HOW MIGHT THE 2024 ELECTION AFFECT MARINE FISHERIES?

 

Every couple of years, when a national election is held, I’ve looked at the issues and the candidates involved and shared some thoughts on how the outcomes might impact marine fisheries and fisheries management.

Traditionally, fisheries management has been a non-partisan issue, which has had the support of both major parties; that tradition dates back to the passage of the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, which was introduced by Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) with the strong support of Rep. Don Young (R-AK), both legislators committed to addressing the problems confronting the fishermen and fish stocks of the United States.  

In the Senate, the primary advocates of similar legislation were Sen. Warren Magnuson (D-WA) and Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), legislators who crossed the aisle in a legendarily successful effort to conserve and manage living marine resources.

The two senators’ non-partisan efforts were important enough that, even though it was the House’s, rather than the Senate’s, version of the bill that was ultimately signed into law, the groundbreaking legislation is now known as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.  The last significant reauthorization of the Act took place in the early days of 2007, when President George W. Bush, a member of the Republican Party who was also an avid angler and strong advocate of marine conservation, signed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act in order to further strengthen the law.

Now, as we stand just two days from a critically important election, in which not only the presidency but also control of both the House and the Senate will probably be decided by a relative handful of votes cast in an few closely contested jurisdictions, it is time to ask what the outcome of the 2024 contest might mean for the health of the nation’s marine fisheries and its living marine resources.

In some ways, that might be hard to know, since neither of the presidential candidates is an active angler, and neither appears to have a close connection to the ocean or the life within.  

Donald Trump prefers to be driven around manicured golf courses in an electric cart, and appears to believe that striking an inoffensive little ball with a stick, before getting back in the cart to be chauffeured right up to the ball again, the apex of vigorous outdoor activity.  Plus, the guy seems to have an unhealthy aversion to sharks.

Vice President Kamala Harris, on the other hand, tends to eschew the golf course in favor of hobbies like cooking and physical training.  But like Trump, she has shown no affinity for the creatures of the sea.

Thus, the candidates’ personal lives provide no clue as to how they might address ocean issues.  That being the case, the next logical step is, perhaps, to look at their respective party platforms, which prove to be almost as uninformative.

The Democratic platform never uses the words, “fish,” “fishing,” or “fisheries,” while “ocean” appears only five times.  That platform states, in relevant part, that the Democrats are intent on

“protecting places that are too special to develop, like Alaska’s Bristol Bay,“

and

“Going forward, Democrats will…ensure clean water for all Americans by protecting rivers and wetlands.  We’ll protect our oceans by working to designate new marine sanctuaries, and protect coastal communities from climate impacts.  We’ll keep pushing to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund, partnering with states and local governments…and continuing to protect lands and waters as National Monuments.”

That might sound good on its face, particularly the part about protecting rivers and wetlands, since the loss and degradation of such rivers and wetlands to dams, unregulated logging, poor farming practices (particularly draining wetlands, destroying marshes, and manure and fertilizer runoff), real estate development, industrial pollution and similar insults has severely harmed runs of diadromous fish, including striped bass, shad, river herring, American eels, various sturgeon and, in particular, the five species of Pacific salmon.

But if you’re an angler or commercial fisherman, there might also be an unperceived threat lying in the Democratic platform, and its mention of “marine sanctuaries” and “National Monuments,” for while the laws governing fishing in such areas are very flexible—in some national marine sanctuaries, such as the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary, even bottom trawling is allowed, while nothing prohibits anglers from fishing in the Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Marine Sanctuary, although commercial fishing is not allowed—there are far too many members of the environmental community who would turn large areas of the nearshore ocean into a no-take marine reserves where fishing of any kind is outlawed.  If such voices gained too much influence in a Democratic administration, fishermen could be badly hurt, while the benefits to marine resources would not necessarily be any better than they might receive under active and effective management.

The Republican platform, on the other hand, doesn’t mention, “fish,” “fishing,” “fisheries,” “ocean,” or “sea” at all.  It is more an assemblage of slogans than a comprehensive platform; in that respect, the slogan most relevant to the fishery conservation and management project is probably either

“2. Rein in Wasteful Federal Spending

“Republicans will immediately stabilize the Economy by slashing wasteful Government spending and promoting Economic Growth,”

or

“3.  Cut Costly and Burdensome Regulations

“Republicans will reinstate President Trump’s Deregulation Policies, which saved Americans $11,000 per household, and end Democrats’ regulatory onslaught that disproportionately harms low- and middle-income households.”

The impact of the former platform position can already be seen in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, where the majority sought to slash the 2025 budget for the National Marine Fisheries Service, cutting 11% from its scitence and management funding, 17% from enforcement, 28.5% from habitat conservation and 55% of the funding needed to protect marine mammals and other endangered species from various activities, included but not limited to offshore oil drilling, commercial fishing, and shoreline development.  The report accompanying the overall 2025 budget made it clear that conserving and managing the nation’s marine resources is not, in the Republicans’ eyes, a national priority.

The latter platform position, expressing the party’s hostility to regulation, provides even a clearer threat to marine resources, as it would further restrict even a diminished NMFS’ ability to regulate harvest, prevent overfishing, and rebuild fish stocks, while allowing various industrial interests to pollute streams hosting runs of diadromous fish; divert water critical to such fish to farming, ranching, and similar business interests; allow the smokestacks of inland polluters to contaminate the oceans; etc.

And that is not mere speculation, because perhaps the best way to gauge how either of the candidates, if elected to the presidency, might impact marine resources is to see what they have done before.

That’s tough to do with Vice President Harris, for she was part of a Biden Administration that hardly set the world on fire when it came to marine conservation.

Since President Biden took office, he has not urged Congress to take on a single major ocean initiative.  There was no effort to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, although the last reauthorization took place almost 20 years ago.  About the biggest thing he did in that regard was to sign onto the so-called 30x30 initiative, a global conservation effort that originated well before Pres. Biden took office, and sought to protect 30 percent of the world’s lands and waters by the year 2023.  To promote the effort, the President rolled out his so-called “American the Beautiful” initiative, but the effort never really got off the ground.

One could even argue that the National Marine Fisheries Service took a step backward during the Biden Administration, adopting fishery management measures in its Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office that allowed recreational fishermen to chronically exceed their annual catch limits of scup and black sea bass and, more recently, proposed specifications for the black sea bass fishery that directly contradicted the clear language of Magnuson-Stevens which requires that fishing limits accord with scientific advice.

That is hardly responsible stewardship.

Yet thouh some might claim Vice President Harris to be tainted by the Biden Administration’s mantle of mostly benign neglect of our fisheries by dint of her current office, Trump is stuck with his former administration’s record of doing active, intentional, and frequent harm.

It began with his cabinet appointees, the foremost of whom, when it came to putting fish stocks at risk, was probably Wilbur Ross who, when appointed as Secretary of Commerce at the age of 79, was the oldest person every appointed to a cabinet position for the first time.  As Secretary of Commerce, Ross was in charge of NMFS, but he seemed to have no concept of modern fisheries science.  He had made a successful career out of turning around bankrupt corporations, and perhaps that made him comfortable with dealing with depleted resources, for his first proclamation upon being confirmed was that one of NMFS primary objectives must be

“obtaining maximum sustainable yield for our fisheries.”

although he never seemed too concerned about rebuilding overfished stocks to a level that might make that possible.  Maintaining abundant fisheries was his primary concern, as he declared his intent to reduce American’s reliance on imported seafood, although just where the domestic seafood that replaced it was to come from was never revealed.  Furthermore, he stated that

“Given the enormity of our coastlines, given the enormity of our freshwater, I would like to how we can become much more self-sufficient in fishing and perhaps even a net exporter.”

Although Ross never managed to realize that particular pipe dream, he was able to frustrate at least two fisheries conservation efforts, involving two very popular recreational species, soon after becoming Secretary.

The first incident involved the recreational red snapper season in the Gulf of Mexico.  It saw NMFS, under Ross’ guidance, issue a rule re-opening the private boat season, even though it was clear that anglers had already made very substantial landings of snapper during the original season and that NMFS was aware—and freely admitted—that reopening the season

“will necessarily mean that the private recreational sector will substantially exceed its annual catch limit, which was designed to prevent overfishing the stock.”

Ross’ NMFS also readily admitted that

“if employed for a short period of time, this approach may delay the ultimate rebuilding of the stock by as many as 6 years.  This approach likely could not be continued through time without significantly delaying the rebuilding timeline.”

Yet, given the philosophy of the past Trump Admimistration, the action was nonetheless justified because,

“Given the precipitous drop in Federal red snapper fishing days for private anglers notwithstanding the growth of the stock, the increasing harm to coastal economies of Gulf States, and that the disparate [state] approaches to management are undermining the very integrity of the management structure, creating ever-increasing uncertainty in the future of the system, the Secretary of Commerce determined that a more modest rebuilding pace for the stock is a risk worth taking.”

It was just another take on the notion that short-term economic benefits should trump long-term resource health.  It was illegal, and was later subjectto a successful legal challenge, but it was nonetheless symptomatic of an administration that believed in cutting regulatory burdens in the name of more profitable business activities.

And it effectively foreshadowed events a month or so later, after New Jersey decided to defy that Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, intentionally failed to comply with its summer flounder management plan, and was then referred to the Secretary of Commerce to suffer the consequences of its failure to cooperate with the other states on the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Management Board.

Secretary Ross had the authority to find New Jersey out of compliance, and shut down its entire summer flounder fishery until it decided to conform its rules to the management plan.  As things turned out, he decided to give the state a free pass, without even consulting the people on his staff who were most familiar with the fishery—the NMFS Regional Administrator at the Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office, and the GARFO staff.

The Regional Administrator, John Bullard, was very upset with Ross’ actions, noting that

“the chain of command was broken with this decision,”

and, because Ross’ action marked the first time in 25 years that a Secretary of Commerce every reversed an ASMFC finding of non-compliance, that

“This is a system that keeps all states accountable to each other.  We’re now going to figure out how to repair that system.”

But Ross didn’t act out of concerns for the science or for the management system, but out of pure political cronyism.  The Asbury Park Press reported, three months before Ross ruled on the non-compliance issue, that then New Jersey Governor Chris Christie

“wasted no time to petition Ross this week and ask him to put a hold on the new summer flounder regulations approved by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission on Feb. 2.”

So the fi inx favor of New Jersey—and against the summer flounder and the ASMFC—was already in well before the Commission made its noncompliance finding.  

Should the election go in Trump’s favor, we can probably expect another Secretary of Commerce, with the same sort of casual contempt for the science and the management system, to serve in Trump’s next administration.

And, although the Secretary of Commerce might have the most direct impact on fisheries issues, other cabinet members can also play a very significant negative role.

We learned that the hard way in 2017, after Trump appointed corporate lobbyist and energy company crony Scott Pruit as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Personally opposed to the Agency’s mission, Pruitt set about making the EPA more industry-friendly.  In the 17 months that he served as Adminsitrator role—he eventually resigned after finding himself the target of 14 separate federal investigations brought by agencies as diverse as the Government Accountability Office, the White House Office of Management and Budget, and the U.S. Office of Special Counsel—he managed to either harm or seriously threaten multiple fish stocks.

Perhaps his most infamous action was his decision to agree with the CEO of the Pebble Limited Partnership, a mining operation that wanted to develop a huge, open-pit mine in Alaska’s pristine Bristol Bay watershed, to vacate an Obama Administration decision, made pursuant to the Clean Water Act, that would have prevented the development of the so-called Pebble Mine.  Pruitt reportedly did so after less than an hour’s conversation with the Pebble CEO, and when he agreed to restart the mine's permitting process, he created a substantial risk that the salmon runs of the watershed—it hosts all five Pacific salmon species, all naturally reproducing, including the largest naturally-reproducing sockeye salmon run in the world—as well as its other natural resources would be severely harmed by tailings from the proposed Pebble Mine.

In a new Trump Administration, it’s far from unlikely that a Scott Pruitt think-alike will be the new Administrator of the EPA.

The Trump Administration finally halted the Pebble Mine, and hopefully provided the needed protection to the Bristol Bay watershed, after the Army Corps of Engineers refused to issue the final permit needed by the mining consortium.  But whether that refusal will be enough to finally defeat the Pebble Mine, or whether the various, seemingly almost random machinations and policy changes that took place between the time the Obama Administration initially halted the project and the Corps of Engineers’ final refusal will convince a court that such final refusal was, in truth, “arbitrary and capricious” and thus invalid, and that such court will allow the mine to proceed, we can’t know at this point.

Either way we shouldn’t believe that science or good policy had anything to do with the current halt. 

Good connections and cronyism did.

You see, Trump finally found out that some hardcore Republicans, including his son and namesake, Donald Trump, Jr., liked to fish for salmon in the Bristol Bay watershed, and didn’t want to see one of their favorite playgrounds turned into a cesspool for an open-pit mine.  Trump’s confidante, broadcaster Tucker Carlson, was also a Bristol Bay fan, who aired a statement in support of the watershed, where he noted that

“Suddenly, you are seeing a number of Republicans, including some prominent ones, including some very conservative Republicans, saying ‘Hold on a moment—maybe Pebble Mine is not a good idea.  Maybe you should do whatever you can not to despoil nature…’”

We probably shouldn't be shocked if new incidents of cronyism pop up in a new Trump administration, and the results of such cronyism might again even prove benign, but if that proves to be the case, we mustn't ignore the affects of accident.  For in such a Trump Administration, the concern that “you should do whatever you can not to despoil nature,” only applies to that part of nature valued by family and influential members of the Republican Party, not to those parts valued by the rest of us.

If, for example, you were just an average guy—maybe a tradesman, or a policeman, or a typical nine-to-fiver with a typical white-collar job, and you liked to fish for striped bass in the Chesapeake Bay, the Trump EPA was not on your side.  The Bay has long been the final dumping place for farm runoff, industrial runoff, and other pollution originating in the entire Susquehanna River watershed.  The federal government has a legal obligation to abate such pollution.  But the last Trump Administration refused to take any action to reduce the pollutant load coming into the Chesapeake’s waters, particularly that originating on Pennsylvania farms.  It took two different lawsuits, and an eventual legal settlement, to compel the Trump EPA to do its job.

Now that the striped bass stock has fallen on hard times, cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay, and minimizing the size of its hypoxic "dead zone," can only become more important.  But, based on what happened the last time, any assumption that a Trump Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency will take any action at all to protect the environment of the Chesapeake Bay will almost certainly prove to be false, and it will probably take another substantial legal effort to get it to provide any help.

It even turned out, the last time around, that the Trump-era EPA didn’t have to go near the water to hurt marine fish, fishermen, and fish consumers.  In the spring of 2020, when Trump’s EPA Administrator was Andrew Wheeler, a former lobbyist for the coal industry, Wheeler gutted an existing regulation that limited the amount of mercury that could be expelled from the smokestacks of coal-fed power plants.

Realizing that corporate profits are not a bit less important than people's health, he claimed that

“We have put in place an honest accounting method that balances the cost to utilities with public safety”

because a former coal industry lobbyist would certainly never want that balance skewed in favor of the public’s health…

That’s relevant to fishermen and fish consumers because the biggest source of methyl mercury in big fish such as tuna, swordfish, and some sharks

“is the burning of fossil fuels, especially coal, which releases 160 tons of mercury into the air in the United States alone.  From there, rainfall washes the mercury into the ocean…

“…High-sulfur (‘dirty’) coal tends to be high in mercury as well…bacteria sulfur in biochemical reactions that eventually convert the mercury into methylmercury, the highly toxic form that accumulates to deadly levels as it passes up the food chain.”

And, if anyone has any doubts, that “deadly” can refer to people, as well as unborn infants, and not just to the rest of the animal kingdom.

EPA regulations were actually beginning to drive down methylmercury levels in bluefin tuna, but Trump’s EPA then did what it could to make tuna fish toxic again.

But all of those things were done by Trump’s cabinet members, not by Trump himself.

So is there really anything that suggests that Trump himself would be hostile to good fisheries conservation and management?  There is, in the form of an “Executive Order on Promoting American Seafood Competitiveness and Economic Growth,” which was issued on May 7, 2020. 

Some of that Executive Order was actually beneficial to American fisheries, such as the section that sought to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, and the section that sought to create a global seafood trade strategy.  As for the rest, it certainly didn’t bring conservation to the forefront.

Instead, the Executive Order included a directive that each regional fishery management council must produce

“a prioritized list of recommended actions to reduce burdens on domestic fishing and increase production within sustainable fisheries,”

a directive that seems to come right out of the deregulation playbook—and I challenge anyone to name a single fish stock that became healthier after deregulation.  Anglers and conservationists were rightfully concerned that Trump’s Commerce Department issued a press release making it clear that the Executive Order was intended to be an example of

“Regulatory reform to maximize commercial fishing [emphasis added]”

that did not consider the recreational sector.

In fact, Ted Venker, then Conservation Director of the Coastal Conservation Association, perhaps the nation’s largest “anglers’ rights” organization, worried that

“There is the potential for NOAA Fisheries to interpret this order as encouraging increased use of commercial fishing gears such as longlines, gill nets, and trawls, which would be a tremendous step backwards for conservation.”

The Trump Administration was voted out of office just six months after the Executive Order was issued, so there probably wasn’t enough time to put its most egregious goals into place.  However, there is no reason to believe that a new Trump Administration wouldn’t begin where the old one left off, and attempt to deregulate commercial fisheries in an effort to increase production, regardless of such action’s impacts on fish stocks.

And, finally, before leaving Trump behind, let’s not forget his aversion to sharks.

It’s hard to know what effect that aversion had on his administration’s policies, but it’s reasonable to wonder whether it affected the United States’ position at the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, which also regulates sharks, swordfish, and billfish in addition to its namesake pelagics.  

Traditionally, the U.S. was a conservation champion at ICCAT, but during the Trump Administration it, along with the European Union, became one of the primary opponents of conservation measures intended to halt the sharp and continuing decline in the North Atlantic shortfin mako shark population, and to possibly rebuild the stock sometime within the next 50 years.

While it’s impossible to say that Trump’s fear of sharks had anything to do with the U.S. stance on shortfin makos at ICCAT, it’s equally impossible not to note that the United States reversed its position, and made mako conservation possible, at the very next ICCAT meeting following President Biden’s inauguration.

And that’s probably as good a way as any to summarize Trump’s effects on marine fisheries issues.

So when the election occurs tomorrow, voters are getting a clear choice, between two very different candidates.

Some voters will make the perceived threat of crime, or of inflation, or of immigration issues, their primary concern, and vote accordingly.

Some will worry about issues impacting our foreign alliances, healthcare choice, and/or education standards, and cast their votes based on those.

But for those who will let a candidate’s impact on the health of the nation’s marine resources at least partially influence where their votes will go, I hope that the above summary of the candidates’ histories and party platforms might have provided at least a small nudge in the proper direction.

 

.