The political landscape changed on November 4, when the
Republican Party gained control of the United States Senate.
When Congress convenes next January, the federal legislature
will no longer be gridlocked; with the same party controlling both houses, we
should see far more bills passed by the House and Senate and forwarded to the
President’s desk.
The only question left to be answered is whether those bills
will be good or bad for the future of America’s living marine resources.
Right now, I’m cautiously pessimistic, but there’s a lot
that remains to be seen.
It’s not merely an issue of one party versus another. Folks like to stereotype Democrats as supporting conservation measures and Republicans as opposing them,
but in the fisheries arena, that’s far from true.
Some of the staunchest Democrats in the Senate, including
New York’s
Charles Schumer and Kristen Gillibrand, New
Hampshire’s Jeanne Shaheen and North Carolina’s
Kay Hagan (who lost her seat in the mid-terms) have either supported
so-called “flexibility” legislation that would weaken the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Magnuson Act or otherwise attempted to defer the
application of needed fisheries conservation measures.
On the other hand, President George W. Bush, a quintessential Republican, did far more to promote
marine fish conservation than any other president. Former Maryland Congressman Wayne Gilchrist
was one of the prime movers behind the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, the
landmark law that changed the face of fisheries conservation in America. And the late Republican Senator Ted Stevens of
Alaska was such a noted champion of good fisheries management that the law
governing U.S. fisheries now bears his name.
However, the current Republican leadership has rejected the
strong support for conservation that was, for many years, a party tradition
dating back to President Theodore Roosevelt.
Instead, it has adopted a policy that is blatantly anti-science,
anti-wilderness and anti-clean water, and extremely pro-development, pro-exploitation
and pro-short-term profit. Risks to the
ecosystem that we must continue to live in, and to the integrity of natural
communities, are dismissed out of hand—if they are considered at all.
Thus, once the new Congress is seated, they are likely to
pose a number of direct and indirect threats to marine fisheries resources on
every coast of the United States.
Up in the pristine waters of Bristol Bay, Alaska, the
world’s largest surviving salmon run—and the recreational and commercial
fisheries that it supports—will likely face greater threats with a resurgent
effort to permit the proposed Pebble Mine to begin operations.
For those unfamiliar with the Pebble Mine, the proposed
mining project would create two separate
operations that would remove about 7.5 billion metric tons of copper, gold and
molybdenum ore from watershed of the Iliamna River, a waterway which supports
not only a thriving sockeye salmon run, but also a robust population of large,
wild rainbow trout.
The resultant
commercial and recreational fishing industries are important drivers of the
local economy; both fishermen and the broader conservation community have
opposed the mine fearing that mine tailings and toxic byproducts of the mining
operations could easily end up in the river, severely degrading its ability to
sustain the trout and salmon runs.
Earlier
this year, the Environmental Protection Agency agreed, placing a serious
roadblock in the way of future mine development.
However, the EPA decision has been criticized
not only by Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who wrote that
“We already have undeniably grave problems with federal
agencies blocking resource production on federal lands in Alaska. Now to see a federal agency overstep its
authority and move prematurely to block even the consideration of a permit for
potential activity on state lands is something I simply cannot accept,"
but also by Senator
David Vitter of Louisiana who, although his state had no direct interest in the
mine, claimed that
"When it comes to the Pebble Mine, EPA has shown that
they are willing to disregard due process and lawfully established permitting
procedures to ensure the failure of any project like this. EPA's desperate
attempt to kill a potential mine should signal a major red flag to businesses."
Senator Mark Begich, who represented the State of Alaska,
staunchly opposed the mine. However, he
lost his seat in the mid-term election, and his successor, Dan Sullivan, has
objected to the EPA action in language very similar to that of Sen. Murkowski.
On the Atlantic coast, we see the same Sen. Vitter opposing
legislation that would help control pollution in Chesapeake Bay and thus
enhance the Bay’s ability to support healthy fish populations. Vitter
justifies taking another position with no immediate impact on his home state of
Louisiana by saying that, pursuant to the settlement of a lawsuit arising
out of earlier legislation intended to clean up the Chesapeake,
“the EPA agreed to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (Bay TMDL) for
nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment flow into the Chesapeake Bay…EPA has
purported to dictate not only the total amount of nitrogen, phosphorous, and
sediment that can flow into the Chesapeake Bay, but, by allocating those loads
in excruciating detail and crediting only the load reduction actions that are
included in its Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, EPA also dictated the manner in
which individual companies and sectors within the economy must comply with the
total load limitations.
“EPA's Bay TMDL has enormous repercussions for private landowners, small
businesses, and local governments throughout the Chesapeake Bay region…Left
unchecked, the TMDL could represent a national precedent that would force state
and local officials across the country to cede their land use authority to EPA.”
One senator’s hostility to conservation efforts certainly
shouldn’t be used to taint the reputation of an entire party. We can only hope that there will be more than
a few Republican senators who will place their constituents’ interests in clean
water and healthy fish stocks, now and in the future, above a party dogma that
often opposes even reasonable regulations.
However, given party leadership’s frequently expressed preference for
promoting business activity at the expense of environmental and conservation
concerns, there is real reason to be concerned that views similar to Vitter’s
may be held by other lawmakers.
And that would do our fisheries no good at all.
As a salt water angler, my greatest concern relates to the
reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, which many expect to be
reauthorized sometime in 2015 or 2016.
In the current session of Congress, the reauthorization
bill that took shape in the Republican-dominated House of Representatives,
sponsored by Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, was so bad that those
concerned with marine conservation gave it the sobriquet of the “Empty Oceans
Act.” It was a bill that would turn back
a decade and a half of progress and take federal fisheries management back to
the days when stocks need not be rebuilt and short-term economic concerns
trumped every other issue.
On the other hand, the
bill that has been taking shape in what had been a Democrat-controlled Senate
held a lot of promise. It wasn’t
perfect, but it kept the key concepts of existing law intact, and included
additional provisions that would help to fine-tune the management process. However, it was sponsored by Sen. Begich, who
lost the election, and the membership and composition of the subcommittee
charged with drafting the bill will change somewhat in the upcoming year, so it’s
hard to predict just what will occur.
It’s virtually certain that Senator Marco Rubio of Florida
will chair the subcommittee. Sen. Rubio
was the ranking member of the subcommittee that produced the most recent Senate
draft of the bill, which could not have emerged without his cooperation, so
there is reason to at least hope that such draft might serve as a starting
point for Senate discussions next year.
Thus, if Sen. Rubio lived in Alaska, where the benefits of
fisheries management have long been accepted and understood, I probably wouldn’t
be overly worried right now.
Unfortunately, he represents Florida, where fisheries issues—and most
particularly the fierce and often irrational red snapper debate at both the
South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico fishery management councils—rage and some
constituents will undoubtedly be demanding some sort of fundamental change in
the law. Such demands are likely to push
Sen. Rubio toward amendments that are not in the long-term
interests of either fish or fishermen.
There is also the question of whether, in the runup to a
presidential election in which Sen. Rubio might well wish to compete, party
ideology and the need to demonstrate an ideological purity to potential primary
voters who sit on the right wing of his party might influence how Sen. Rubio
might address both the conservation and the economic aspects of the Magnuson
Act.
The possibility that the ranking member, or one or more
other minority members, of the subcommittee might wish to weaken conservation
measures should not be ignored. It is
not yet clear who the ranking member might be, but if he or she comes from a
state where the fishing industry is militantly anti-Magnuson, the impetus to
weaken the law might well come from the Democratic side of the aisle.
So will the Republican takeover of the Senate help or hurt
fish populations?
Right now, I can’t honestly say.
I’ve been a Republican
since 1972, when I tujrned 18, and quite a few—I suspect most—of the folks
who I fish with are Republicans, too. So I would like to believe that
legislators in the party that I’ve belonged to for 40-plus years would walk in
the steps of Republicans before them and protect our fish populations.
On the other hand, over the past decade, my party’s
leadership has become far less receptive to conservation concerns, and much
more willing to degrade the environment that we all live in, justifying such
short-sighted action by claiming that it will produce a few jobs or stimulate
some sort of economic activity.
Fisheries issues have often transcended mere party politics,
with regional concerns and—dare I say it—constituents’ wishes opening the door
to true bipartisan solutions.
At the same time, today’s political polarization is more
intense than it was at any time in the history of the Magnuson Act, and may
just be too much to overcome.
So, for now, we can just wait and watch, and be ready to
intervene with our own local legislators, attempting to put them back on track
when they seem ready to stray and encouraging them to stay on course when they
do the right thing.
Any way that you look at it, it’s going to be a long couple
of years.
No comments:
Post a Comment