Sunday, January 27, 2019

S. 1520'S AFTERMATH: SELLING THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE



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.


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,”

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