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.
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