The Gulf of Mexico pops up frequently when folks talk about
fisheries management, mostly because some overly hungry members of the
recreational fishing community are throwing a hissy fit because the National
Marine Fisheries Service isn’t letting them overfish red snapper.
It’s not as anglers are being crowded out of the fishery. The recreational
sector was given a 5.75 million pound annual catch target in 2016, more
than twice the
combined recreational and commercial quota in 2008.
Still, groups such as the Coastal Conservation Association
have spent substantial amounts of money on litigation, either bringing or
intervening in lawsuits intended to hold anglers accountable for
overfishing, hold
states unaccountable for excessive red snapper caught in their waters while
federal waters are closed and prevent allocation of a share of the harvest to recreational anglers who fish from for-hire vessels,
to keep them from being harmed by private boat anglers’ overages.
Those lawsuits had very modest objectives that, in the end,
probably weren’t worth the amount of money invested in the litigation (even if
CCA won, which it usually didn’t).
However, CCA also joined with other organizations comprising the Center
for Coastal Conservation, and expended substantial resources to convince NMFS
to adopt a wide-ranging recreational fishing policy, and in
the words of Bill Bird, Chairman of CCA’s National Government Relations
Committee,
“the Gulf recreational red snapper fishery…is virtually the
sole impetus for the creation of the policy in the first place.”
Now, CCA and
the rest of the Center are working hard to weaken the conservation and stock
rebuilding provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, lending their support to H.R. 1335, a bill that would do
just that.
That’s a lot of money, time and effort being spent to kill a
few additional fish.
It also seems to be a very careless use of such resources,
given the much bigger issues facing anglers in the Gulf of Mexico, which are
far more worthy of such expenditures.
Consider the Dead Zone.
The Dead Zone, if you’re not familiar with the term, is a
large expanse of the Gulf of Mexico in which the bottom waters (yes, water
where red snappers might live) contains little or no oxygen. According
to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, it is
“fueled by nutrient runoff and other human activities in the
Mississippi River watershed, which stimulates an overgrowth of algae that
sinks, decomposes and consumes most of the life-giving oxygen supply in bottom
waters.”
NOAA also observes that
“Despite fluctuations in size during each year’s weather
conditions, these chronic, recurrent hypoxic zones every summer represent a
significant threat to Gulf ecosystems.
Until we achieve a substantial reduction in nutrient pollution from the
Mississippi River watershed, we will continue to experience extended periods of
time each year when critically needed habitat is unavailable for many marine
organisms.”
The
typical size of the Dead Zone is around 6,700 square miles, about the same
area as the entire State of New Jersey, although spring floods that wash
higher-than-normal amounts of pollutants down the Mississippi River can cause
it to grow much larger.
Given that such a threat to marine resources important to
anglers exists right in their back yard, one would think that the Texas-based
Coastal Conservation Association and Louisiana-based Center for Coastal
Conservation would spend at least as many resources fighting to reduce the
extent of the Dead Zone as they do fighting to kill more red snapper.
However, that does not appear to be the case.
A fairly deep Google search revealed that neither CCA nor
the Center has apparently made a strong commitment to reduce the size of the
Dead Zone, and that neither organization has dedicated substantial resources to
that cause. Instead, both groups seem to
be concentrating their efforts on increasing red snapper harvest, weakening federal
fisheries laws and various other causes that would maintain or increase
recreational harvest levels for various species, while protecting the
short-term income stream of the angling and boating industries.
Certainly, any fight to significantly shrink the Dead Zone
would cause CCA and the Center to take on far more, and far better funded,
opponents than those they face in their red snapper fight. On the other hand, the fact that the combined
resources of CCA, the American Sportfishing Association (representing the
fishing tackle industry) and the National Marine Manufacturers’ Association, to
name just three component organizations of the Center, can’t make much progress
on the red snapper issue is probably more testimony to how weak and out-on-the-fringe
their position actually is, than any reflection on their willingness or ability to win a more rational debate.
It would be extremely tough for
CCA and the Center to prevail in a fight over the Dead Zone, but at least they would have the facts and the
equities of the situation strongly on their side, which is a lot more than they have now.
A recent battle over pollution in Chesapeake Bay, which also
suffers from hypoxic dead zones during the summer, provides a good idea of how
the battle lines would be drawn in a Dead Zone fight.
In that battle,
the United States Environmental Protections Agency issued, in 2010, regulations
that specified the “total maximum daily load” of nitrogen, phosphorus and
sediment that could be released into Chesapeake Bay. Such regulations were immediately challenged
by a group of business interests that included the American Farm Bureau
Association, the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau Association, The Fertilizer
Institute, the National Chicken Council, the US Poultry and Egg Association,
the National Pork Producers Council, the National Corn Growers Association, the
National Turkey Federation and the Association of Homebuilders—in other words,
a lot of the same organizations that represent the people and businesses that
helped to create the Dead Zone in the Gulf (as an aside, the good guys--and Chesapeake Bay--won).
But what was really interesting was who
intervened on the side of the Farm Bureau—the attorneys general representing various
states that included, among others, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, Arkansas,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
Dakota, Texas and West Virginia, all of which abut either the Mississippi River
or one of its tributaries, who went to court to defend their citizens’
God-given rights to dump excess fertilizer and pig shit in such waterways.
They clearly feared that if the flow of
agricultural waste into Chesapeake Bay could be limited, the flow into the Gulf
of Mexico might be limited as well.
Thirty-nine
congressmen from the pig shit and fertilizer states also intervened on the
side of the Farm Bureau. Of those
thirty-nine, half
a dozen have been actively supported by the Center for Coastal Conservation’s
political action committee in at least one of the past three election cycles,
including Reps. Jeff Duncan (R-South Carolina), John Fleming (R-Louisiana), Louie
Gohmert (R-Texas), Andrew Harris (R-Maryland), Scott Tipton (R-Colorado) and
(now-Senator) David Vitter (R-Louisiana).
One can only assume that the Center believes that it may need their help
to trash federal fisheries law.
So yes, it’s easy to understand why the Center might not want
to get involved in a Dead Zone fight, and risk letting some of its past
campaign contributions go to waste.
And that’s too bad.
Because if a coalition of anglers, the tackle industry and
the boatbuilders ever grew the cojones to stand up against the people and businesses that profit by letting fertilizer and shit flow into America’s rivers and choke out life
in the Gulf, it would be a powerful coalition, particularly if the Center also had the
moral courage to put past disputes behind it and link its efforts with those of mainstream conservation groups,
and other sportsmen’s
groups, such as Ducks Unlimited, who are already in the fight.
There is a chance that, after hard effort, they might
even win, and such a victory would be far more valuable to all anglers in the
Gulf of Mexico, whatever they choose to fish for, than a few more red snapper
tossed, dead, on the dock.
In the long
run, it would be more valuable to the tackle and boatbuilding industries, too.
But to get to that point, the Center would first have to
dare to do something greater than merely carping over a dead snapper or two.
So far, it hasn't proven itself capable of that.
imagine that money could be the biggest problem. we are suffering here in Southwest Florida because of poor water quality and they want to blame agriculture accepting not responsibility for our human waste contributions. it's nice to read intelligent thought out responses!
ReplyDelete