Over the past few years, we’ve heard a number of
organizations such as the Center for Sportfishing Policy and the Coastal
Conservation Association argue that states manage fishery resources better than
do federal fishery managers.
“State managers are better equipped to manage recreational
fishing and have a proven track record of finding a balance between
conservation of marine resources and reasonable public access,”
while CCA says that it
“supports driving management of marine resources to the
lowest level of government possible.
That position is staked in the belief that the states simply have a
better grasp of how to manage these resources in ways that assure their health
and stability. At the same time, state
agencies have proven their expertise in providing the greatest access to those
resources and maximizing the benefits of those resources for their citizens.”
It all sounds benign.
But if you look behind the curtain of smoke that these folks
are blowing, as they try to obscure your view of reality by saying
seemingly benevolent things such as
“Recreational fishing and boating are two of America’s oldest
and most beloved pastimes. They are
family-friendly activities that connect people to nature and help them develop
an abiding respect for our natural resources,”
you’ll find a much uglier reality that reveals another of
America’s oldest pastimes—pure power politics—and is anything but natural
resources-friendly.
Americans recently got a look at that ugly reality when, in
response to a lawsuit brought by two conservation groups challenging the
reopening of the private boat recreational red snapper season in the Gulf of
Mexico, the
Commerce Department released a number of documents that clearly show how
the recreational fishing and boatbuilding industry influenced the decision, and
that the Secretary of Commerce was fully aware that the extension was contrary
to law.
At the end of the meeting, Ross asked the attendees some
questions, and asked that they provide answers at a later date.
“Speciale’s first request was about more red snapper for Gulf
of Mexico anglers.
“’…we must return to a recreational red snapper season of no
less [than] the 60 days for the 2017 and 2018 seasons,’ he wrote.
“’I understand that the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management
Council and the regional administrator for NOAA Fisheries in the southeast
region will present obstacles to this initiative, but they must be overcome so
that we may restore a sense of fairness for recreational anglers.’
“Speciale continued: ‘Excessive
precaution and fear of frivolous litigation from the environmental industry has
created a massive bureaucrat [sic]
roadblock that has been unfair to anglers and stifled our industry.’
“’We ask that you overcome these obstacles at the regional
fishery management councils and Regional Administrators’ offices.”
At the same time, the Center for Sportfishing Policy, which
includes the American Sportfishing Association, Coastal Conservation
Association and National Marine Manufacturers Association (to which both Yamaha
and Maverick belong) among its members, has long been working
a parallel track with state fisheries agencies and members
of Congress, in an attempt to sidestep the constraints imposed by science-based
federal red snapper management.
All of those efforts finally came together in June, when the
Commerce Department extended
the private boat red snapper season in the Gulf of Mexico, knowing full well
that such extension would lead to
overfishing and so violate federal law.
The documents produced as a result of the conservation groups' lawsuit demonstrate just how
blatant that knowing violation of the law really was.
Information
provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service made it clear that a 39-day
extension would result in substantial overfishing, with likely landings being
150% of the acceptable biological catch and 139% of the overfishing limit. Since National Standard One of
Magnuson-Stevens requires that
“Conservation and management measures shall prevent
overfishing… [emphasis added],”
as soon as the Commerce Secretary decided to move forward
after receiving such information, his intent to violate federal law was clear.
But what is even more startling is how cynically the federal
bureaucrats went about evading the law.
“An action to extend the summer season to 46 days (3 days a
week through June, July and August with 4th of July and Labor Day
included) would be very well received and would reset the relationship with the
States. It would result in overfishing
the stock by six million pounds (40%), which will draw criticism from
environmental groups and commercial fishermen.
However, NMFS agrees that the stock could handle this level on a
temporary basis.
“Under the Magnuson-Stevens Act a court can’t issue a
temporary restraining order, so your action would remain in effect for at least
45 days before a court could act…”
In other words, “sure, extending the season isn’t legal, but
because of a loophole in the law, we can get away with it anyway, at least for
a while…”
“will result in the overall catch limit for this year being
exceeded by 30% and 50% [depending on how many additional fishing days were
provided]. NMFS has assessed the impact
of such an overage and agrees it does not threaten the health of the
stock. It may slow rebuilding of the
stock, but so far the stock is ahead of schedule. Either option would mean that, absent
Congressional action to modify the Magnuson-Stevens Act requirements for the
Gulf, the recreational season next year would be significantly reduced. All the state fishery managers know this, but
agree that coordinated action has the greater long term benefit.
“…Proceeding with
either option will be opposed by the commercial fishermen and the charter
operators, even though neither of their seasons will be affected this
year. Their concerns will be that
overfishing by the recreational sector will result in an overall reduction in
the catch limit for next year, and hence a reduction in commercial and charter
catch limits next year…
“Either option will almost
certainly draw a lawsuit, either by the commercial sector or the
environmental community, or both. As
discussed, they cannot get a temporary restraining order (TRO) because the
Magnuson-Stevens Act prohibits them…”
Federal officials are supposed to try to obey federal law,
not try to find ways to frustrate clear directions from Congress, but that’s
not the way things seem to be working on the fisheries front these days.
“The Center for Sportfishing Policy’s role is to affect
public policy related to the conservation of marine resources with broad
abilities to pursue political solutions.
The organization is non-partisan and focuses on having an impact in the
national political arena, principally Congress and federal regulatory agencies.
“The Center is organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal
Revenue Code; accordingly, donations are not tax deductible. Additionally, the Center has established the
Center for Sportfishing Policy Political Action Committee (Center PAC), so that
its members can fully participate in elective politics…”
“Fully participate in elective politics,” of course, means
spready as much money as reasonably possible around to the folks on Capitol
Hill.
Over
the past few election cycles, the Center has handed out at least $332,800 to federal
legislators likely to support its legislative goals. Included among those receiving the Center’s
largess are the sponsors of one of the its favorite pieces of legislation, H.R. 2023,
the so-called Modernizing Recreational Fishery Management Act of 2017, which
would water down Magnuson-Stevens’ conservation provisions as applied to recreational
anglers, including Rep. Garret Graves (R-Louisiana), Rep. Robert Wittman
(R-Virginia), Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Florida),
Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Missouri) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), six of the ten
legislators who introduced the bill.
Such “full participation” is hardly unusual, or even
new.
As I’ve mentioned in this blog from time to time, I was
inside the fishery management process for quite a while, as a director of one
of the big angling advocacy groups. Some
time ago, maybe it was in the late 1990s, or if not, in the very early 2000s,
all of us attending a national meeting were handed what almost seemed like a
shopping list; in one column was a list of federal legislators, in another a
suggested dollar amount—which ranged into the thousands for important folks,
like subcommittee chairmen, but was as little as $500 for freshman legislators—that
we were asked to have our state members donate, in their own names, to the appropriate parties.
It was made very clear that there was to be no quid pro quo of any sort—the donations
were just a way to gain easier “access” to the legislators in question. Still, just as “access” stands as a euphemism
for “more dead fish” in today’s recreational fisheries management debate, it’s
not unlikely that “access” in the case of those donations also implied the hope
of receiving some sort of benefit benefit at some point down the road.
However, even with such “access,” and despite some of the angling
and boatbuilding industries’ recent successes, affecting federal fishery
management policy can be a very difficult thing to do. That’s particularly true at the agency level,
where a strong Magnuson-Stevens Act helps to keep the bureaucrats in line, and
offers public advocates, in and outside of government, the chance to bring
litigation when the law is violated (which, of course, is why groups such as
the Center, CCA and ASA are trying to weaken Magnuson-Stevens).
Thus, we see the effort to move fishery management to the
state level, to “the lowest level of government,” as CCA puts it, where both
bureaucrats and legislators are easier to influence.
While the recent, unfortunate reopening of the red snapper
season in the Gulf of Mexico, and the equally recent, and equally unfortunate,decision by the Commerce Department to override the Atlantic States MarineFisheries Commission’s decision to sanction New Jersey for failing to complywith ASMFC’s summer flounder management plan, can be viewed as temporary
aberrations, facilitated by an administration particularly and constitutionally
hostile to the concept of natural resource conservation, federal bureaucrats,
in most federal administrations, usually have more of a tendency to respect the
law.
At the state level, where Magnuson-Stevens doesn’t apply,
there is normally no overriding law to respect; there are few if any legal
obstacles to prevent state fishery managers, and state legislators, from making
politically expedient decisions. It is a
situation that relatively small blocs of people can manipulate relatively
easily.
If you want to convince an agency to issue a regulation that
you favor, and your own efforts aren’t bearing fruit, your next step is to find
someone within your groups who went to college with the relevant bureaucrat, or
belongs to the same golf club, or maybe married his or her sister-in-law, and can arrange an introduction. That gives you access to the decisionmaker.
Or maybe you know the governor’s favorite fishing guide, and
use that contact to get your argument heard in the Executive Mansion.
Political contributions remain an important tool. While many advocacy groups (unlike the Center,
but like some of its member organizations) are “501(c)(3)” organizations, which
could easily lose their tax exemption if they donated to a political campaign, nothing prevents one of their members from holding a
fundraiser at their home, at the member’s expense, where a bunch of big
donors show up wearing the advocacy group’s hats or jackets and making it clear
that while the donations come from their individual accounts, they all belong
to and support the goals of that particular organization.
You can imagine how, if the folks holding such event were big players in the Gulf oil industry or maybe major-league real estate
developers down in Florida, their donations might impact state policy with respect to, say, recreational red snapper management…
And that helps you to see why such folks might prefer to
have states, rather than NMFS, manage their fisheries.
Which is why the current fight over the future of
Magnuson-Stevens is so important.
Right now, we have a choice.
Do we want to have our fisheries managed by professional
fisheries managers, in accord with good science and standards established by
law?
Or do we want them managed at the whim of political donors,
who are likely to show the same respect for our living marine resources that
other donors have shown for our public lands, once-clean waters and air?
Which do you choose?
Great piece of writing. It's a shame that nothing I see on the horizon can stop the yamaha juggernaut of getting more of the fish without any accountability. All we have to console us is Rule of Law.
ReplyDelete