The long fight over the so-called “Modern Fish Act” is over;
on Wednesday, December 19, the House followed the Senate’s lead and, by
unanimous consent, passed an effectively toothless piece of legislation that
will have no meaningful impact on U.S. fisheries, and was a very, very
different bill from what was first introduced in Congress more than a year and
a half ago.
Thanks to the efforts of conservation-minded fishermen and
the broader conservation community, a bill that would have substantially
weakened the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and
threatened the health of U.S. fish stocks, was whittled down into something
that might best be described as a “participation trophy” given to those who
tried very hard, but ultimately failed, to significantly damage the federal
fishery management process.
Of course, that’s not what the folks who have long supported
the Modern Fish Act are saying. A
release issued by the Center for Sportfishing Policy, the group that
coordinated efforts to pass the bill, gushes with praise for the bill’s
passage.
It quotes Johnny Morris, founder of Bass Pro Shops, as saying
“The Modern Fish Act is the most significant update to
America’s saltwater fisheries regulations in more than 40 years…”
The fact that it’s a change to the law, and won’t have any
immediate impact on regulations, seems to have escaped him.
Jeff Angers, the president of the Center for Sportfishing
Policy, called the bill’s passage
“a historic day for America’s 11 million saltwater anglers,”
although that’s not really saying too much, as the evening
when Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth both met, for a critical moment, in
Ford’s Theater was a “historic day,” too.
But the passage of the Modern Fish Act will have far less dire results
for America’s fish stocks than the shot fromBooth’s derringer had for the nation.
In the end, the whole thing ended not with a bang, but with a whimper.
Saying that, let’s take a look at what really happened.
The
original Modern Fish Act, H.R. 2023, was introduced in the House of
Representatives on April 6, 2017. It would
have serious weakened some of Magnuson-Stevens’ most important provisions, limited
the actions of regional fishery management councils, and compromised the
integrity of federal fisheries data.
Such bill would have relieved fishery managers of the need
to adopt annual catch limits for many recreational fisheries, and thus made
them far more vulnerable to overfishing.
The list of fisheries that would have been exempt from annual catch
limits included those that had not been subject to a stock assessment within
five years, leading to an untenable situation in which data-deficient stocks,
which are the stocks most in need of precautionary management, would have lost
their best safeguard against overfishing.
H.R. 2023 would also have abolished the annual catch limit requirement
for all recreational fisheries where overfishing is not occurring, even if such
fisheries were very badly overfished, and at extremely low levels of abundance.
In addition, H.R. 2023 would have allowed annual catch
limits to be set for “stock complexes.”
While that might seem to make sense on the surface, particularly in the
case of southern reef fish, where thirty or more species might be included in a
single fishery management plan, it ignores the fact that some components of a
stock complex will inevitably be healthier than others, and that not all are
subject to the same fishing pressure.
Along with eroding the annual catch limit requirement, H.R.
2023 would have also eroded regional fishery management councils’ ability to
adopt innovative and effective fishery management measures. It would have placed a moratorium on
commercial catch share programs for any species that also supports a
recreational fishery, despite the fact that imposing such programs have often
proven to be the only reliable way to end commercial overharvest. It would also have made it very difficult to
issue exempted fishing permits, which allow managers to try out new ideas and
approaches on a small scale, before adopting them for the entire fishery. Ironically, many of the same people
and organizations who supported H.R. 2023 later resorted to exempted fishing
permits to address long-standing issues in the Gulf of Mexico red snapper
fishery, and so illustrated a real flaw in the bill.
Finally, H.R. 2023’s language threatened to degrade the
quality of the science used to conduct stock assessments and make other
fisheries studies, by seeking to include information collected or otherwise
provided by untrained fishermen, among others, into what should be data-driven
scientific reports. At the same time,
the bill would have diverted the energies of fishery managers at the South
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico fishery management councils from their primary duty
of managing and conserving fish stocks, and forced them to revisit the
commercial and recreational allocations of all managed species every five
years, whether or not conditions had changed and whether or not there was any
data supporting the need for reallocation.
In the end, H.R. 2023 never made it out of committee as a
stand-alone bill. Instead, its
provisions were incorporated into a much broader Magnuson-Stevens
reauthorization bill, H.R.
200, formally titled the “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing
Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act.”
H.R. 200 would have done even more harm to the conservation provisions
of Magnuon-Stevens than H.R. 2023, causing
some in the environmental community to label it the “Empty Oceans Act;”
even so, Modern
Fish Act proponents claimed H.R. 200 as their own, and proclaimed a victory
when the House passed it in July 2018.
H.R. 200 had virtually no chance of being passed in the
Senate, where the Modern Fish Act took the form of S. 1520. While S. 1520 took a somewhat less radical
approach to annual catch limits, it included far more language restricting the
use of catch shares. Over all, H.R. 2023
and S. 1520 were substantially similar in intent and effect.
As there was no broader Magnuson-Stevens reauthorization
bill introduced in the Senate, S. 1520 was reported out of committee as a
stand-alone bill. However, thanks to the
efforts of conservation-minded fishermen and the greater conservation
community, the bill that emerged from committee after a February 2018 mark-up
was very different from the bill that was originally introduced.
Much of the most objectionable language was gone. The new version even included a conservation
measure that would have required new fishery management plans, which were
adopted after the original management plan failed to rebuild the stock, to have
at least a 75% chance of achieving that goal, a substantial improvement over
the current, 50%-chance-of-success requirement.
However, the marked-up bill still included the severe restrictions on
the use of catch share programs, and still required repeated periodic reviews
of allocations at the South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico councils.
Because of that, it was given little chance
of gaining the 60 votes needed to assure passage in the Senate.
S. 1520’s original sponsor, Sen. Roger Wicker
(R-Mississippi) was nonetheless determined to see the bill passed before the
115th Congress ended. Since
the only way he could do that so late in the year was to see the bill passed by
unanimous consent in both the Senate and the House, he stripped out every piece
of language that any member of Congress, in either chamber, might object
to. The result was a milquetoast bill
that was passed by the Senate on December 17, and by the House two days later.
So what was in the bill that is finally making it’s way to
the President’s desk, the bill that has been called “the most significant
update to America’s saltwater fisheries regulations in more than 40 years,” and
made December 19, when it passed in the House, “a historical day for America’s
11 million saltwater anglers”?
First of all, and most important, it makes no changes to the
core conservation provisions of Magnuson-Stevens. Instead, not once but twice, in two different
parts of the bill, S. 1520 reaffirms that such provisions, which prohibit
overfishing, require annual catch limits, and hold fishermen accountable when
overfishing occurs, retain their full force and effect.
That, in itself, is a major win for conservation advocates.
It does call for two studies. One would take a look at how fish are
allocated between the commercial and recreational sectors, and hopefully
suggest criteria that could be used when making such allocations. Of course, such criteria are already out
there, as NMFS
has already developed an allocation policy that includes guidelines on when and
why reallocation should be considered, but the final version of the Modern
Fish Act makes the new study specific to only the South Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico fishery management councils—in other words, to red snapper country—so the
big recreational spokesmen now have something to take back to their members,
who have long been trying to change red snapper allocations.
The other study would look at the impacts of catch shares on
stakeholders in mixed-use fisheries.
That’s long been a hot-button item for recreational red snapper
fishermen down in the Gulf of Mexico, who repeatedly complain that the
catch share program that has prevented commercial overfishing of red snapper in
the Gulf of Mexico ever since it was introduced in 2007 is somehow an
infringement on their ability to access the fish (even though such anglers have
chronically overfished the red snapper resource). Thus, such study represents just another
small bone that Congress tossed to red snapper anglers when they passed the
bill.
Once we get away from the studies, the Modern Fish Act, as
passed, does give federal fishery managers the right to use management measures
such as fishing mortality rates and control rules to manage recreational
fisheries, so long as no overfishing takes place. Of course, federal fishery managers could
already do that; the
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council has been working on using fishing
mortality rates to manage the recreational black sea bass fishery for a while. But keeping this piece in the final bill does
give the impression, even if it’s a false one, that the Modern Fish Act did
something substantial, and I the end, that’s what participation trophies are
all about.
About the only thing that S. 1520 might have substantively
accomplished is to encourage the use of data from nongovernmental sources—such as
The
Center for Sportfish Science and Conservation that some of the anglers at the
heart of the red snapper fight initially funded down in the Gulf—in stock
assessments, and to force the Department of Commerce to take a look at whether
current recreational landings data is appropriate for in-season management of
fisheries. And again, the Gulf red
snapper fishery is one of the few—maybe the only—federal recreational fishery
that’s managed on an in-season basis.
So the impact of the new law is pretty clear. It grants a few very minor boons to the
recreational red snapper fishermen, and gives the rest of America’s 11 million saltwater
anglers, well, nothing at all.
Perhaps the best indication of how ineffective the bill
really is can be seen in the reaction of the environmental
and commercial
fishing communities, who actively opposed the Modern Fish Act as it was
originally introduced, but give the bill that passed a big yawn—and even faint
praise.
Thus, while S 1520’s supporters are now trying to convince
everyone, including themselves, that they have won an important victory, by any
objective standard, they suffered a significant loss. For the S. 1520 that will now become law
makes no substantive changes to Magnuson-Stevens.
That is a clear win for conservation-minded fishermen and
for the conservation community as a whole.
Next year, there will be a new Congress and a new battle, as
a full reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens moves forward. It will probably feature a difficult and
sometimes bitter debate. But with enough
work, that fight, too, can turn out well.
I'm an avid reader of your blog and although I suspect my political leanings lie substantially to the left of the community you speak to, I am heartened by what went down here - ultimately, confirming that big government is important for the majority of the people, that scientifically-trained experts are important as a counterweight to anecdote and feelings (though the latter is important for cultural politics and also has its own kind of expert knowledge, especially by lifelong practitioners), and of course that conservation and consideration of the one earth we have is of utmost important to everyone involved.
ReplyDeleteI thank you, too, for laying this out so clearly and introducing acronyms and bills that the ignorant layperson (eg, me) might not understand without context. Have a fantastic last week of December and New Year and I continue to read your blog with delight.