DESPERATION

As the 115^th Congress meets for its last few days in the so-called “lame duck” session, representatives of various special interest groups are flying into a flurry of last-minute activity, trying to get their pet pieces of legislation passed before key legislators must give up their seats, or at least their positions of power on important committees, and the bills have to be introduced anew when the new Congress takes over next year.

The lame duck is a strange time when good bills can become law in the final hours, as happened with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, which led to the conservation-oriented fishery management system that we enjoy today.  It is a time when bad bills, hopefully, will finally die.

And it is a time when strange coalitions can suddenly form, and unlikely agreements are struck, in order to get a few bad bills, bills that are desperately sought by small but politically powerful interest, across the finish line and onto the books, despite their lack of merit.

In the world of fisheries legislation, we're now seeing that sort of last-minute push to get S. 1520, the Senate version of the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act of 2017—the so-called “Modern Fish Act”—passed and signed into law.

The aggressive, well-financed public relations campaign, staged by the recreational fishing and boatbuilding industries, to get S. 1520 passed has largely been a flop.  Despite all of the hype published in magazines and on websites catering to anglers and boaters, despite the op-eds written by industry leaders and the contributions made by industry PACs, Congressional support has been less than enthusiastic.  The bill only made it out of committee after being substantially amended, in a way that removed its worst provisions and added some conservation-friendly language. 

Even so, there is a big industry push to get that watered-down version of S. 1520 passed in the lame duck. 

Scott Deal, a major player in the boatbuilding industry, recently published an opinion piece in The Hill, where he noted that

“saltwater anglers annually support 440,000 American jobs, including thousands of manufacturing and supply jobs in non-coastal states, and pump $63.4 billion into the U.S. economy.”

While his comment seems to suggest that the current law must be doing pretty well, if saltwater angling can generate such economic benefits, Deal went on to complain that

“federal fisheries management problems facing anglers have been snowballing for decades.  Those problems are impediments to participating in sportfishing.  How can we engage the next generation of anglers when the federal rules unnecessarily stand in the way?”

It’s hard to understand exactly what problems have been “snowballing for decades,” given that, just a couple of decades ago, United States fish populations were pretty much on the ropes.  The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, which required federal fishery managers to end overfishing and promptly rebuild overfished stocks, was a direct response to a shortage of fish that was doing substantial harm to both commercial and recreational fishermen.

Since that law was passed, 45 once-overfished stocks of fish have been fully rebuilt; only 15% of U.S. fish stocks remain overfished, which is an all-time low.  Thanks to Magnuson-Stevens, and federal fishery managers, saltwater anglers are enjoying a greater abundance of fish than they have seen in many decades. 

It’s hard to consider that a “problem” or an “impediment” to saltwater fishing.

Unfortunately, the old truism that “the more you have, the more you want” seems to apply to some segments of the angling and boatbuilding communities.  As fish stocks increase in abundance, more fish are caught by anglers, more anglers tend to gravitate toward the healthiest and most easily caught populations, and managers have to respond to the increased pressure by imposing more restrictive regulations, something that anglers don’t always understand, given the fact that there seems to be so many fish around.

Thus, people like Deal write about the need for “improved access for America’s anglers,” but use the term “access” in an unusual way:  Not to describe the need for more fishing piers, launching ramps or public shorelines that allow people to physically get to the fish, but instead as a euphemism for permitting some level of overfishing, and delaying the recovery of overfished stocks, so that anglers can bring more fish back to the dock.

In a similar vein, Deal’s question, “How can we engage the next generation of anglers when the federal rules unnecessarily stand in the way?” is uncomfortably reminiscent of a comment made by New Jersey fishing tackle wholesaler Nick Cicero, who complained that

“The law needs to recognize that in its current form, our tradition cannot be passed onto our children without [Magnuson-Stevens] taking away opportunity from the rest of the fishing community.”

It appears that what both Deal and Cicero are looking for are changes to current law that would base recreational harvest limits, at least in part, on the demands of anglers rather than on the biological needs of the fish populations.

Both Deal and Cicero seem to view the Modern Fish Act as that sort of law.  Cicero made his comments at a 2017 Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation event supporting such legislation, but Deal just recently wrote that

“As Congress works to wrap up its legislative business before the holidays, I hope it will give anglers well-deserved acknowledgement by passing the Modern Fish Act to improve the way America’s fisheries are managed in federal waters.”

What he didn’t say, but undoubtedly knows, is that if the Modern Fish Act can’t make it through the current Congress, which isn’t particularly friendly to any sort of conservation effort, it is going to have a particularly hard time getting anywhere over the next couple of years, after a far more conservation-friendly House of Representatives is seated next January.

Thus, there is a certain desperation in the air, to get the legislation passed this year.

You can hear that desperation in one of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership’s recent blog posts, which claims that the bill would

“benefit fishing access [and yes, that’s the same “more dead fish” sort of access that Deal was referring to]…while placing a higher priority on the needs of anglers.”

That TRCP blog also makes the assertion that                                  

“coastal economies deserve to see us build upon bipartisan support for [the Modern Fish Act], not head back to the drawing board in January.”

While it would always be a mistake to try to separate economic benefits from conservation issues, because good conservation tends, in the long run, to also end up being good business, it is curious—if also refreshingly honest—for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership to couch its argument for the Modern Fish Act in economics, rather than the good of the resource.

But then, short-term economic gains is what the Modern Fish Act is all about.

That’s undoubtedly why its proponents are so desperate to get it passed this year, while economic gains, regardless of their impact on public resources, remains Congress’ top priority.

Because next year, that is all likely to change.

Jeff Angers is the president of the Center for Sportfishing Policy, the industry organization that is coordinating the efforts to get the Modern Fish Act passed before that change can occur.  As he notes in a recent edition of The Fishing Wire,

“The Modern Fish Act has been debated for nearly two years, heard before its respective committees eight times, passed the Senate Commerce Committee and passed the House within a broader Magnuson-Stevens Act reauthorization bill in July.  The recreational fishing community is urging Congress not to leave this progress behind.  We must get the Modern Fish Act across the finish line in the 115^th Congress.”

You can almost hear the desperation as you read those words.  For despite all of the debate and committee hearings, held in a favorable political environment, the Modern Fish Act is not yet law.

Angers, and the rest of the Center’s active members, know that they “must” get their bill passed “in the 115^th Congress,” because once the 116^th takes control that bill, at least in its current form, is undoubtedly toast.

That knowledge explains their desperation.

It also explains why, for the good of our fisheries, S. 1520 should not be passed this year.