We’ve all heard of “Freudian slips,” words
used in inappropriate contexts that are said to accidentally reveal thoughts
that the speaker preferred to keep hidden.
There’s
been a lot of debate about whether Freudian slips are truly “Freudian” at all,
or whether they’re just a product of sloppy thinking or a tired mind. However, whether or not actual Freudian slips
occur, there
are certain actions—not just limited to accidentally inappropriate words, but
to other acts as well—that are called “parapraxis” and can be
explained as
“the manifestation of a subconscious desire, for example
oversleeping on the day of a test, sending an email to the wrong recipient, a
slip of the tongue…For psychologists, it is the expression of a repressed
desire that resurges through behavior.
Parapraxis then reflects an inner conflict as it expresses an
unconscious desire that is impossible to express consciously, but which makes
itself known to the individual.”
I couldn’t help thinking about such things this week, as I
watched a series of videos produced by supporters of legislation such as S. 1520,
the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act, which its supporters
refer to as the “Modern Fish Act,” and H.R. 200,
the regressive Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in
Fisheries Management Act, which represents the only viable Modern Fish Act
legislation in the House (H.R. 2023,
the original House Modern Fish Act bill, has never been marked up, and so
has apparently died in committee).
Before discussing the videos, a bit of background is
probably in order.
The
so-called Modern Fish Act would weaken the conservation and stock rebuilding
provisions found in current federal fishery law, allowing anglers to avoid
annual catch limits and any accountability for overfishing, while delaying
the rebuilding of some overfished stocks.
Despite that, Modern Fish Act proponents consistently try to
portray themselves as conservationists, claiming that their proposed
legislation would maintain the health of America’s fish stocks. In their pamphlet, “A
Vision for Managing America’s Salt Water Recreational Fisheries,” which
kicked off the effort to weaken America’s fisheries law, Modern Fish Act supporters
used the term “conservation” no less than 26 times over just 14 pages, while at
the same time urging policymakers to abolish recreational catch limits and
delay the rebuilding of overfished stocks.
More than four years after that document was released, they
are still actively trying to convince Congress and the public that the Modern
Fish Act will
that
and that
That’s clearly the message that Modern Fish Act supporters
consciously want to convey.
But if we watch the videos, a very different message is
subconsciously creeping out, and it’s one that contradicts the intended story.
The true story—rather than the one that they intend to
tell—best begins with a
video created by the Center for Sportfishing Policy, which features Kellie
Ralston, a spokesperson for the American Sportfishing Association, a fishing
tackle trade organization, urging support for the Modern Fish Act.
Ms. Ralston opens the piece with a criticism of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which governs all fishing in
federal waters.
“Currently, federal fisheries are managed using commercial
fishing concepts like “maximum sustainable yield” and tonnage-based “annual
catch limits.”
As she speaks, the background video shows commercial
fishermen on a trawler, wearing hardhats and facemasks, hauling in a net. The scene then shifts to an aerial view of the
deck on a large commercial vessel, where thousands of small, silvery fish—perhaps
some sort of herring—are pouring down a chute to be iced down and stored in the
hold.
The message is pretty clear:
Commercial fishing is an industrial operation that kills lots of
fish. That’s why annual catch
limits—allegedly designed for the commercial fishery—must be “tonnage-based.”
Then the scene shifts.
Two recreational fishermen are in a small boat, casting lures in a
southern backwater. There are close-up
shots of the anglers’ faces, of casting, of people silhouetted against a
reddish sky. When the one
fish shown in this sequence, it is quickly released as the successful angler
receives his companion’s congratulations.
While that is going on, Ms. Ralston says,
“Given the nature of recreational fishing, which is based
more on the experience than maximizing harvest, this type of
[commercially-oriented] is generally not feasible or appropriate.”
That message is pretty clear, too: Recreational fishermen just want to have fun,
and are happy even if they take nothing home, so why manage them with maximum
sustainable yield or tonnage-based limits? There is no reason for such terms to apply.
So far, all is going according to plan. She is consciously sending the message the
Modern Fish Act proponents want her to send.
But then the dissonance sets in.
“Relying on commercial management modes to regulate
recreational anglers has resulted in shortened or even cancelled seasons, reduced
bag limits, and unnecessary restrictions on anglers. [emphasis added]”
Stop. What was that she just
said?
We all heard her say that “recreational fishing…is based
more on the experience than maximizing harvest.” Then we heard her complain that the current
management system was wrong because it led to “reduced bag limits” and what she
considered “unnecessary restrictions on anglers.”
But if recreational fishermen are primarily concerned with
the experience, and not a big kill, why should reduced bag limits be a
problem? Could it be that the “more on
the experience” talk is all smoke and mirrors, and that Modern Fish Act
proponents are really just trying to put more dead fish in their coolers,
weakening the law to keep bag limits high?
Keep asking that question as we look at the next video.
Ms. Vasilaros says,
“Today’s system of fisheries management is outdated, and
hampering access for our nation’s recreational anglers. People won’t purchase boats and equipment
if they see no reason to get out on the water…
[emphasis added]”
Again, hearken back to Ms. Ralston’s words in the first
video. She said that
concepts such as maximum sustainable yield and annual catch limits weren’t
appropriate means to regulate recreational fishermen, and said that anglers
weren’t intent on maximizing harvest (even though reduced bag limits were,
somehow, bad).
Yet what is it about
today’s federal fishery law that is “hampering access”?
It’s those very same “tonnage-based ‘annual catch limits’”
that Ms. Ralston deemed inappropriate, that Magnuson-Stevens requires be set
“at a level such that overfishing does not occur in the
fishery.”
It seems that the Modern Fish Act proponents are intent on doing away with annual catch limits in the recreational
fishery, just so anglers can overfish--if that’s what’s necessary to give them a
“reason to get out on the water” and continue to “purchase boats and
equipment.”
If you think that’s an exaggeration, consider
how those folks praised the Secretary of Commerce last summer when he reopened
the private boat recreational red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico.
“a welcome relief for the thousands of tackle shops, marinas,
equipment manufacturers and others who have suffered from decreasing access
to Gulf red snapper in recent years,
[emphasis added]”
“will necessarily mean that the private recreational sector
will substantially exceed its annual catch limit, which was designed to prevent
overfishing the stock.”
So yes, Modern Fish Act supporters have already demonstrated
that they have no problem with recreational overfishing, if it helps “tackle
shops, marinas, equipment manufacturers and others” sell more stuff.
In the end, that’s what increased “access” is
all about.
And with that, we’ll move on to the third video, which will
tie a neat ribbon around it all.
You
can find an link to it on he home page of the American Sportfishing Association’s
website, as well as on ASA’s
Facebook page. The video is a
musical paean to the Modern Fish Act, sung to the tune of Don McLean’s “American
Pie.”
But it’s the lyrics that tell
the story…
“A long, long time ago,
In ’76 a bill was passed—
The Magnuson-Stevens Act.
It helped assure that conservation
Helped restore fish population—
Ensure each species got back on track…
Since then a generation’s gone.
The fish have had their time to spawn.
It’s time for us all to move on,
And let the anglers try…
Oh my, my, Magnuson-Stevens Act,
I caught a fish I’d like to keep
but had to throw it right back.
I hope the good old boys
In Congress work to enact,
What We the People want—
The Modern Fish Act…”
And there we have it, all laid out in their own words.
Despite all of the talk about “conservation,”
the “unconscious desires” of the Modern Fish Act supporters have emerged, naked,
into the sunlight
.
Magnuson-Stevens may have used conservation to “help restore
fish population” and put fish species back on a track toward recovery. But that happened “a long, long time
ago.” By now, “a generation’s gone.” “The fish have had their time to spawn.”
Today, “It’s time for all of us to move on,” and leave those days of conservation behind.
It's time to pass the Modern
Fish Act, and so ensure that the era of marine conservation—the fishes’ time to
spawn—will have ended, and the time for anglers to keep whatever fish they want--and not throw them back--will have begun.
Restrictive bag limits will be a thing of the past, along
with annual catch limits that maintain recreational landings below maximum
sustainable yield. Instead, anglers will
have greater “access,” overfishing at levels which will give them plenty of
reason to get out on the water, and buy lots of new boats and equipment.
Until, of course, the fish disappear.
At that point, someone may have a chance to rewrite Don
McLean’s classic again, this time referring to the enactment of the Modern Fish
Act as
“The day the fishing died…”
Which is reason enough to contact your reps and senators,
and let them know that you’d rather H.R. 200 and S. 1520—the Modern Fish
Act—died instead.
For the fish should always have their time to spawn.
No comments:
Post a Comment