FISHERIES CONSERVATION: POLITICS, PARTIES AND PEOPLE

Fishery conservation and management is, in the end, a political process.  We might like to think that it’s driven by science, and in the best case it is, but usually that only happens after legislators fed up with failure pass laws that require science-based management actions.  Without such legal mandates, political pressure and short-term economic concerns too often rule the day.

That being the case, I’ll often comment about the effects of elections on the fishery management process.

I last did that after last year’s mid-terms, when a change of control in the House of Representatives seemed to provide hope that the federal fishery management system, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, would escape major damage at the hands of those who care more about boosting their earnings for the next quarter than in boosting fish populations for the next generation of anglers.

When I wrote that piece, I spent a lot of time discussing trends, and not much time discussing parties.  I caught a little bit of flak for that, with one of my readers commenting

“…is there are reason you specifically avoid naming the party that is inherently better and more trustworthy when it comes to fisheries management?

“I’m not a Dem cheerleader by any means…but let’s be more explicit about what happened on election night:  the party that is a substantially and materially better steward of public space and ‘the commons’ won out.  The party that believes in climate change and mitigation thereof (however poorly) won out.  To not name names is understandable given perhaps the audience or medium you write in, but I think it would display some honesty…”

While I understand that reader’s point, I disagree with his approach.

After the 2016 Presidential election, I made some dire prediction based not on party, per se, but on the victor’s declared intent to reduce regulations, coupled with the platform he ran on, that read, in part,

“We are the party of America’s growers, producers, farmers, ranchers, foresters, miners, commercial fishermen, and all those who bring from the earth the crops, minerals, energy and the bounty of our seas that are the lifeblood of our economy…Only a few years ago, a bipartisan consensus in government valued the role of extractive industries and rewarded their enterprise by minimizing its interference with their work.  That has radically changed.  We look in vain within the Democratic Party for leaders who will speak for the people of agriculture, energy and mineral production…  [emphasis added]”

Deregulation, whether it impacts water quality or the activities of fishermen themselves, has never done our fish stocks any good, and it’s probably fair to say that the size and health of fish stocks can be generally predicted by the existence of comprehensive, science-based regulations.

Unfortunately, my 2016 prediction has held up pretty well, with the current administration already making bad decisions with respect to Gulf of Mexico red snapper, New Jersey summer flounder and perhaps, most recently, New England herring stocks.  Not to mention its current plans to allow the exploration and development of gas and oil deposits off the East Coast of the United States, along with the related seismic testing.

Down in the Chesapeake Bay, this administration’s failure to enforce clean water standards throughout the Bay watershed is causing real harm to fish and other marine resources, along with the industries that they support.

Yet, when I write about such problems, I level my criticism at the people who craft the bad policy, and not to the party to which they belong.

That’s because, despite the high level of partisanship existing today, I continue to believe that fishery management is, in the end, a bipartisan issue, and that there are good people in both parties who understand the need for clean water and healthy fish stocks.  I can’t forget that, in the end, there were 15 Republicans who had the integrity to buck their party’s line and vote against H.R. 200 in the last Congress, and 9 Democrats who succumbed to industry blandishments, and supported that awful bill.

I refuse to slam the door in the face any person with the courage to do the right thing, just because they belong to the “wrong” party, or to give anyone a pass for a bad vote just because they happen to belong to a party that, on the whole, often votes the right way.

Getting good fishery conservation measures passed into law is hard enough; we can’t afford to turn anyone away just because of their party affiliation.  We must embrace everyone who is willing and able to advance our cause.

The latest, and one of the most surprising, examples of that truth has recently emerged down in Florida.

Last November, Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican, barely edged out Andrew Gillum, a progressive Democrat, in the race to be Florida’s next governor.  The win caught many by surprise, as most polls had Gillum with a slight lead going into the election. 

For those who clung to traditional party stereotypes, the win seemed to bode ill for conservation-related issues, particularly the water quality crisis that had taken hold of much of the Florida coast.  Agricultural and other waste has long flowed into Lake Okeechobee, and from there into coastal estuaries, triggering toxic algae blooms and major fish kills.  The natural flow of fresh waters from Lake Okeechobee into the Everglades and Florida Bay has been diverted, largely to appease large sugar growers.  And, this year, one of the worst red tides on record devastated much of Florida’s Gulf Coast, killing fish, marine mammals, turtles and just about anything else that swam through the affected waters.

Not only the environment, but people and businesses, suffered badly.

Gillum had been endorsed by the Sierra Club and the Florida Conservation Voters.  He was expected to tackle the water issues head-on if he won.  DeSantis, on the other hand, was looked at askance by conservationists; he admitted philosophical differences with “liberal environmentalists,” and made a number of statements that led people to believe that, if elected, he would continue former Governor Rick Scott’s devastating cuts to Florida’s environmental protection programs.

But that doesn’t seem to be what he’s doing.

On January 10, the Fort Myers News-Press reported that

“A day after his inauguration, Ron DeSantis began a three-stop tour in Southwest Florida, still reeling from crisis-level toxic algae and red tide, to unveil a multifaceted executive order on water policy vastly different from his predecessor’s.  Later that afternoon, the dramatic action continued as he asked the entire board of the South Florida Water Management District to resign.

“Among the highlights of his order:  $2.5 billion for Everglades restoration and water protections—the highest level of restoration funding in the state’s history—a blue-green algae task force, creating a chief science officer position, phasing out septic tanks, putting teeth in environmental crime enforcement and creating an office of resilience and coastal protection to fund and coordinate response to rising sea levels.”

There’s no doubt that, if DeSantis carries through with that effort, Florida’s waters, and the fish that depend upon them, will be far better off than they are today.

If you’re the sort of person who lives their life based on stereotypes, none of that could be possible, because a conservative Republican just would not do such things.

But it seems that DeSantis is doing them.

We don’t know why he’s taking actions that fellow Republican Governor Scott refused to do.  Maybe the stereotypes don’t apply, and he just wants to see Florida’s water quality improve.  Or, perhaps, some of the stereotypes are right, and he’s all about business, but has figured out that in a tourist-dependent state like Florida, business isn’t going to do too well if sunbathers are forced to share a beach with dead sealife, and visiting anglers find more fish floating on the surface of the bay than they find on their hooks.

But in the end, it’s actions, not motivations, that matter.  DeSantis appears to be doing what needs to be done.

Which is why, to successfully manage our living marine resources, we need to focus on people, not party, and then motivate those people—whatever that takes—to do right by our fish, our seas and our future.