LOOKING BACKWARD ON MAGNUSON-STEVENS

It’s impossible to successfully argue against the fact that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is, at this very moment, the most successful large-scale fishery management law in the world.

When this century dawned, 92 fish stock were overfished, and 72 were experiencing overfishing.  Thanks to Magnuson-Stevens, the number of both overfished stocks and stocks experiencing overfishing has since dropped sharply.  At the end of 2016, just 30 stocks were experiencing overfishing, and only 38 were still overfished.  41 once-overfished stocks have been completely rebuilt.

That’s what success looks like.  No other fishery management approach, in the United States or elsewhere, can claim anywhere near that level of positive outcomes.

Even so, there are people who want to weaken Magnuson-Stevens.  Many are affiliated with various anglers’ rights groups, such as the Recreational Fishing Alliance and the similar, if larger, Coastal Conservation Association, which want their members to be able to kill more fish when they venture out, even if biologists believe that landings are already at or above prudent levels. 

Others, such as the American Sportfishing Association, which represents the fishing tackle industry, and the National Marine Manufacturers’ Association, sell their products to anglers, and argue that a weakened Magnuson-Stevens that allows anglers to kill (although they seem to prefer the euphemism “access”) more fish will lead to greater economic returns.

Since such organizations can’t deny the law’s current success, they have to make “softer” arguments that appeal to legislators’ and others’ emotions, rather than to their intellect.

One of their favorite pitches is to toss salt water recreational fishermen into a bigger pot that holds sportsmen of every stripe, and then argue that sportsmen are “the original conservationists.”  That story line was on exhibit recently, in testimony provided at a hearing held by the Senate Committee on Science, Commerce, & Transportation’s Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, which considered Magnuson-Stevens.

It was most developed in the testimony of Chris Horton, the Fisheries Program Director of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation.  The Foundation is a member of the Center for Sportfishing Policy, an umbrella organization composed of various anglers’ rights and industry trade associations that is focused on weakening Magnuson-Stevens (and Jeff Angers, the President of the Center for Sportfishing Policy, sits on the Foundation’s board, creating an incestuous relationship with the potential to give birth to true monstrosities). 

In his testimony, Horton declared that

“Around the turn of the last century…[s]tates began establishing natural resource agencies to help recover and manage fish and game populations for the benefit of the public.  However, it soon became clear that license fees alone were not enough to fund habitat restoration and management efforts…In 1950, the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act…implemented a new 10% excise tax on fishing rods, reels, related components and fishing tackle.  In 1984, [an] amendment to the Act, again led by anglers and the sportfishing and boating industries, expanded the list of taxable items to include marine electronics, trolling motors, import duties on fishing tackle, yachts and pleasure boats, and also added a motor boats fuels tax, significantly expanding the revenues apportioned back to the states for fisheries and aquatic conservation.”

That’s all true, but it’s probably worthwhile to note that the initial law that created the excise tax on fishing tackle was passed in 1950—67 years ago, and well before most of today’s salt water anglers was born—which makes it difficult to rationally attribute the conservation impulses of the folks who fought for the law with the people affected by Magnuson-Stevens today.  Even the last amendment to the law, made in 1984, was adopted more than 30 years ago. 

So it’s difficult to connect the adoption of the excise taxes on various items purchased by recreational fishermen with salt water anglers’ current attitudes.

More recently, when states asked their salt water anglers to pitch in and help fund conservation efforts by buying a salt water fishing license, the fishermen’s response was not one of universal enthusiasm.  While some anglers, in some states, recognized the benefits a license could bring, there was also substantial opposition.

In New Jersey, Jim Donofrio was (and still is) Executive Director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, a group long opposed to the conservation provisions of Magnuson-Stevens.  When New Jersey considered adopting a salt water fishing license about ten years ago, Donofrio—and RFA—were strongly opposed to that, too.  A New Jersey fishing club reported at the time that

“Anglers should fight a saltwater fishing license because the money raised will not be used to help recreational fishing.

“That was the gist of a speech Saturday afternoon by Executive Director Jim Donofrio of the Galloway Township-based Recreational Fishing Alliance, or RFA.

“Donofrio, speaking to the Strathmere Fishing & Environmental Club at its annual legislative meeting here at the Strathmere Firehouse, promoted a state lottery once a month to raise money for marine conservation and possibly a special license plate that would feature a striped bass to raise money.

“Donofrio warned the group that a plan to create a state saltwater fishing license to gather more fishery data is really just a way to raise funds.  Donofrio said better data is needed but it can be gathered at no cost to the anglers.”

No fee-based registration was ever adopted in New Jersey.

In my home state of New York, there was also resistance to a salt water fishing license.  Anglers who understood the need for adequate agency funding generally supported the idea, but it ran into stiff opposition from the state’s RFA chapter, as well as from many tackle dealers, who feared that license fees would cut into sales.  The state actually did implement a license for a brief time, but it was quickly repealed.  The primary proponent of the repeal legislation, State Senator (now Congressman) Lee Zeldin celebrated the license’s demise, saying on his website

“In recent days, during the Budget negotiations, there have been productive discussions between leaders from the Senate, Assembly and Governor’s office with regards to the repeal of the Saltwater Fishing License Fee…

“This is a piece of legislation that is very important to the needs of my district.  I am very pleased to announce that there is a negotiated three-way agreement to replace the Saltwater Fishing License Fee with a free registry…

“I would like to thank not only my Senate and Assembly colleagues who spent hours listening to me and working with me, but I would also like to thank the thousands of fishermen, including the Recreational Fishing Alliance, who called, wrote, faxed and signed our petition…

“I cannot think of a better way to start the new fishing season off than with this great news.  It’s a bright, sunny day for saltwater fishermen.”

So whatever anglers might have thought back in 1950, or even in 1984, it seems that a significant number of today’s anglers, at least in some parts of the country, are not quite as willing to pitch in and support conservation as Chris Horton suggests.

In his testimony, Horton noted that

“Recreational anglers have long recognized that to have healthy fish populations to afford numerous encounters with fish and an enjoyable day on the water with family and friends, it is essential to properly manage and conserve the resource, not just for sustainability, but for abundance.”

His comment about the need for abundance is completely correct.  But then he delves into the past again, saying

“That is why we have willingly invested, both money and time, in fisheries conservation for nearly a century.”

I wasn’t around a century ago, so I can’t speak about that.  I was around in the late 1970s and early 1980s when the striped bass stock collapsed, and I saw anglers come together back then to conserve the resource.  And we don’t even have to go back that far.  I was around about ten years ago, when Pat Murray, then Vice President of the Coastal Conservation Association, and now its President, penned an essay called “The Last Fish,” in which he wrote

“The ‘resource first’ ethic that drove the early saltwater conservation movement is slowly being corrupted by a doctrine of ‘fishermen first.’  It is hard to imagine that we have come so far in marine conservation and this thinking is still such a seductive part of the fishing ethic of some recreational anglers…

“Some of the very people who helped push the ‘resource first’ ethic are now arguing for greater poundage and more liberal limits, even in the face of troubling stock assessments.  They cry that it will limit anglers’ interest and may damage the industry, but won’t killing the last fish not decisively kill the industry?

“…Among many of the seemingly theoretical scientific, political and managerial complexities, there are many parts of modern day fisheries management that involve making decisions on the economic livelihood of real people.  Real jobs and real paychecks can hang in the balance.  But if the resource is not put first, the outcome will always be wrong.  No matter how politically and emotionally appealing it is to assume the ‘fisherman first’ ethic in a tough fisheries decision, the problem invariably comes back, and when it does, it usually has bigger horns and sharper teeth.

“…I do not believe that we have an ethical crisis in recreational fishing.   There are many more examples of good conservation ethic over a destructive consumption ethic, but we have to remember that the unselfish spirit that started this conservation movement is one of the keys to its success…

“Do we want the last fish for ourselves, or do we want to conserve it to make a future for generations to come?”

 Pat Murray was dead on target when he wrote those words, which seem to clearly support Chris Horton’s position.

But, again, he wrote them ten years ago, and there is more than a little bitter irony in the fact that times have changed.

Just two months ago, Murray heralded the introduction of legislation that would weaken the conservation and stock rebuilding provisions of Magnuson-Stevens, in order to allow anglers to escape the strictures of science-based annual catch limits and prompt stock rebuilding times, the very essence of elevating a consumption ethic above the health of the resource.

And the organization that he leads, the Coastal Conservation Association, hailed the Commerce department decision to reopen the private-boat red snapper season in the Gulf of Mexico, even though the National Marine Fisheries Service admitted that, because of such opening “the private recreational sector will substantially exceed its annual catch limit,” and the “approach may delay the ultimate rebuilding of the stock by as many as 6 years.”

So Chris Horton is probably right, and anglers probably were active conservationists, back in the 1900s.  And judging from Pat Murray’s work, “The Last Fish,” most might have been conservationists ten years ago—but things were already beginning to change.

Now, there are still many anglers who believe in conservation.  I include myself in their number. 

But we are kidding ourselves if we believe that there aren’t a lot of anglers more interested in killing fish now than in leaving a few for the future.  Inspired by the kind of rhetoric issuing out of groups like the Center for Sportfishing Policy, they are willing to set aside science-based management in favor of a bigger kill.

And that’s why we need a strong Magnuson-Stevens.  To address conditions in today’s fishery, not yesterday’s.  To be sure that the last fish is never at risk of capture, and to leave future generations with fish stocks at least as healthy as those we have known.