Recently, I’ve spent a lot of time writing about H.R. 3094,
Rep. Garret Graves’ (R-Louisiana) so-called Gulf States Red Snapper Management
Authority Act.
That’s because it’s a
dangerous and ill-conceived bill that would strip the National Marine Fisheries
Service of its current authority to manage red snapper in the federal waters of
the Gulf of Mexico and transfer such authority to a panel of state officials,
which would not be bound by federal
conservation and stock rebuilding mandates.
The bill is dangerous not only because it threatens to halt
NMFS’ successful rebuilding of the red snapper stock, but also because it would
set a precedent that could be used elsewhere on the coast, to strip federal
managers of their authority to manage depleted stocks and turn such authority
over to state managers more interested in short-term exploitation than in
long-term sustainability, who would be likely to increase harvest beyond
prudent levels.
H.R.
3094 is being pushed by a coalition which calls itself the Center for Coastal
Conservation which is made up of various fishing tackle industry, boating
industry and anglers’ rights organizations and, despite its strikingly
inappropriate name, seems more concerned with wringing as much short-term
profit and as many dead fish out of the Gulf red snapper population it can,
rather than with conserving anything at all.
To that end, the Center and its component organizations have
spent a lot of time and effort in attempting to weave the enticing illusion
that federal fisheries management (despite its clear and documented successes)
is incapable of properly managing fish stocks.
That illusion can be summed up by a statement issued by the Coastal
Conservation Association, one of the Center’s component groups, which wrote
“Through their highly successful management of species such
as red drum, speckled trout, snook and numerous others, the states have
demonstrated that they can effectively manage fisheries for both sustainability
and access.”
The trick to selling that illusion to the public is keeping
them from looking at the facts, because when you start to do that, the pretty
picture that the Center is trying to paint doesn’t just get a little hazy. It falls completely apart.
One fact that the Center doesn’t want anyone thinking about
is what state management of red snapper might cost. Fisheries managers may disagree on many
things, but they all know about budgets, and the fact that good science doesn’t
come cheap.
Thus, it should surprise no one that Louisiana’s
Secretary of Wildlife and Fisheries, Charles Melancon, recently announced that
his department would not be supporting H.R. 3094, because it wasn’t
prepared to spend something close to $10,000,000 in a single year to manage a
single species.
That didn’t go over well with Rep. Graves, who stated that
there would be plenty of money around to manage the species (even though
federal spending for red snapper management was specifically removed by his
bill), but the fact that Mr.
Melancon called Rep. Graves “Pinocchio” immediately afterwards made it
clear what he thought of that statement.
Mr. Melancon’s concerns about cost were echoed in a rough
calculation made by the Environmental
Defense Fund, which found that state management of Gulf red snapper would cost
the five states involved more than $100,000,000, spread out over a period
of five years. I only saw the report
that EDF published, and not data behind the calculations themselves, so I can’t
vouch for their accuracy. However, if
they’re even close to right, that’s a big price for the states to pay for a few
more dead fish.
Maybe enough to get some states to change their minds.
Florida’s
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission decided to support H.R. 3094 at some
point last year. At a meeting held earlier this month, they took another look at that action.
I can’t find any news item that describes the proceedings,
but people who attended the meeting report that the Commission expressed new
concerns, not about the costs of management, but about the impacts that H.R.
3094 might have on Florida’s commercial and for-hire fisheries. That’s not the sort of big U-turn that
Louisiana, another former supporter, has made, but it does suggest that Florida
is again re-evaluating the purported merits of the bill.
But the hammer that really shattered the illusion that the
folks at the Center are trying to spin came, ironically, from one of the
Center’s most influential members, the Coastal Conservation Association itself.
Remember that CCA boldly proclaimed that the Gulf states’
management of speckled trout was evidence that the states could also properly
manage red snapper?
As it turns out, some of the Gulf states haven’t been
managing their speckled trout stocks very well at all. Mississippi
has recently declared that its speckled trout are overfished, with a
spawning potential ratio of just 10.2%, and has said that recreational landings
would have to be cut in half in order to restore those stocks to health.
Louisiana’s speckled trout stocks are marginally worse off,
with a spawning potential ratio of a mere 10%, although Louisiana
seems to believe that’s good enough, and intends to take no action.
CCA’s Mississippi chapter is not happy about having overfished
trout stocks.
Just last
Monday, CCA Mississippi issued a press release that announced
“CCA Mississippi calls for action on speckled trout. Anglers urge state managers to undo damaging
regulations. [emphasis added]”
It appears that state management of speckled trout might not
be as good as CCA’s national propagandists would have us believe…
CCA Mississippi goes on to say
“A controversial decision to lower the minimum size limit for
speckled trout to 13 inches eight years ago has resulted in exactly the kind of
stock decline that recreational anglers feared at the time…the Mississippi
chapter of Coastal Conservation Association is calling on the Commission on
Marine Resources to reverse course and take the necessary steps to put
the fishery back on solid footing.
“’Eight years ago, we were very much opposed when [state]
mangers took an awfully risky position with its trout regulations and
now that unfortunate decision has come home to roost,’ said F. J. Eicke,
Chairman of CCA Mississippi’s Government Relations Committee. ‘We’ve taken a giant step backwards with a
resource that’s treasured by anglers, but now we have an opportunity to work
with the states to set things right and we shouldn’t waste any more time.’
“…’At 13 inches it is clear that too many fish are being
caught and kept before they have a chance to spawn even once. If you remove fish before they can spawn, catastrophic
declines are inevitable, ‘ said Eicke. ‘Fortunately,
trout can rebuild relatively quickly if state managers will put the proper
conservation measures back in place. They dug quite a hole for trout that we have
to dig out of now… [emphasis
added]’”
So, while the leadership in CCA’s head
office—and in the offices of the Center for Coastal Conservation and its other constituent
organizations—are trying to sell legislators and anglers the illusion that
state fishery managers are doing a good job managing fish populations, and
should thus be trusted with the red snapper stock even in federal waters, the folks out in the trenches—the
CCA Mississippi angler/volunteers—are out on the front lines trying to protect
their speckled trout from the state managers’ mistakes.
The words of CCA Mississippi ring
clear and true:
“Anglers urge state
managers to undo damaging regulations.”
“The Mississippi
Chapter of Coastal Conservation Association are calling on the Commission on
Marine Resources to reverse course.”
“[State] managers took
an awfully risky position with its trout regulations.”
“They dug quite a hole
for trout that we have to dig out of now.”
Thus, it’s time for CCA’s
national leadership to get their backsides out of those soft office chairs, and
into the marshes of Mississippi (and Louisiana), so they can get a good,
first-hand look at how an “awfully risky” state management approach has trashed
a “treasured” inshore fish stock.
It’s time for them to stop trying
to polish a tarnished and fatally shattered illusion.
It’s time for them to admit that
there is no reason to believe that Mississippi won’t manage red snapper just as
badly as they have managed speckled trout, taking an “awfully risky position”
that would have been illegal had they, like their federal counterparts, been bound
to the conservation and rebuilding mandates of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
It is time for CCA, the Center
for Coastal Conservation and all of its constituent groups, such as the
American Sportfishing Association and the National Marine Manufacturers
Association, to admit that when they tried to sell legislators and anglers the
illusion that states managed fish better than federal managers, they were trying
to sell a bright and shining lie that, if believed, might have increased the red snapper kill—and
the profits of folks belonging to ASA and NMMA—in the short term, but put the
snapper’s future in real and immediate peril.
For if we want to know how the
states would really manage red snapper, we just have to look at Mississippi’s speckled
trout.
That pretty much says it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment