overfishing, largely due
to fishing in state waters when the federal season was closed, that the
Secretary reopened the season knowing that it would lead to overfishing the
annual catch limit by as much as 50%, and that such
overfishing was acknowledged in the federal register at the time the reopening
was announced, in a statement that read, in part
“this approach will necessarily mean that the private
recreational sector will substantially exceed its annual catch limit, which was
designed to prevent overfishing the stock.”
Thus, anyone involved in the issue, including the Coastal
Conservation Association, the Center for Sportfishing Policy or any of the
other affiliated recreational groups, couldn’t help but know that the reopening
would lead to overfishing.
That makes it easy to test the truth of Cresson’s contention
that recreational fishermen don’t support overfishing. You just have to ask whether they supported
the red snapper reopening.
It turns out that they did.
“Anglers commend the Trump Administration and Members of
Congress for hearing our calls for more access to federal waters—and for taking
action,”
“action to extend the Gulf of Mexico red snapper season is a
welcome boon to anglers…”
Not a single organization supporting the Modern Fish Act
stepped up to the microphone to say “overfishing red snapper is wrong.”
Things got even more interesting after the Ocean Conservancyand the Environmental Defense Fund sued the Department of Commerce, arguingthat the reopening, and resultant overfishing, was illegal as a matter of law.
Not only did the various angling
groups fail to intervene in the lawsuit as plaintiffs—which would have been a
reasonable thing for them to do if they didn’t support overfishing, particularly
in the case of those groups who claim to advocate for conservation—but some publicly
condemned the lawsuit.
“We figured they would sue when this first happened because
it’s what they do. Basically, any time
there’s something positive for anglers, anti-angling groups like these step up
and file lawsuits.
“By all accounts, the extended season has been extremely
positive for anglers and businesses across the coast. But it’s just not a surprise at all that these
groups would file suit to keep us off the water. They don’t like anglers, and they’d rather us
[sic] never fish—and they’ll do
whatever they need to do to lead to that end.”
Thus, the same person who later said that it was “nonsense”
to claim that recreational anglers are in favor of overfishing not only defended
recreational fishermen overfishing red snapper, but believed that such
overfishing was “positive for anglers.”
Which makes it easy for everyone else to believe that claims
that at least some recreational anglers—apparently including Cresson—support overfishing
aren’t “nonsense” at all.
“We do not know if the Gulf states are going to exceed their
historical catch, and the plaintiffs do not know that either. The states have the tools to collect better
data than the federal government, and they have a proven track record of
providing reasonable public access to healthy fish stocks.”
In this case, what Angers seems to have deemed “reasonable” public access led to an unreasonably high recreational harvest.
The Department of Commerce estimated that anglers would
exceed their annual catch limit by thirty to fifty percent. It turns out that the agency vastly underestimated
anglers’ ability to overfish once they set their minds to that task.
David Cresson says that it’s “nonsense” to say that anglers
support overfishing.
“As anglers, we would never support a bill that would lead to
widespread overfishing and fewer fish
to catch…
“As the original fisheries conservationists, anglers demand
that our fisheries be managed sustainably.”
It’s pretty hard to defend overfishing a stock by 212%; that’s
certainly not sustainable management.
Yet neither Cresson nor Horton have, to my knowledge, pointed that out.
As far as I can tell, neither one publicly expressed
any outrage. Neither one demanded that that
NMFS adopt measures to prevent such an extreme overharvest from occurring again.
The rest of the Modern Fish Act's supporters have been equally
silent.
And that’s curious, if they’re really “the original
fisheries conservationists,” and not in favor of anglers overfishing fish
stocks.
Because conservationists don’t tolerate overfishing.
Conservationists don’t overfish.
Only regular, everyday fish hogs do that.
If Magnusson is trashed to allow more flexibility and dampen the impacts of ACL's, resource first management will take a very big hit. I believe that support of the Modern Fish Act will do little to rebuild stocks and at best keep stocks hovering at current levels. That "shifting baseline", and as important, modern anglers woeful lack of understanding of existing fish stock levels and historical declines, can only be understood by those who have been around a while.
ReplyDeleteI have seen how flexibility in management, which always results in compromise at the expense of the resource, has slowly but surely eroded away at so many populations of fish. It’s the slowly but surely part that has allowed fishermen from all sectors to remove too many fish. It’s the slowly but surely part that allows excessive harvest to go largely unnoticed or addressed until reaching unsustainable conditions. And by then it becomes very hard to clearly see how things got so bad and harder yet to gain control much less rebuild.
I always thought that the first quotas (todays ACLs) were a sign of failed fishery management. When managers failed to otherwise do what was
necessary to protect fish populations (regulations on size, season, and bag limits). I still believe this, which speaks to how well I believe todays managers are doing in maintaining sustainable fisheries resources.
When ACL’s were first established I was worried about the sometimes great variability in the estimates of recreational catch and how it would dealt with but more importantly if it would be used as a weapon to criticize or ignore an ACL. For those peddling these concerns they need to understand that the reason the variability associated with recreational estimates of catch are so high for some species has to do with the frequency these species are observed in surveys to monitor and provide recreational catch estimates (MRIP, other). The species observed the least will always have the poorest (not really a good way to describe) or most variable (better way to describe) estimates of catch. In most cases it is these same species that are in the most trouble, as evidenced by rare observations that need aggressive management.
NOTE: There are some species that are rarely seen dockside (billfish, tunas, sharks, etc.). Random surveys don’t work for these species. But we don’t need flexibility in ACLs for these fish rather different methods of monitoring catch that don’t rely on intercepts to create reliable estimates. We need a national “Big Fish” survey where all landed must be reported. It has been working with great success for big terrestrial game all over the nation for years. And by the way, it works in some states rare event fish with very, very little support.
The “Modern Fish Act” needs to be renamed the “More For Me Act”, after all, folks aren’t trying to further restrict catches rather loosen the requirements and increase access. It would be different if they were seeking more restrictions but that’s just not the case.
I worked for a fisheries management agency for 40 years. I watched stock after stock “slowly but surely” slip away through resource compromising fishery management strategies. Bottomline, ACL’s WORK!
I can't disagree with anything you wrote.
DeleteAs far as the big fish go, NMFS HMS survey isn't too bad, as it's based on HMS permits and reaches the folks who are fishing. W; e've got mandatory reporting on bluefin tuna but it doesn't work very well; only about 20% of anglers are following the rules from what the folks at NMFS say, the rest just ignore the requirement. It needs to be updated to a requirement that anglers call in BEFORE landing the fish; that way, an enforcement agent can check for compliance as soon as the boat touches the dock. Allowing reporting after landing just makes it easy for anglers to do nothing.