THE FLY FISHING INDUSTRY LEADS THE WAY--AGAIN

People who know me know that I’m often critical of the recreational fishing industry, largely because of its focus on short-term returns and its failure to support the conservation measures needed to better assure the long-term health and sustainability of fish stocks.

To be fair, industry CEOs aren’t paid to promote conservation.  They’re paid to maximize the return on investments made by the shareholders and owners of the companies that they manage.  If they can, for example, boost company earnings by developing a forward-looking sonarunit that lets anglers find what few fish remain in a depleted population, andkeep anglers’ landings high by turning fishing into what is effectively a videogame that lets fishermen place their baits and lures right in front of a fish’smouth, they may be doing more to boost profits than they would if they supported efforts to rebuild overexploited stocks, which might depress landings—and sales—for the next five or ten years.

And the CEOs aren’t blind to the fact that their salaries and bonuses—and maybe their future employment—aren’t contingent on what the company might make in the future, but on what it will make this year.

At the local level, tackle shop owners and for-hire captains have more than enough current bills to keep them focused on cash flow, rather than on ten-year plans to rebuild fish stocks.

All that makes the actions of the American Fly Fishing Trade Association that much more remarkable. 

For many years, the fly fishing industry—as well as the guides and charter boat captains who cater to fly and light-tackle anglers—have stood virtually alone in the recreational fishing industry, recognizing that maintaining healthy and sustainable fish stocks, rather than short-term income flows, holds the key to the industry’s future.

A little over three years ago, I praised AFFTA for publishing a report, “Recommendations to Improve the Health and Sustainability of America’s Marine Resources,” which called for management measures which prioritized long-term sustainability of fish stocks over maximizing the short-term profits that accrue from increased landings that could easily threaten such stocks’ health.

At that time, I noted that contrasting the industry’s chronic demands for more dead fish and fewer recreational regulations to AFFTA’s calls for conservative, resource-oriented management was

“something like being in a roomful of kindergarten kids all day, and then finally escaping into the company of rational adults.”

But if the recreational fishing industry as a whole is acting more and more like spoiled children every day, calling for the abolition of the federal program that monitors recreational landings, seeking to undercut annual recreational catch limits in the Mid-Atlantic region, and trying to convince managers to increase landings of certain coastal shark populations merely because such marine predators are eating some fish that anglers want to keep for themselves, the fly fishing industry, in the form of AFFTA, is continuing to call for responsible fisheries management.

The newest example of AFFTA’s leadership emerged last week, when it announced the release of its latest report, “Anglers Are The Key to Climate-Resiliant Fisheries.”

The announcement noted that the report

“serves as a call to arms to galvanize the angling community to demand action as climate change disrupts fishing experiences coast-to-coast.”

Anyone spending time on the water can see the effects of such climate change.  Sometimes, that change has brought good things, such as the notable increase in the number of black sea bass and dolphin found in northeastern waters, and the northward movement of species such as cobia and blacktip and spinner sharks.  But the change has also had negative impacts.  Warmer waters in the northeast have been implicated in the decline of winter flounder and Atlantic cod, while warm, snowless winters may have contributed to the recent string of poor striped bass spawns.

Of course, you won’t hear the folks who build boats designed to be powered by three or four 350 horsepower outboards, or those who build the big engines themselves, complain about climate change or the impacts of burning too much fossil fuel, so marine fishing industry has pretty well ignored that topic.  Thus, once again, AFFTA finds itself pretty much alone.  Lucas Bissett, AFFTA’s Executive Director, avers that

“From changing habitats to shifting fish populations and behavior, we can’t ignore the realities that we’re seeing out on the water.  As long-term stewards of our country’s waterways who are seeing these impacts firsthand, anglers have the power to make a real difference in the fight for climate-resilient fisheries—for our sport, way of life, and industry.”

While the report marks AFFTA’s first substantial entrance into the climate change arena, it also connects with the organization’s traditional concerns; its stated purpose is to spur

“an angler-led revolution where conservation-minded anglers are educated, motivated, and activated to demand progress toward healthy and abundant marine fisheries in the face of the impacts of our changing climate…[The report] calls for a science-based, precautionary fishery management approach that accounts for ecosystem structure and function while maintaining catch at sustainable levels.”

Sadly, there will be members of the recreational fishing community who will reject AFFTA’s efforts simply because their chosen political philosophy will not let them admit that climate change is real.  Yet anyone who has spent part of the last two or three decades on the water knows how much things have changed.  As the report notes,

“Fisheries in Florida and elsewhere in the southern U.S. continue to see catastrophic declines in fish abundance and vital habitat loss due to rising water temperatures and sea level rise.  Beloved species along the Atlantic coastline are now either out of range or below sustainable abundance for anglers who have historically depended on their presence for recreational, commercial and cultural values.  In the Pacific, extreme weather-related events like marine heat waves serve as straws that could break the proverbial camel’s back of populations already pushed to the brink…

”In just the last few decades, U.S. anglers have witnessed challenging stock shifts as rising ocean temperatures push fish populations and bait further offshore and northward.  In Florida, fish kills due to algal blooms and red tide events are amplified by warming ocean temperatures and sea level rise.  In the Gulf of Mexico, warming ocean temperatures, more freshwater runoff, and other climate-driven changes continue to decrease dissolved oxygen content, further decreasing suitable habitat in an area already losing important fish habitat at an unparalleled rate.  Along the Pacific coast, the crippling multiyear marine heatwaves have forced closures in historically large and productive fisheries, decimating anadromous species returns from the Sacramento River to the Yukon River, the effects of which we are still feeling to this day.”

Denying that reality merely to maintain some sort of ideological purity will not alter what’s yet to come; only concerted effort by all concerned has a chance of creating a different, and better, future.

The report sets out the challenges that the oceans, fisheries managers, and anglers are facing, which may only get worse in the future, including increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, and more extreme weather events.

While anglers can certainly encourage legislators to craft policies that will address such issues, they may not be able to get the job done on their own.  But what anglers can hopefully accomplish is to help create “climate-resilient fisheries;” that is, fisheries that are in the best position to survive the changes that will inevitably come.  Anglers are well-positioned to act as both advocates and partners, who work with legislators and regulators to make needed changes in the fishery management system.  

However, as the report notes, accomplishing the needed change will be neither glamorous nor fun.

“[I]t is assuredly going to be a grind.  It will take a wave of advocacy to install new policy standards; make massive increases of local, state and federal funding; and transition fisheries management to a holistic approach that is science-based, precautionary and adaptive.”

Yet if such change is not made, both fish and fishermen are likely to suffer.

AFFTA goes on to tell us that

“Climate-resilient fisheries depend on science-based, precautionary management that accounts for ecosystem structure and function and maintains catch at sustainable levels.  In plain terms, climate-resilient fisheries are the result of well-funded management agencies using the latest science, technology and strategies to help protect fish and their habitat.

“Maintaining a strong science-based management system will help keep fish stocks at abundant levels that will serve to make them more resilient in the face of change…

“Managing fisheries in the face of climate change will require new tools and approaches to ensure healthy and abundant fisheries.  We will be challenged to continually adapt our management systems to new problems, such as shifting fish stocks and emerging fisheries.”

In the end, the key to creating climate-resilient fisheries is managing for abundance; that is, worrying more about the number of fish left on the water than about the number removed.  Abundant fish stocks are inherently more resilient, and will typically provide a larger and more diverse gene pool that is more likely to include individuals capable of adapting to the impending change.  Managing for maximum sustainable yield, a tactic that always leaves a stock teetering on the brink of depletion should conditions change, is no longer a viable option for, as the report notes,

“In the face of uncertainty a precautionary approach is needed, requiring us as anglers to make tough decisions to preserve long-term sustainability.  This near-term sacrifice is not solely for the benefit of future generations; it may be required to salvage our current ability to engage with our species of choice.”

Of course, “near-term sacrifice” is not a phrase that people like to hear, and it will probably be particularly unpopular with much of the traditional recreational fishing industry who, like children, tend to seek immediate gratification, in the form of higher profits and bigger fish kills, rather than engaging in long-term planning and holding some resources aside for the future.

But as I noticed before, AFFTA and the fly/light tackle community has always seemed to represent some of the only the adults in the room.  Thus, it is not surprising that they advise

“If we care about fish, if we care about fishing, if we care about coastal cultures and traditions and angling communities, we as anglers must wear our passion as a badge of honor and scream it from the rooftops for all to hear.”

No, even that that won’t guarantee a win.  After all, the folks who are making their money by causing the problems will be screaming, too.  But anglers aren’t the only ones who care about a healthy ocean, and so long as we pick the right allies, and don’t get discouraged, we have a reasonable chance to prevail.

In that vein, AFFTA suggests that anglers

“find and support a fishing club, conservation group or similar group that aligns with your values,”

which may be the most difficult part of the task, as the sad fact is that most fishing clubs don’t get too involved in conservation issues, and most organizations operating at the state, regional, or national level tend to be closely aligned with the mainstream angling industry, which not infrequently participates at the leadership level and has a significant, negative influence on the positions such groups take on fishery management issues.  A reliance on the donations, in cash and in kind, provided by industry members can also make various angling groups eager to stay in industry’s good graces.

About the only large angling organization which has proven an exception to that general rule is the American Saltwater Guides Association, which despite its name is more than eager to work with individual anglers, and has consistently taken conservative, science-based positions on fisheries issues.

Thus, anglers will likely have to turn to mainstream conservation groups that are active in the marine resources space, if they wish to contribute to the fisheries conservation effort.

Having said that, AFFTA’s advice to anglers, telling them to

“Volunteer to help [their chosen organizations] restore habitat; make your voice heard with decision-makers responsible for the caretaking of fisheries; and make a financial contribution to organizations working to make a difference:

remains valid.  I’ve been involved in the fight for many, many years, and one thing I’ve learned is the importance of just showing up, and making yourself available as an informed and honest source of stakeholder input that managers can rely on when issues arise.

As I read AFFTA’s report, I was pleased to see that AFFTA recognized that anglers should use the dollars they spend to impact the management process.  

We often hear industry spokesmen talk about the economic contributions made by recreational fishermen, and then use those figures when arguing for their own preferred positions—which may not be in the long-term interests of the anglers themselves.  Yet, just as many industry members remain focused on little more than short-term income, some support management that focuses on the long-term health of fish stocks.  For that reason, anglers should heed AFFTA’s advice to

“Spend consciously and deliberately, exclusively supporting brands, outfitters and guides that participate in advocating for conserving the fisheries their brands depend on.  Tell them you support them for exactly that reason.  Tell your friends to do the same.

“As conservation-minded anglers and consumers, we have every right to expect accountability from businesses, state management agencies, the federal government, and anyone else that profits from or is in charge of protecting fisheries.  But we must also remember to support and provide cover for those willing to step up, step out and take part in advocating for climate-resilient fisheries.  [emphasis added]”

Such discerning spending habits need to be extended right down to the level of your local tackle shop, which may very well be promoting self-serving management policies that you would not support. 

I well recall a time about two decades ago when, after a hearing intended to help managers shape Amendment 6 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Striped Bass, the recreational fishing industry here on Long Island decided to boycott a local angling publication, after its publisher committed the “sin” of telling the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission that the great majority of his readers wanted striped bass managed in a way that allowed them to grow both abundant and large, which is just what his industry advertisers, who favored a larger harvest of smaller fish, did not want the ASMFC to hear.

And I’ll conclude with that, for this post has already run a little too long.

But in concluding, I ask that you read the entire AFFTA report, which you can find at https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5dd2f8e63472e46421917604/t/6642ce9bc0034864b5a35577/1715654308249/Tomorrows+Fish+Climate+Report-Final+5.13.pdf. 

Then I ask that you don’t just walk away, but instead do as AFFTA advises, and get involved in the process of protecting your interests, as well as those of the fish.

For I can assure you that there will be many folks out there who will be working very hard to promote interests that are, and will remain, completely opposed to your own.