MODERN FISH ACT SUPPORTERS SEEM TO SPEAK WITH FORKED TONGUES

About 2,500 years ago, the Greek playwright Aeschylus reportedly said

“In war, truth is the first casualty.”

Sometimes it seems that not much has changed since then. 

Certainly, when we look at the fisheries management wars of this decade, Aeschylus’ words ring all too true.

Consider the current debate over the so-called “Modern Fish Act.”  That’s the bill designated S. 1520 in the Senate, and H.R. 2023 in the House, both titled the “Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act.” 

More recently, the boating industry/fishing tackle industry/anglers’ rights coalition that has been supporting those bills have also started to say that the designation “Modern Fish Act” also applies to the House-passed H.R. 200, although that bill is a far broader reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, called the “Strengthening Fishing Communities and Increasing Flexibility in Fisheries Management Act,” which was amended to include some Modern Fish Act provisions as a small part of the bill.

With two Modern Fish Act bills introduced in Congress, and another being belatedly given the “Modern Fish Act” designation even though it is very different from the other two pieces of legislation, there are a lot of opportunities for the truth to become bent, and even broken, as various people try to fit it to whatever situation they find themselves in at the time.

The problem with bending the truth out of shape is that you can be certain that you can ever get it back into its original form the next time that  you need it.  Worse, when you’re out touting a position in the public arena, you might forget what the truth actually looked like the first time, and end up promoting a “truth” today that looks a lot different than the “truth” that you asserted a few days ago.

That’s how “alternate facts” are born.

Just a few days ago, it appeared that some of those “alternate facts” were spawned down in Louisiana.

It all began when Kendall Dix, a person active in the fisheries arena, wrote a letter to The Advocate warning against the threat that the Modern Fish Act and H.R. 200 posed to the region’s fish stocks. The letter warned that

 “There’s a Trojan horse outside the gates of the Senate.  Unfortunately, many of our Gulf Coast senators seem ready to swing open the doors…

“Supporters of S. 1520 seem unaware that its companion that already passed in the House (H.R. 200) is quite different from S. 1520.  H.R. 200 has many more provisions that weaken the science-based conservation measures of Magnuson-Stevens, the law that has benefitted commercial and recreational fishers alike.

“If both S. 1520 and H.R. 200 pass, Congress will meet behind closed doors to decide which provisions of each bill will make it into the final law.  We can’t take the risk of such important decisions being made outside public view…”

To anyone watching H.R. 200 and the Modern Fish Act bills move—or in the case of H.R. 2023, not move—through Congress, Dix’s comments would have made sense.  The only bills that both include Modern Fish Act provisions and have made it through their respective chambers’ committee processes are H.R. 200 and S. 1520, and given that both chambers need to approve a bill in order to have it signed into law, conferencing those two bills together is a logical thing to do.

But, as Dix noted, that could lead to a very bad result, and it’s probably not a result that Modern Fish Act supporters want to acknowledge in public.  Thus, Jeff Angers, who is president of the Center for Sportfishing Policy, a political action organization that represents the industry and anglers’ rights groups working to weaken Magnuson-Stevens, wrote his own letter to The Advocate, and did his best to discredit Dix’s claims.

With respect to conferencing the two bills together, Angers wrote

“While the House version of the Modern Fish Act, originally introduced by U.S. Rep. Garret Graves was included in a broader fisheries bill (H.R. 200) that passed the U.S. House in July, the Modern Fish Act in the Senate is independent and strictly focuses on improvements to the way recreational fisheries are managed.  This make-believe scenario of conferencing H.R. 200 and S. 1520 behind closed doors is nothing but a scare tactic.  The bills are different and moving through Congress separately.”

It’s one of those statements where the ultimate lie—that conferencing H.R. 200 with S. 1520 “is nothing but a scare tactic” and a “make-believe scenario—is concealed with just enough truth to make the lie believable.  

Yes, S. 1520 is a different bill from H.R. 200, and the bills are currently moving through Congress separately.

But what’s going to happen if S. 1520 is passed?

As noted earlier, both chambers of Congress have to approve a bill before it is signed into law.  And as Angers himself admits, the House version of the Modern Fish Act was included in H.R. 200.  Unless the House were to revive H.R. 2023, and get it through committee in the waning days of this Congress, there is no House bill to match with S. 1520—except for H.R. 200.

But there’s no need to look at this from a theoretical standpoint.  Instead, to find the truth of the matter, just look at what Angers’ organization, the Center for Sportfishing Policy, and its members have already said about the two bills.

For example, after H.R. 200 passed in the House, the primary organizations that support the Modern Fish Act, including the Center for Sportfishing Policy, issued a joint press release announcing that “Landmark Fisheries Reform Takes Major Step Toward Becoming Law.”  In that release, Thom Dammrich, speaking for the National Marine Manufacturers Association, said

“We applaud the U.S. House of Representatives for passing commonsense legislation modernizing the federal fisheries management system, which will provide America’s recreational anglers and boaters reasonable and responsible access to public marine resources.  The recreational boating industry calls on the U.S. Senate to pick up the baton, and immediately take up and pass S. 1520…  [emphasis added]”

Such language clearly links H.R. 200 and S. 1520.  Angers may try to convince gullible readers that “the bills are different and moving through Congress separately,” but you don’t need to “pick up the baton” in order to run a separate race.  You only do so to advance your team in the same event; Dammrich’s words reveal a clear need to get S. 1520 passed in the Senate precisely because H.R. 200 had been passed in the House and required a companion.  

If that were not the intent, in the context of H.R. 200, there would have been no need to mention S. 1520 at all.

The closing paragraph of the joint press release further cements the linkage, saying

“Following today’s vote, the coalition encourages the Senate to quickly pass S. 1520.  Marine recreational anglers and boaters are eager to see these landmark reforms signed into law.”

For, once again, why does the Senate need to “quickly pass S. 1520” following passage of H.R. 200, if there was no intent to conference the two bills?  

If the bills were truly “moving through Congress separately,” and conferencing them together was really a “make-believe scenario,” S. 1520’s passage would be irrelevant to the question of whether H.R. 200 becomes law.

But, as the Modern Fish Act supporters’ own statements reveal, everyone knows that’s not the case.

Jeff Angers knows that’s not the case.  

In an op-ed piece that appeared in On the Water magazine, he wrote

“The Modern Fish Act (included in H.R. 200/S. 1520) will make critically important changes to federal fishing regulations…  [emphasis added]”

You just don’t use a parenthetical that says “included in H.R. 200/S. 1520” for bills that are “independent” and “moving through Congress separately.”  You use that sort of configuration for bills that are intimately linked and, very probably, counterparts moving through their respective chambers of Congress.  

To interpret the parenthetical any other way, well, we already mentioned “bending” the truth…

Some Modern Fish Act supporters are more open about the relationship between the two bills.  Mark Ray, the Chairman of the Coastal Conservation Association’s Texas chapter, was quoted in a weekly newspaper, the Port Aransas [TX] South Jetty, as saying

“The provisions of the Modern Fish Act contained in H.R. 200 will provide both for the continued conservation of our marine resources and for the ability of Texas’ saltwater anglers to access those healthy resources…[W]e now look forward to working with our senators to assure that the Modern Fish Act takes the next step and becomes law.  [emphasis added]”

Again, the linkage between H.R. 200 and the Modern Fish Act in the Senate—S. 1520—is impossible to ignore. 

When you talk about legislation that passed in the House taking “the next step” in the Senate, you can only be talking about bills that are closely connected, and which rely upon each other’s passage in order to become law. 

Such language makes no sense if used with reference to “independent” bills that are “moving separately through Congress.”

So the question is why Angers chose to reply to Dix in a way that denies a truth that he and his fellow Modern Fish Act supporters have acknowledged so many times in the past.

The obvious answer is that the consequences of conferencing H.R. 200 and S. 1520 could be so bad that he is afraid that admitting such intent would doom support for the Senate bill.

The other, and perhaps more accurate, answer could be desperation.  

Angers’ Center for Sportfishing Policy and its allied organizations have waged a very expensive, very sophisticated campaign for the past couple of years, in an effort to get the Modern Fish Act passed.  So far, that campaign has failed. 

Their House bill, H.R. 2023, never made it out of committee, and the only way they could keep its provisions intact was by including them in H.R. 200, a bill so bad that some conservation groups are calling it “Another ‘Empty Oceans Act.’”  And some of the worst—and, to the Center for Sportfishing Policy, most desirable—provisions of S. 1520 were removed during the Senate committee mark-up process. 

What might, at first, have looked like a slam-dunk campaign to win the Modern Fish Act’s passage could very well crash and burn, if S. 1520 isn't passed very soon.  If that happens, a lot of companies, and members of the various pro-Modern Fish Act organizations, who helped to finance the PR campaign might start wondering whether they spent their money wisely, be a little upset with the outcome.

And there’s no question that the organizations involved will lose a lot of prestige.

When you find yourself in such a situation, it's very tempting to use whatever tools are available—including “alternative facts.”

And maybe that gambit will work.

But hopefully, it will not, because Magnuson-Stevens is already working—and working quite well. 

There is no need for hasty change.