Just in case the stories on every news outlet, the
robo-calls and the countless pieces of glossy junk mail haven’t tipped you off
already, I’ll note that there is an election on Tuesday, when a host of local,
state and federal officeholders will be seeking your help to keep or begin jobs
in government service.
Naturally, as in any competition, there will be winners and
losers. Those titles don’t just apply to
the candidates themselves, but to various constituent groups who will be
impacted by each race’s outcome, and also to our public lands, waters and
living natural resources which, depending on how things work out, will end up
being either beneficiaries or victims of the electoral process.
There is little doubt that fish and other marine resources are
seriously impacted by election results.
The 2016 election, for example, opened the
door to a new Secretary of Commerce who, for the first time since the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries
Cooperative Management Act was passed in 1993, overrode
an Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s finding of state noncompliance,
and allowed the State of New Jersey to adopt summer flounder regulations that,
in the unanimous view of the other affected states and their fisheries scientists,
did not adequately restrain recreational harvest.
The same Secretary of Commerce decided to reopen
the 2017 private-boat recreational red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, even
though he knew that such action would “necessarily” result in overfishing, based
on a belief that the action would
“benefit the long term recovery of the red snapper stock
while maximizing the economic benefits from recreational fishing in the Gulf
region.”
The
Secretary of Commerce was willing to take such action even though, as Commerce
Department emails reveal, he knew it was illegal, because he thought that
provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act would prevent any court from ruling
on the action until the extended season was nearly over. While, as a practical matter, that was true with
respect to the 2017 season, the
action still led to litigation, and a negotiated settlement in which the
Commerce Department agreed not to take such illegal action with respect to the
red snapper fishery again.
That's the kind of settlement that government agencies make when they know that their only alternative is to lose the case outright.
On the other side of the country, in
Bristol Bay, Alaska, the world’s largest native salmon run is threatened
because Scott
Pruitt, the now-disgraced former Adminsitrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, held a perfunctory meeting
with the chief executive officer of a mining company, at which he agreed to
reverse the previous administration’s decision to block the so-called “Pebble Mine,” which threatens to
permanently degrade the greater Bristol Bay ecosystem, including the rivers in
which such salmon spawn.
Should that mine be built, one of the world's last, great runs of anadromous fish will probably fall victim to a polluted slurry of mine tailings and chemically-fouled water.
And in Washington, D.C., President Trump, whose presidency
is unquestionably the biggest consequence of the 2016 election, issued an
Executive Order that effectively recast the National Ocean Policy from one the
emphasized interjurisdictional cooperation, conservation and the long-term
stewardship of marine resources to one that subordinates those concepts to expedite
fossil fuels extraction and other vecles of short-term economic gain.
Such a shift can only bode ill for fish stocks.
But it’s not only decisions at the top of the ballot that
impact fish stocks. Lower races can also
have a real effect on fisheries policy.
Here in New York,
the 2016 reelection of Congressman Lee Zeldin (R) allowed him to continue his
ongoing assault on the striped bass stock.
As a result, there is the very real possibility that, for the first time
since 1990, striped bass fishing may be allowed not only in the so-called Block
Island Transit Zone, which includes the federal waters between Block Island
and the mainland, but in all federal waters. The
result of such opening could only be a substantial increase in striped bass
mortality, at a time when the striped bass population is already in
questionable health.
Taking a broader view, the current makeup of the House of
Representatives resulted in passage of
H.R. 200, the so-called Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility
in Fisheries Management Act, on what was largely a party-line vote. Rep. Zeldin was one of the 222 congressmen
voting for that bill, as was my own congressman, Rep. Peter King (R-New York).
I mention Rep. King’s name not to emphasize his vote on that
particular bill, which was consistent with his record of hostility to
conservation measures (he
has an underwhelming score of 16 out of 100 on the League of Conservation
Voters Scorecard) but to point out an additional bit of absurdity as it
relates to constituent service.
When you send Rep. King an email through his website, with
respect to a particular issue, you’re asked “Would you like a response?” I responded “Yes” when I sent the futile
email asking him to oppose H.R. 200.
But the response I got wasn’t what I expected. Instead of the usual “I’ll take your opinions
into consideration when I vote on this issue” boilerplate, or maybe something a
little more tailored and personal, I got a three-line email with the primary
message
“I receive over a thousand phone calls, letters and e-mails
every day. While I make it a point to
read every contact that comes through my office, I cannot always respond to
each one but I will certainly do my best.”
In other words, “I asked if you wanted a response, and my
response is that you’re not going to get one, but have a nice day.”
That’s the kind of answer you get from someone who is
arrogantly certain that he will be reelected, regardless of how he treats the voting public. A good argument could be
made that folks who provide such answers are folks who have been in office
too long.
There are more than a few of them out there...
And it’s not only federal elections that matter.
It’s
the only fish in the Commonwealth of Virginia that’s managed solely by the
state legislature, and not by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission. That’s important, because Virginia
lands about 80% of all menhaden harvested on the East Coast, and 70% of
Virginia’s catch is attributable to a single company, Omega Protein, which “reduces”
such fish into various industrial products.
When
the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission reduced the amount of menhaden
that could be caught by Omega (or other companies’ so-called “reduction” vessels,
although no other such companies currently exist on the East Coast) in
Chesapeake Bay, Omega was vehemently opposed to such lowered “Bay cap.” Although Virginia’s governor, and so the
Marine Resources Commission, was
amenable to the lowered cap, the legislature, which has received about $400,000
in Omega donations over the past decade, failed to pass a bill authorizing the
cut,
although some legislators did think that it was the right thing to do.
It’s not hard to imagine that changing some of the pro-Omega
voices in the next election might do the menhaden some good.
Unfortunately, Virginia’s legislators aren’t up for election
this year, but those in a number of other states are, and anglers would be
well-advised to hold their state-level representatives accountable for their
actions on fisheries issues.
This year, because the quality of our air and water, the
health of our natural resources and our very ability to access wild places will
be very much affected by the outcome of the 2018 vote, one active
group of sportsmen, the Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (excuse me for
putting in a plug here, but they’re a good and dedicated group of people; I’ve been
a member for a few years, and am extremely happy with what I see) initiated
a “Vote Public Lands & Waters” campaign. As they explain
“With public lands issues taking center stage in numerous
races around the country, the votes of sportsmen and women represent an
increasingly powerful voice. Your vote
is the single most powerful way to make sure your voice is heard—in Washington,
D.C. and state legislatures across the country.
Like you, our members are hungry for information about the values of
those who are seeking our votes. And as
for the candidates themselves? We’re
putting them on notice: We hunt, and we
fish, and we Vote Public Lands and
Waters.”
That’s a good message.
Although I’m speaking here only for myself, and not on
behalf of any organization, I have to observe as I write this that our bays,
oceans and estuaries are public waters, too.
Thus, I suggest that anglers take a good look at the ballot, and
choose candidates likely to keep our public waters, including our public salt
waters, clean, accessible and filled with life.
Because elections have consequences, for you and for our
fisheries, too.
It would be nice if the consequences of the 2018 vote were
good ones.
No comments:
Post a Comment