Barring an unexpected delay, H.R. 200,
the Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries
Management Act, will come to the floor of the House of Representatives on
Wednesday, where
it will be debated for one hour and then put to a vote.
H.R. 200 is a bad bill.
It will substantially weaken the conservation and management provisions
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, largely by
creating numerous vaguely-worded exceptions to Magnuson-Stevens’ prohibition
against overfishing, its deadlines for rebuilding overfished stocks and its
requirement that annual catch limits be established for nearly all managed
species.
H.R. 200 also weakens one of the provisions of Magnuson-Stevens
that makes the law work: The requirement
that fishery management actions be based on the best available science. It does that not by abolishing the
requirement itself, but by legislatively determining that observations made by
fishermen and other untrained and probably biased observers could be considered
“best available science,” rather than leaving it up to scientists to
determine what is good science and what is not.
There are a lot of other questionable provisions in the bill
that, if it becomes law, will hamper the effectiveness of the federal fishery
management system. A number of those are
the so-called “Modern Fish Act” provisions that were once included in a
separate bill, H.R 2023, and are intended to hamper the commercial fishing
industry, facilitate reallocating commercial quota to anglers in the South
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions and allow anglers to escape their share of
the burden for conserving and rebuilding fish stocks.
Because those provisions are in there, a
coalition of anglers’ rights groups and fishing tackle and marine trades
organizations have now orphaned H.R. 2023, the original House Modern Fish Act, have
given that appellation to H.R. 200, and are going all-out for H.R. 200’s
passage.
The fact that a number of respected
conservation groups have taken a look at H.R. 200’s provisions, and appropriately
nicknamed it the “Empty Oceans Act” as a result, doesn’t seem to have given
the angling/boating industry coalition any pause at all, even though empty
oceans aren’t very pleasant places to fish in, and are hardly conducive to boat
and fishing tackle sales.
The bill that’s going to come up for a vote on Wednesday won’t
be exactly the same as the bill that was originally introduced. The sponsor, Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), will
introduce an amended version that doesn’t make the changes to the fishery
conservation and management any better, but at least deleted language that
would have made the National
Environmental Policy Act, National
Marine Sanctuaries Act, Antiquities Act and Endangered
Species Act inapplicable to fishery management actions taken pursuant to Magnuson-Stevens.
But don't let those changes affect your opinion. H.R. 200 remains a lousy law.
None of the amendments would materially improve the bill, although one offered by Rep. Jared Huffman
(D-California) would require that any fishery management plan, amendment or
regulation intended to rebuild a fish stock that was not successfully rebuilt
under a previous management action have at least a 75% chance of achieving its
goal. While that’s a worthwhile
amendment, it certainly doesn’t make up for all of the bad language in H.R. 200—including
language that would largely make the amendment irrelevant by stretching out
rebuilding times for indeterminably long periods. And as a practical matter, Rep. Huffman’s
amendment is probably unlikely to pass.
Another amendment, offered by Rep. Jim Langevin (D-Rhode Island),
would give Rhode Island a seat on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
something that is arguably needed given the number of Mid-Atlantic fish stocks
that are now following—or being chased by—warmer waters into southern New
England. A third, offered by Rep. William Keating (D-Massachusetts)
would require the National Marine Fisheries Service to adopt final standards
for electronic monitoring of the New England groundfish fleet, which could be a
big positive, but would also set a short, 180-day timeline for getting it done,
and require NMFS to pay for the purchase and installation of the monitoring
gear, neither of which appears very practical.
Beyond those, the rest of
the amendments only make
a bad bill worse.
Striped bass anglers will probably
take particular offense to an amendment offered by Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-New York). Zeldin has already been working
hard to maintain, or perhaps even lower, his League of Conservation Voters lifetime
rating of 10 (his 2017 rating was 9)—and yes, that’s out of 100—by being a
staunch supporter of H.R. 200, a bill that
the League strongly opposes. He’s
now seeking to lower his rating with northeastern striped bass anglers as well,
with an amendment that would allow striped bass fishing in the exclusive
economic zone around Block Island, and thus increase striped bass harvest at a
time when
the bass population is hovering just above the threshold that marks an
overfished stock.
Another amendment, offered by Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Connecticut) would
create a “pilot research trawl survey” employing commercial fishermen in the
New England and Mid-Atlantic regions, which would operate independently from
the NMFS trawl surveys. While boats
participating in such survey would be required to use “a peer-reviewed net
configuration” supplied by NMFS, there is no similar requirement that a peer-reviewed
survey methodology be employed, raising the risk, particularly given the
weakened “best available science” language of H.R. 200, that participating
fishermen would target areas known to hold concentrations of fish, and thus
bias the survey, which would then be used to impeach (or, in the language of
the amendment, “enhance and provide improvements to”) the data collected by
NMFS.
Among other amendments, there is
one that would relieve several south Atlantic states of their obligation to
mitigate damage to aquatic vegetation caused by maintenance dredging of
navigation channels in an inland waterway (Rep.
Lois Frankel, D-Florida), one that would mandate a report that would, among
other things, propose ways that “resource rent” from catch share program
participants in the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions (but, very
noticeably, not in the North Pacific, where the volume of such rents would be
very, very much higher) could be “reclaimed” by the U.S. Treasury (Rep. Garret Graves, R-Louisiana),
and yet another, dramatically titled the “Reef Assassin Act,” that would create
a bounty on lionfish that would be paid in transferrable tags that would allow
a commercial or recreational fishermen to catch red snapper, gag grouper,
greater amberjack or gray triggerfish out of season or in excess of the
prevailing bag limit or annual catch limit (Rep.
Matt Gaetz, R-Florida).
That’s all on the table for
Wednesday.
If you don’t like the idea of H.R.
200 becoming law, I strongly suggest that you contact your House representative
and ask that he or she vote against the bill, and against any specific
amendment that you don’t like.
I’ve never tried to mislead my
readers and I’m not going to begin now:
No matter how much of a fuss we manage to make—and, combined with
everyone else opposing this bill, I hope that we make a big one—the odds are
very high that H.R. 200 will pass in the House.
The
very similar H.R. 1335 passed there three years ago, and that was before all of
the Modern Fish Act hoopla began. Right
now, there are just too many people holding seats in the House that are hostile
to the very concept of conservation; the pro-exploitation H.R. 200 is a perfect reflection
of their philosophy of putting short-term profit on a pedestal, and disregarding
other concerns.
But even if H.R. 200 passes, it’s
important to keep its margin of victory as narrow as possible.
The real fight will be in the Senate,
where currently undecided senators may well make or break the vote on a companion
bill. If H.R. 200 passes by a wide
margin, such senators may
well be convinced to support S. 1520 and send both bills to conference, where
something truly ugly is likely to emerge.
But if enough concerned and thoughtful legislators oppose the bill in
the House, and supporters of fishery conservation make a determined goal-line
stand, it may be possible to push any reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens back
until after the mid-term elections and into the next session of Congress, by
which time some seats may have fallen into more conservation-friendly hands, and a
bill as bad as H.R. 200 won’t be likely to pass again.
So it’s crunch time, right now.
Time to pick up the phone one more
time. Time to let your House
representative know that you think H.R. 200 is bad for fish, bad for fishermen,
and bad for the future.
Because, quite simply, it is.
No comments:
Post a Comment