There are a lot of words that one might used to describe the
current debate over South Atlantic red snapper, but “moderate” wouldn’t be the
first that comes to mind.
“red snapper has been managed by federal overlord bureaucrats.”
A
feature article in the online publication Water World Wire said that
“For recreational anglers in the South Atlantic, red snapper
management has long felt disconnected from reality.”
And
another article, this one in the online publication Wired2Fish, told
readers that
“offshore anglers in the South Atlantic have been completely
handcuffed from targeting and keeping red snapper for years.”
That’s somewhat provocative language, and all three articles,
while critical of federal red snapper management, were somewhat shy on all the
details, particularly those that don’t necessarily support their underlying
premise.
Of course, it’s hard to blame writers from using somewhat
inflammatory language when public officials are even worse. For example, the
executive director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission wrote
to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to support a scheme to do an end run
around the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, so that
Florida—and other South Atlantic—anglers could exceed the red snapper annual
catch limit with complete impunity. In
his letter, he used language like
“we want to reinforce our appreciation for your unswerving
commitment to rein in bureaucracy and return the power of fisheries
managers to the states where it belongs…based on precedent, career
NOAA staff will inevitably create a bureaucratic blockade at the behest
of status-quo defending adversarial interests to prevent Florida’s EFP
from going into effect in May 2026…
“Based on Florida’s experience in seeking assignment of state
management authority in the Gulf of America, much of NOAA’s response appears to
potentially delay action under the guise of ‘data’ collection—the
same tactics that led Congress to force NOAA to accept and approve state
EFPs in the Gulf of America given the weaponization of NOAA under
President Obama… [emphasis in
original]”
It was a style that combined unhinged MAGA phrasing with the
bold print and underlines of a schoolgirl writing her bestie a note about her
latest crush. Yet it was used in what
was supposed to be professional correspondence.
And like an adolescent schoolgirl throwing a hissy fit when
she didn’t get her own way, the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission responded to a federal judge
issuing a temporary injunction prohibiting anglers in Florida and the other South
Atlantic states from fishing for red snapper pursuant to the exempted fishing
permits by issuing a petulant statement saying that
“a rogue federal judge sided with activists”
by doing his job and interpreting the law to the best of his
ability.
“How disrespectful is it to rule when people have already
made plans to come down and to do this?...I just think that it’s really disrespectful
to pull the rug out from under them, especially when there’s so many fish in
the sea…
“You know who brought the charge were the commercial
fishermen. They don’t want recreational
anglers to be able to go out and fish.
They want it all for themselves.”
Apparently, DeSantis never considered that what was really
disrespectful was pressuring NOAA Fisheries to issue the exempted fisheries
permits quickly, so the season could open for Memorial Day weekend, knowing
that there was a very good chance that issuing such permits was very probably
illegal and that various organizations were almost certain to sue.
That what was really disrespectful was leading Florida
anglers and charter boats to believe that the season was going to open on
Memorial Day weekend, knowing that the season would certainly be challenged,
and then calling the judge “disrespectful” for doing his job.
But that’s the sort of language that has characterized the
South Atlantic red snapper debate, and there is little reason to believe that
is going to change.
Thus, it was refreshing to have a
post on the subject come across my Facebook feed, that actually try to explain
both sides of the issue in a rational manner.
It was written by someone named Justin Hawkins who, like me, regularly
comments on fisheries issues. In his
initial post on the topic, Hawkins observed,
“…For years, recreational fishermen have argued that federal
regulations dramatically underestimate the number of red snapper swimming
offshore. Many charter captains report
seeing more fish than ever, describing reefs covered in red snapper so thick
that targeting other species can be difficult…
“…NOAA Fisheries approved experimental, state-managed
recreational seasons through a series of exempted fishing permits (EFPs). The permits would have allowed Florida,
Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina to manage longer recreational seasons
while gathering new harvest data…
“For anglers, it felt like a long-overdue victory…
“Commercial fishing organizations challenged the permits in
federal court, arguing that the expanded seasons could lead to unsustainable
harvests. Conservation organizations,
including Ocean Conservancy and Earthjustice, joined the fight, warning that
the expanded seasons could violate federal fisheries law and jeopardize decades
of rebuilding efforts.
“The legal challenge centered on a fundamental question:
“How many red snapper can anglers catch before the stock
begins declining again?
“Conservation groups argue that the answer is far fewer than
many fishermen believe.”
And that is the South Atlantic red snapper fight in a
nutshell, stripped of the hyperbole, stripped of the animus, stripped of the political
posturing. Anglers are seeing a lot of
red snapper, and think that current management measures are too strict. Conservation groups, along with the
commercial fishermen who brought the action, think that liberalizing the
regulations, without supporting data, could do real harm to the red snapper
stock.
The commercial fishermen, the conservation groups, and the
anglers (but not necessarily the industry-connected organizations that purport
to represent them) are all acting in good faith, based on what they believe the
situation to be. The fact that they
disagree is no justification for the sort of language and name calling that is
coming—one might notice—largely from politicians and folks with a pecuniary
iron in the fire.
As Hawkins correctly notes,
“The result is a fishery now trapped between competing
visions of conservation, economics, and access.
“And neither side appears willing to back down.”
If that was all Hawkins wrote, it would have been a
worthwhile piece that could allow people, who weren’t familiar with all the
details of the issue, to understand what is going on. But he
wrote one more, follow-up comment, in which he did a pretty good job of setting
out the need for effective fisheries management, and the obstacles that stand
in its way.
He notes that
“Everyone agrees on one thing.
“Healthy fish populations require responsible management.
“Yet one of the most common complaints heard from
recreational anglers and charter captains today has little to do with
conservation goals themselves. Instead,
it centers on how those goals are implemented.
“When state and federal regulators fail to align, fishermen
often find themselves dealing with confusion, uncertainty, and economic
hardship.”
He then raises six issues that he feels should be considered
as managers try to remedy the problem. I
agree with some, and disagree with others.
But one point he makes is unquestionably true:
“The debate is often portrayed as a conflict between
conservation and fishing opportunity.
“In reality, most fishermen support sustainable fisheries
management.
“What they want is consistency.
“They want regulations that are scientifically justified,
clearly communicated, and implemented in a way that allows businesses and
anglers to plan ahead.
“Conservation objectives and public access are not mutually
exclusive.”
Applying those thoughts to the South Atlantic red snapper
debate, it becomes obvious that much of the problem, much of the controversy,
and much of the hardship that occurred in the last two months could have been
avoided had state politicians and fisheries managers not pressured NOAA
Fisheries to issue the EFPs quickly, and had NOAA Fisheries not acted so
hastily in issuing the EFPs.
If NOAA Fisheries had taken the time to observe its own
regulations—for example, if it had .required the states to estimate the number
of red snapper that would be landed under the EFPs and had not allowed the
states to refuse to provide such information—and if NOAA Fisheries had
responded in good faith to stakeholder concerns about overfishing, it is likely
that the EFPs would not have been issued as soon as they were. There is a very good chance tht they wouldn’t
have been issued at all, since the states’ estimates of red snapper landings,
and NOAA Fisheries response to the stakeholder concerns, would almost certainly
have indicated that overfishing would occur, and that issuing the EFPs would
thus be illegal.
Instead, NOAA Fisheries’ actions created false expectations among
anglers, charter boat captains, and the rest of the recreational fishing
community, which expectations were shattered when the judge decided that the
EFPs were not validly issued.
The situation was made worse by the bombastic language used
by both industry advocates and state politicians, which might have played on
anglers’ emotions, but conveyed few of the critical facts that led to the
temporary injunction.
Thus, it was good to know that Justin Hawkins, at least, could
describe the conflict in moderate language, and argue for a solution that would
benefit all concerned.
I doubt that the people who make the decisions will listen,
but it was good to read, even so.
No comments:
Post a Comment