Back
in the early years of the 20th Century, a New York City man named George
C. Parker earned his living by selling various landmarks—most notably, the
Brooklyn Bridge, but also such structures as Grant’s Tomb, the Museum of Modern
Art and the Stature of Liberty—to gullible buyers, who were often recently-arrived
immigrants eager to take advantage of any opportunities offered by
their new home.
Parker was so convincing that the New York City Police had
to remove several of his customers from the Brooklyn Bridge as they tried to
erect tollbooths that would have limited access to their new “purchase,” and
even today,
more than 100 years after Parker’s first arrest and trial, sayings like “I can
get you a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge” remain a part of American culture.
I can’t help thinking of Parker, and his Brooklyn Bridge con
jobs, every time that I read another article that tries to convince anglers
that S.
1520, the so-called “Modern Fish Act” that was passed in the closing days of
the 115th Congress, is going to have a positive impact on their lives.
As I, and others, have written before, S. 1520,
and its House companion, H.R. 2023, started out as bad legislation that could
have done some real harm to the fishery management process. Thanks to responsible
legislators in the Senate, who were willing to work in a bipartisan fashion to
reshape—some might say, “disembowel”—the original bill into something far more
acceptable, the legislation that was finally signed into law was an effectively
toothless sop to Gulf of Mexico red snapper anglers, who were able to walk
away from the fight claiming a win, although exactly what they won is kind on
hard to explain.
Even so, when H.R. 1520 was initially passed, the press—and particularly
the angling press—was filled with breathless prose praising the event. Jeff
Angers, President of the Center for Sportfishing Policy, which coordinated the
effort to pass the bill, declared that the day the bill passed was
“a historic day for America’s 11 million saltwater anglers.”
“the most significant update to America’s saltwater fisheries
regulations in more than 40 years,”
and thus, in his view, apparently even more important than the
Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996—a bill passed just 23 years ago, and so well
within Morris’ 40-year window—which for the first time prohibited overfishing,
required rebuilding of overfished stocks, and led to the recovery of so many of
the salt water species that anglers enjoy today.
A little bit of hype is understandable after an intense,
nearly two-year legislative effort—which had actually been building since at
least 2013—finally comes to an end. Success,
even a very, very small success, can leave folks a little drunk with exuberance
once the long fight is over.
Of course, exuberant drunks are usually followed by depressing
hangovers, so it’s probably not surprising that soon after all of the
self-congratulatory press releases went out, Modern Fish Act supporters woke up
to the painful realization that now that the bill was passed, there were a lot
of folks who would expect to be seeing results—and soon.
Articles also began to emerge in the
outdoor press that suggested that S. 1520 really wasn’t the legislative victory
that some people claimed. One of the first appeared in New Jersey’s Asbury
Park Press. Titled “Will Modern Fish Act
do anything for N.J. fishermen?” it took a generally sober and balanced
approach to the bill, which observed that
“The Recreational Fishing Alliance was part of what was
mostly a recreational trades’ coalition that supported the act, but its
executive director Jim Donofrio wasn’t entirely satisfied with what the Modern
Fish Act accomplished.
“’It keeps things at status quo, there was no gain, no loss,”
said Donofrio.”
That was probably uncomfortably close to the truth for RFA’s
partners in the Modern Fish Act fight, groups such as the Coastal Conservation
Association, American Sportfishing Association and National Marine
Manufacturers Association.
Thus, a new line of stories began to appear in the media,
aimed at tamping down expectations of what the Modern Fish Act will do.
“The Modern Fish Act isn’t going to overhaul the federal marine
fisheries management system overnight.
It’ll likely take several fishing seasons before the management and data
collection improvements called for in the Act begin to better align fishing
regulations with actual fish abundance and harvest, and with what anglers
really want out of management.”
Of course, what went unsaid in such statement is that after “several
fishing seasons” anglers, and likely most in the angling industry, will have
moved on to other issues, and will have largely forgotten about the Modern
Fish Act, a fact that will leave groups such as ASA with a lot less explaining to do.
“Passage of the Modern Fish Act was viewed as a huge victory
by recreational fishing groups, but the average angler probably won’t see an
instant and dramatic shift in saltwater fishery management.
“’For the average angler, there’s not going to be an immediate
change,” Kellie Ralston, Southeast fisheries policy director for American
Sportfishing Association, told Trade Only Today. ‘This is the first in a long series of steps
to improve fisheries management.’”
And it’s that last statement, “the first in a long series of
steps,” that should have conservation-minded anglers concerned. Because the folks behind the Modern Fish Act
aren’t done with their efforts to undermine key provisions of the federal
fishery management system. They’re
just getting started.
As the 116th Congress gets underway, legislators
in both the House and the Senate will begin thinking about a full
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Modern Fish Act proponents will undoubtedly be trying to slip some of
the bad provisions, which had been carved out of S. 1520, into any
reauthorization bill that emerges.
“is not the end-point, but rather a major step toward
evolving federal marine fisheries management in a way that recognizes the
importance of saltwater recreational fishing to the nation.”
While that sounds benign, the original text of the Modern
Fish Act bills demonstrate that legislation that “recognizes the importance of
saltwater recreational fishing” doesn’t necessarily recognize the importance of
good conservation to the health of fish stocks.
As noted in a recent piece in the Alaska Journal of Commerce,
“The initial design of the bill would have also allowed
recreational fishery managers who lacked survey data to step away from catch
limits, providing more recreational opportunity.
“’The part that we really objected to was a component that
was removed from it,’ [Andy] Mesirow, [a recreational representative on the
North Pacific Fishery Management Council] said.
‘The problem was that there was some provisions in the Modern Fish Act
that if they were applied to the federal fisheries of Alaska, they would create
a lot of chaos…That didn’t really resonate with us…the idea that you would do
less science and give more fish away.’”
But that idea resonated with Modern Fish Act supporters, and
probably still does. And that’s
something to remember when the congressional fisheries debates heat up again.
George C. Parker ended up dying in prison; it’s hard for a
con man to give up on his cons.
But after trying to convince everyone that the Modern Fish Act
was some historic win, the folks who fought to pass that legislation are still on
the street and playing the same old games.
Undoubtedly, when the time seems ripe, they will again try
to sell their argument that the federal management system needs overhaul, and
that the conservation provisions of Magnuson-Stevens need to be relaxed in
order to allow a bigger kill and, not coincidentally, bigger industry profits
in the short term.
They’ll sound convincing, and paint pretty pictures, just like they did before.
Don’t be conned.
No comments:
Post a Comment