Thursday, February 11, 2021

FLY FISHING INDUSTRY CALLS FOR IMPROVED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

 

Fish and the recreational fishing industry have long had a strange relationship.

The industry can’t survive without fish.  And not only without fish, but without enough fish to allow the average weekend warrior, with moderate to negligible skills and an aversion to fishing in inclement weather or getting out of bed before 9:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning, to still manage to catch enough of them to stay interested and buying bait, tackle, boats, and the like.

Yet any time fisheries managers propose regulations that might increase fish abundance or rebuild an overfished stock, members of the fishing industry, ranging from local tackle shop owners and representatives of the for-hire fleet to, if the fishery has been politicized enough (think Gulf of Mexico red snapper), tackle manufacturers and boatbuilders, all doing their best to oppose needed restrictions on harvest.

Probably the best—or the worst—example of that was the tackle and boatbuilding industry-sponsored report, “A Vision for Managing America’s Saltwater Recreational Fisheries,” which was issued under the aegis of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership in 2014.

Stripped of its weasel words, emotional appeal, and pretty pictures, the Vision report made a handful of modest requests on behalf of the tackle and boatbuilding industries:

·         Take the fish away from commercial fishermen and give them to anglers, so that they can take more fish home and we can make more money;

·         Don’t set annual catch limits for anglers, so that they can take more fish home and we can make more money;

·         If anglers overfish, don’t hold them accountable, so that they can take more fish home and we can make more money;

·         Anglers should be given more time to rebuild recreationally-important stocks of fish, so that they can take more fish home and we can make more money;

and, sort of as an afterthought,

·         Protect forage fish, because anglers don’t want to take them home, and it won’t cost us money, and the bigger fish do like to eat them.

You might say that it took a one-sided view.

Although the Vision report gave lip service to fisheries conservation, every time the long-term health of fish stocks clashed with the short-term goals of increasing recreational landings and recreational industry profits, the interests of the fish were subordinated to those of the industry.  Which, in the end, was a strange way to go about things, because the Marine Recreational Information Program’s angler effort data shows that angler participation—and, undoubtedly, angler spending on tackle and such—is closely linked to fish abundance.

Yesterday, the American Fly Fishing Trades Association issued its report, “Recommendations to Improve the Health and Sustainability of America’s Marine Resources,” which illustrates that the fly fishing industry, at least, understands the connection between healthy fishing businesses and healthy fish stocks.  As noted in the introduction to the report,

“Saltwater fly fishing is the fastest growing segment of the fly fishing industry.  It is responsible for attracting new entrants to the sport, and it offers a compelling growth opportunity for our industry, and for job creation in coastal communities.

“At the same time, threats to healthy marine fisheries and their habitats are numerous and deserve our concern and attention…Without dramatic action, our marine fisheries and habitats—and saltwater fly fishing—have a tough road ahead.  As the voice of the fly fishing industry, AFFTA believes that it our responsibility to advocate for the solutions that will allow ocean fisheries—and our members—to thrive over the long term…

“AFFTA undertook a rigorous process to identify and better understand the primary threats to healthy marine fisheries and habitats, and to determine policy solutions capable of addressing these threats head-on…

“As we worked through this process, it became clear that the continued growth of the fly fishing industry will require bold federal fisheries management and marine conservation efforts guided by the best available science…” 

“Responsibility.”  “”Long term.”  “Bold federal fisheries management.”  “Conservation efforts guided by the best available science.”

When have you ever heard a recreational fishing industry group use words and phrases like those before?

We’re so used to hearing industry babble about federal fisheries management “disenfranchising America’s recreational anglers,” protecting “the rights of recreational fishermen,” and similar tripe, that seeing someone actually talk about taking responsibility for making things better, and taking a long-term view, is almost shocking.  It’s something like being in a roomful of kindergarten kids all day, and then finally escaping into the company of rational adults.

And rational adults are exactly what we need if we’re going to have sustainable fisheries for the foreseeable future, because the other folks are still out there, trying to take what they can get for themselves before everything falls apart.

Fortunately, there are also folks like those at AFFTA, who are trying to hold a good fisheries management system together and even—dare I say it—make it better.

Thus, we see them calling on fisheries managers to rebuild imperiled and overfished species.  At the federal level, they want to

“Uphold the science-based measures that end and prevent overfishing and ensure prompt rebuilding of federal fisheries.”

Unfortunately, not every fishery is managed under the federal management system.  Many are managed by state agencies, which are generally under no legal obligation to manage stocks in a sustainable manner; at the state level, management often has more to do with politics than with science.  That’s particularly true at the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, an organization that has not managed to rebuild a single overfished stock, and then maintain such stock at sustainable levels, since it was formed in 1942.

It has even allowed the striped bass, once its sole success story, to become overfished and subject to overfishing again.

Thus, it’s heartening to see that AFFTA seeks to

“Extend proven conservation requirements to fisheries managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission,”

make the ASMFC legally obligated to

“Require an immediate end to overfishing, establish annual catch limits for all stocks, and impose accountability measures when catch limits are exceeded,”

and

“Require within two years a rebuilding plan intended to fully rebuild the stock within a specific time period for any stock designated as overfished.”

If that latter rule had already been in effect, we’d have a striped bass rebuilding plan in place by this coming May, instead of the “never” that seems to be the scheduled-in deadline on the ASMFC’s current agenda.

Of course, there is more to the U.S. than the Atlantic Coast, so AFTTA also wants to

“Improve recovery efforts for wild salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest.”

In case anyone was wondering, that means an effort to

“Significantly reduce reliance on hatcheries to recover and maintain genetically diverse wild salmon and steelhead populations.”

That’s a very different stand from that taken by the “Vision” crowd, which is trying to expand hatchery use, euphemized as “stock enhancement,” into saltwater fisheries as an alternative to science-based regulations adequate to preserve native fish stocks.

The AFFTA report then goes beyond merely rebuilding overfished stocks, to reach the essence of what recreational fishermen really need:  stocks managed for an abundance of fish in the water, not merely a load of dead fish on the dock.  To that end, it would like to see fisheries managers required to

“Account for the economic and social importance of abundance to recreational fisheries when setting optimum yield for fisheries,”

and

“include goals and objectives in a fishery management plan that address the value of having an abundance of fish in the water.”

Because fishing in a largely empty ocean isn’t much fun, and gives little reason to spend money on fishing gear.

Yet if there are a lot of fish out there, they need something to eat, so AFFTA also would also require managers to

“Promote abundance by ensuring forage fish are managed in a way that acknowledges their role as a food source,”

which may be the only place where their views and that of the Vision crowd coincides.

Other issues are discussed in the AFFTA report.  The above comments barely scratch the surface of the well-thought-out, 36 page document.  But they give you a taste of what happens when people actually think, and come to the realization that fisheries conservation isn’t a threat to the fishing industry but, in the end, is the only thing that will keep the industry alive.

Healthy, sustainable fish stocks are a prerequisite to a healthy, sustainable fishing industry.

AFFTA has figured that out, and presented that truth in a report that will, hopefully, have a real impact on fisheries policy.

We should all be glad that they did.

-----

Full disclosure:  I was one of the many people who contributed to the AFFTA report, and am proud to have been a part of the team.

No comments:

Post a Comment