Archive for December, 2011

Taking Flak

By Jeff Angers
President
Center for Coastal Conservation
From The Saltwater Sentinel – the Newsletter of the Center for Coastal Conservation

It is easy to see why federal fisheries management is in the shape it is in.

On one side of the debate is a completely obstinate environmental community that refuses to budge even an inch to address a train wreck in federal fisheries brought on by some provisions of the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Act. On the other extreme is a recreational group involved in a coalition of charter and commercial fishing entities that takes a wildly different view from the environmental community.

In between and catching flak from both sides is a coalition of responsible fishing and boating groups working to find a way to address problems in federal fisheries management that doesn’t leave anglers at the dock, while remaining committed to conservation of our marine resources.

Last week, the environmental community sent letters to Congress opposing H.R.2304/S.1916 — the Fishery Science Improvement Act. One of the letters was signed by 129 scientists opposing the bills, although it is not clear if all of those scientists were sure what they were signing. Conversations with some of those scientists after the letter was released confirm that the bills were misrepresented.

This week, the Recreational Fishing Alliance launched yet another attack on everyone who does not support their “Flexibility” bill. Variations of the Flexibility Bill have been introduced in the last three Congresses to fix a 1996 requirement to rebuild overfished fisheries in a time certain. Environmentalists condemned that bill as fundamentally unraveling just about every conservation tenet of the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The 1996 reauthorization of MSA is responsible for many of the conservation provisions that have successfully rebuilt a number of our fisheries. However, that doesn’t discourage RFA from searching for scapegoats in our community for their bill’s repeated failure and engaging in an Internet campaign of scorched earth against its enemies, real and imagined.

Meanwhile, the environmental community refuses to do anything to disprove the impression that its ultimate goal in the 2006 reauthorization was to close the oceans and remove anglers from the water. To the contrary, it uses its vast resources to lobby against any effort to adjust the Magnuson-Stevens Act to fit the current capabilities of NOAA Fisheries. That intractable attitude is one of the factors that drives responsible members of the fishing and boating community up the wall.

It is said that when you start taking flak you know you are over the target. With attacks on the Fishery Science Improvement Act from the extreme ends of the political spectrum, it is clear that the Congressional Sportsman’s Foundation, American Sportfishing Association, The Billfish Foundation, Coastal Conservation Association, International Game Fish Association and National Marine Manufacturers Association and the Center for Coastal Conservation, must be over the target.

As this session of the 112th Congress comes to a close, it looks as though passage of FSIA may be a bridge too far.  But when the Congress reconvenes next month, we have another opportunity. I expect our champion Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) to secure a mark up on the House version of the bill. I believe Senators Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) will do likewise in the Senate. And we will solve this problem facing America’s fishermen.

The Magnuson-Stevens Act comes up for reauthorization in a few years, and it is difficult to imagine how radioactive the environment may be by then. By refusing to engage in any meaningful manner, the environmental community has given fertile ground to an increasingly extreme opposition. At a time when groups should be working together to address problems in federal fisheries management, the issue is more polarized than ever and the future is uncertain, if not downright bleak.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Magnuson-Stevens Act, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Federal fisheries legislation in the spotlight

House Committee on Natural Resources holds hearing on eight fisheries bills

WASHINGTON, DC – Robert G. Hayes, one of the most respected voices on state, federal and international fisheries management issues, is among those invited by U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, to appear before a hearing of his committee on Dec. 1 and offer testimony on a number of bills that stand to impact federal fisheries management. Hayes will be testifying as the recreational fishing representative on the panel. Other participants include: Rick Marks, Hoffman Silver Gilman & Blasco; Capt. Robert Zales, National Association of Charterboat Operators; Chris Oliver, North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Mike Colby, Double Hook Charter Boat; Peter Shelley, Conservation Law Foundation, and Eric Schwaab, assistant administrator of the National Marine Fisheries Service.

“The House Committee on Natural Resources is gathering information on a variety of bills proposing to address some of the well-known problems in federal fisheries management that have appeared since the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act,” said Jeff Angers, president of the Center for Coastal Conservation. “It is an important opportunity to discuss a number of bills that have been introduced in the House and referred to this Committee.”

The Committee is focusing on the Coastal Jobs Creation Act of 2011 (H.R. 594); Strengthen Fisheries Management in New England Act of 2011 (H.R. 1013); American Angler Preservation Act (H.R. 1646); Fishery Science Improvement Act of 2011 (H.R. 2304); Asset Forfeiture Fund Reform and Distribution Act of 2011 (H.R. 2610); Fishery Management Transparency and Accountability Act (H.R. 2753); Saving Fishing Jobs Act of 2011 (H.R. 2772); Flexibility and Access in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2011 (H.R. 3061).

In his testimony, Hayes will focus on the Fisheries Science Improvement Act (H.R. 2304/S. 1916) and highlight three overarching issues of concern with regard to federal fisheries management: 1) the importance of marine recreational fishing; 2) the negative consequences of adopting quotas by sector for every stock of fish under management without standardized assessments to support those decisions, and 3) the urgency of acting now.

“The one-size-fits-all amendments adopted in the 2006 reauthorization of Magnuson undermine the discretion of Councils, which must manage to the species, fishermen and management systems available to them,” Hayes says. “What happened in 2006 was an over-reaching of control that has deprived many of the Councils of the discretion they need to tailor measures appropriate to the science and the management capability they have, not what they would like to have.”

Rep. Rob Wittman (R-Va.) introduced the Fishery Science Improvement Act in June with 34 bipartisan co-authors, while Senators Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) introduced a Senate version of the bill on Nov 28 with original co-sponsors, including Oceans Subcommittee Chairman Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska); Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus Co-Chairman Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.); Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.); Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska); Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), and Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).

For a copy of Hayes’ complete written testimony, click here.

Posted in Magnuson-Stevens Act | No Comments »