fbpx

by:

posted in: General

September 27, 2013

CCA MC Has It Right on Stripers

Photo courtesy of John McMurray

I’m in Montauk this week and next.  So being that I’ll be writing blogs in-between 8-plus-hour stints of chasing unusually sparse pods of albies and stripers, expect uncharacteristically brief pieces for these two weeks (unfortunately, as regular readers of this column have likely noticed, I don’t really have the gift of saying something meaningful in under 1000 words).

But, here goes…  Earlier this week, Tony Friedrich, CCA MD’s Executive Director, sent me their comments on the 2012 Benchmark Striped Bass Stock Assessment.  Yes, the benchmark was released a few weeks ago, but I’ve avoided writing about it because the 2012 numbers still need to be added (presumably that will happen in Oct), and because, well, I’ve been too darn busy fishing to read and digest the whole thing.  But getting back on point, Tony forced me to give it a look this week.   I think CCA MD pretty much has it right.  CCA MD Comments on 2013 Striped Bass Stock Assessment.

I will note here that it’s good to see that at least one CCA state still believes in one of the founding principles of that organization…  That is, the needs of the fish must come before the needs of any user group (I’m paraphrasing of course).  That doesn’t appear to apply to any of the CCA chapters down south right now, but that’s an entirely different blog.  I suspect this is an indication that the Mid Atlantic and New England CCA states will take a solid conservation position on striped bass.  Indeed that’s a good thing.

As I understand it, the old striped bass stock assessment was kind of a mishmash.  In assessing the appropriate fishing mortality and spawning stock biomass levels, it averaged out two “Ricker models” and two “statistical catch-at-age models”, and it came to a conclusion that was neither fish nor fowl (all pun intended).  The Ricker model for striped bass probably wasn’t appropriate in the first place.  I’m told that such models are generally used for species such as salmon, where overcrowding in limited nursery habitat actually reduces recruitment (not the case with a species like striped bass where there appears to be plenty of spawning habitat), and where a reduction in the population, within reason, leads to higher recruitment.  The Ricker Model is one of those things that gets hauled out every time someone wants to kill more fish (e.g. RFA was pushing it for fluke back around 2004 or 2005).Getting back to the stock assessment itself, as expected, it shows that stripers are not overfished, and overfishing still isn’t occurring.  Before you throw your hands up, let me explain.  This does not necessarily mean more of the same.  Clearly the stock is in trouble, and there is some acknowledgement of that in the assessment itself.  And I think even those managers prone to avoid any tough decisions are beginning to see the writing on the wall.

The new assessment is strictly “statistical catch-at-age”, and comes to the conclusion that you’d expect once the less appropriate model is off the table.  That is, the fishing mortality reference points are too high. The stock assessment concluded that we need to reduce fishing mortality pretty significantly if we are to avoid big problems in the future.  As mentioned, the final 2012 numbers will be added to the assessment at the October ASMFC meeting.  Until then, it is difficult to put a number on the percentage of reduction recommended.  But it will probably somewhere around 40 or 50%.  Which is entirely reasonable, and a worthwhile sacrifice if it will stop the decline and get the stock back to abundant levels.

Without any change in fishing mortality, overfishing is a virtual certainty in 2014, and there is an increased chance of an overfished stock by 2015/2016, although that begins to decline thereafter when that anomalous strong 2011 year class (amongst 8 years of average to below-average year classes) begins to recruit into the fishery.  That’s of course assuming that a significant number of 2011 fish do indeed recruit into the fishery.   Given the lack of much before or behind them, and the pressure they will likely face, I have my doubts.

As the CCA comments point out, there’s no doubt that reductions are needed.  Where the real doubt lies is whether ASMFC has sufficient guts or integrity to make such real and likely painful reductions.  If I had to make a guess, given the rumblings I’ve heard, I’d have to say that ASMFC will approve some sort of reduction in fishing mortality.  Yet, given the management body’s reluctance to make the real hard choices, and its constant proclivity to “meet half-way” (e.g. invoking half-measures), I’m not confident it will be the 50% reduction in F we really need.  Yet, as mentioned in other blogs.  I’m perpetually cynical, which is likely the result of being around this stuff too long.

Now might be a good time to contact your commissioners and ask them to reduce fishing mortality significantly, and to do it now!  So that we can stop what is so obviously a decline in what has become perhaps the most important fish to the Mid-Atlantic and New England recreational fishing community. Here’s the link to your Commissioner’s contact info:  ASMFC Commissioners.

Do you have any thoughts on this post?

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Comments must be under 1000 characters.

by:

posted in: General

The F-word Again

Signing the reauthorization of the Magnusson Stevens Act in 2006 — Compliments of NatGeo

 

The penalty for using the F-word when growing up was worse than having to wash one’s mouth out with soap. It usually meant getting grounded for some period of time and that meant no fishing expeditions to local ponds and rivers. These trips were executed on bicycles outfitted with rod holders and tackle box containers. In those days, most did not get cars until well past the driver license age. Losing fishing privileges was a big penalty.

Today’s F-word and fisheries are far different. Some think that not believing in the F-word as it applies to fisheries should get a punishment far worse than oral soap or getting grounded. They think that if one is not for the F-word, then one is against recreational fishing and the industry it supports.

What is today’s F-word? Well, it is “flexibility” and seems to be the central concept being pushed for the current Re-authorization of the Magnusson Stevens Act (MSA), also know as the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), so named after its re-authorization in 2006. I am hoping that this reauthorization does not become the “Flexible Fisheries Act.”

What’s the problem with making fisheries more flexible to help accommodate the needs of the resource users. Nothing really. But do we need to make a change to do that? A lot of folks do not think so.

Last week, one of my fellow bloggers, Capt. John McMurray, wrote a good piece on the current efforts to Re-authorize the MSA/SFA, whichever you’d like to call it. He gave a good look at all the major issues. If you want a refresher give it a read. I am going to focus in on one issue that continues to give me heartburn. This issue is also getting some traction after a recent report was released by the National Research Council, which is an arm of the US National Academy of Sciences. Several former members of Congress requested the report. I cannot criticize the report as I have felt that the arbitrary re-building timeline mandated in MSA was just that. Arbitrary. But the mandated timeline does hold managers feet to the fire as well as tying their hands on some species.

The report does say that the existing law works. It noted that a good percentage of the stocks examined were now rebuilt or rebuilding. This is all good news. What the report points out is that current science capability is not good enough to precisely manage to a specified biomass level. Given that constraining element, they suggested that managing to a mortality level rather than an arbitrary timeline “might” be a better way to go. Note they said “might” not “would be.” From a managers standpoint, managing to a mortality level is very attractive because it is fairly straight forward. Set it and forget it!

In a discussion with John Pappalardo, CEO of the Cape Cod Commercial Fisherman’s Alliance, he made a very good observation about this report. “This report is an intellectual debate that will unfortunately be used to inform a policy decision.” Spot on.

With some of the problematic stocks, the allowed mortality (landings + discards + natural mortality) would be set at a low level with no rebuilding timeline. That may work for the commercial industry as it avoids the huge swings in quota currently being experienced and gives some level of stability. I doubt that it will be much help to the struggling groundfish industry in New England.

However, my strong sense is that this type of management strategy will absolutely cream the recreational users that share resources with the commercial users. What drives the recreational industry? Fishing trips. What drives fishing trips? Abundance of fish. This has been proven time and again. People want to catch fish and since recreational users have the least efficient gear, they need lots of fish. Keeping them at low levels until the stars align to cause a lot of high recruitment events will not help the recreational industry. I think that a lot of the push from the recreational industry for the F-word is due to one or two specific fisheries. Ya, ya, red snapper is one. There may be other ways to address these specific fisheries and it appears that the Gulf is working on one.

I do not think that there needs to be a complete remake of MSA to solve some specific issues. Rick Methot, Chief assessment Scientist for NOAA Fisheries supported that idea, “the agency is investigating how it can revise its national management guidelines to provide more flexibility, while still preventing overfishing and rebuilding fish stocks. We are interested in finding the right balance of flexibility and firmness.”

If there are ways to improve MSA that make the managers jobs simpler and more effective, I am all for it. However, allowing stocks to remain at low levels for prolonged periods will do nothing to rebuild and sustain the recreational fishing industry. I’m pretty sure of that.

 

For More Information

  1. The Bottom Line
  2. Report shows gains in many fish stocks

by:

posted in: General

Tegan’s Trout

The fish pulls; she swings the pole back, lifting the line out of the water, the fish flops on the bank.  Excited at the catch, she smiles and releases the trout.  Moments such as this last a lifetime for a child.

For many of us, these childhood memories are enough to get us hooked on fishing for the long haul. But these days we are seeing fewer children spending time outdoors; we need to get our kids playing again.

The future of our fish and wildlife depends on teaching our children how to respect the resources. Passion for a sport starts with the parents and if we don’t encourage our children to fish or pursue outdoor activities then we lose the next generation of conservationists.

When kids play outside, they connect with the resources and develop an appreciation for the environment – something that is often lost on children who never get out of the house.

Take an opportunity this Saturday, Sept. 28, on National Public Lands Day and National Hunting and Fishing Day, to introduce a newcomer to our rich outdoor traditions.

Ed Arnett

by:

posted in: General

September 26, 2013

Guns Up! Top U.S. Retrievers Meet in Kansas

“GUNS UP…DOG TO THE LINE.”  Those simple words may not mean much for many folks, but if you own a retriever breed of dog – whether they be Labrador, Chesapeake, Golden, Flat- or Curly-coat retrievers, Irish water or Boykin spaniels, even standard poodles – and you run hunting tests, these words mean you and your dog are about to have some fun.

Hunting tests were born from field trials where handlers and retrievers are tested on their ability to mark and retrieve live shot birds or thrown dead birds (sometimes out to 400 yards!) and handling their dog on blind retrieves. In a blind retrieve, the handler guides the dog to a bird it has not seen by with a system of whistles and hand signals

Field trial dogs compete for first, second, third and fourth places in the event. Trial placements accumulate points toward a dog receiving the title of Field Trial Champion or Amateur Field Trial Champion.

Ed Arnett, TRCP’s Director of the Center for Responsible Energy Development, with his dog Rip at an AKC Master National event. Photo courtesy of Ed Arnett.

Several decades ago, some avid hunters that trained their retrievers for hunting and field trials conjured up the idea of a program where trained retrievers were tested under various hunting situations and scored against a standard of performance, rather than a competition among dogs. Live birds are shot or dead birds thrown in similar ways to field trials but at shorter distances and in scenarios more resembling that of true hunting situations for either waterfowl or upland birds.

Today, the North American Hunting Retriever Club, the United Kennel Club, and American Kennel Club all administer hunting retriever tests. All have different levels for young dogs, those at a middle stage of their training, and the most advanced dogs that can do it all – triple or quadruple marked retrieves, complex blind retrieves, honoring (sitting still and watching while another dog is working), sitting still to a flushing bird – the polished hunting companion. For the AKC program, dogs are awarded a Junior, Senior or Master Hunting Retriever title after qualifying the appropriate numbers of tests.

The pinnacle of the AKC hunting test program is the Master National, where each year the best of the Master Hunting Retrievers gather to run a week-long event to see who is at the top of their game. A dog must pass at least six Master tests in the 12 months after the preceding years’ Master National in order to qualify to attend that years’ event.

Master Hunting Retrievers are tested to the maximum of the standard set by the AKC. To obtain this high standard, judges use terrain, wind direction and other factors when placing birds for marked and blind retrieves so as to provide a significant challenge for the dogs.

I have been running and judging AKC hunting retriever events since 1992. I started my life with retrievers in 1991 with the goal of having a good hunting companion. After reading several books and articles on training, I discovered the hunting test programs and once my new puppy was of age to run tests, I was hooked!

This year, I was honored with the opportunity to judge the prestigious Master National event, along with seven other retriever enthusiasts and dedicated judges. The popularity of the program and quality of dogs has increased dramatically and the number of Master Hunters qualifying for the National event has more than doubled in recent years. In 2013, the number of qualifying dogs exceeded 830.

We will test these dogs on land, in the water, and land/water combination. If a dog gets through a total of all the series of tests we throw at them, they will receive a qualifying score, a big orange ribbon and a silver plate. If a dog can pass the Master National at least three times, they will enter the Master National Hall of Fame.

The author’s dog, 2-time Master National Qualifier Merganser’s Classic Rip-N-Tear MH (1996-2007) Photo courtesy of Ed Arnett.

Why does any of this matter to the average sportsman andwhy is it important to conservation? Most hunters will tell you they just want a good huntin’ dog and don’t need to run trials. Running field trials or hunting tests no doubt takes time and money, and titles for the dog may not mean anything to most hunters – but it’s the training that is the most critical piece.

What represents “good” is in the eye of the beholder, but a well-trained retriever in the field is an extension of a good sportsman-conservationist. The ability for a retriever to mark birds and be handled to a crippled bird quickly is critically important for recovering all shot game.

While there are no valid statistics on the amount of lost game when hunters don’t use a dog, use a poorly trained dog, or one that is well-trained, my experience has been that having a well-trained retriever conserves game. I am far more likely to find a downed bird and retrieve all of my shot game when I have a well-trained retrieving machine with me in the field. I suspect if surveyed, most waterfowl and upland hunters would agree.

The 2013 AKC Master National runs from September 21st to the 29th in Fall River, Kan.  If you are nearby, come watch the best of the best retrievers in the country, or follow the action on the Master National website and blogWatch a little of this event, join a retriever club, and train for and run these tests – and you just might good hooked like I did!

by:

posted in: General

September 20, 2013

If It Ain’t Broke…

A recent NRC report on rebuilding fisheries is right about some things, but if history is any indication, it’s wrong on others

 

DSC_0046a

Back in 1996, Congress enacted the Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA), which rightly requires fishery managers to rebuild overfished stocks in a time period that is “as short as possible,” generally not to exceed 10 years (except in cases where the biology of the stock, other environmental conditions or international agreements dictate otherwise).  By all means, reasonable to most anglers who want to enjoy such rebuilt/abundant fisheries… in our lifetimes.

Congress, with what appeared to be overwhelming support of the American people, reaffirmed the need to rebuild stocks promptly when it reauthorized the Magnuson-Stevens Act in 2006, upholding the “as short as possible,” timeframe, but also explicitly directing fishery management councils to heed the advice of independent scientists on their Science and Statistical Committees regarding biologically-based maximum fishing levels.  This provision essentially isolated Council decisions from political pressure to do the wrong thing, as the scientists would be the ones setting the maximum harvest levels.  Congress, as well as conservation-minded angling groups, understood that such a provision was necessary to alter the cultural predisposition of regional fisheries management councils to discount scientific recommendations if there might be some short-term economic pain for their constituencies.

In addition, the Magnuson reauthorization required firm catch limits and accountability measures be established to ensure that such fisheries were indeed rebuilt.  In short, the 2006 Reauthorization gave fishery management law real teeth and thus far it appears to be working.  Rebuilding for the majority of federally managed species is either done, or getting done.

Unsurprisingly, the resulting fishing restrictions have caused some economic pain, suffered not only by the commercial fishing industry, but the recreational sector also, as seasons and bag limits shrink and stocks recover from decades of overfishing.   A slow economy probably hasn’t helped the situation.

Responding to concern about such economic and social impacts in their states, and, well, a chorus of disgruntled fishermen who want to be able to kill more fish than the current law allows, members of Congress recently requested that NOAA fund a National Research Council (NRC) assessment of the rebuilding plans and their associated ecological and economic effects.  Most of what they found generally wasn’t surprising.  From the document:

  • The current rebuilding approach has “resulted in demonstrated successes in identifying and rebuilding overfished stocks.”
  • “fishing mortality has generally been reduced, and stock biomass has generally increased, for stocks that were placed in a rebuilding plan.”
  • “the long-term net economic benefits” have been “positive.”
  • “the legal and prescriptive nature of rebuilding mandates forces difficult decisions to be made, ensures a relatively high level of accountability, and can help prevent protracted debate over whether and how stocks should be rebuilt.”
  • “setting rebuilding times is useful for specifying target fishing mortality rates for rebuilding and for avoiding delays in initiating rebuilding plans.”

Yet, even as the NRC Report confirms the well-documented and unprecedented success in rebuilding fisheries, it strangely enough suggests that policymakers consider policy changes that could very quickly undermine that success, most notably the elimination of mandatory deadlines and rebuilding targets set forth in the 1996 SFA.   Although it doesn’t explicitly call for a change in the law itself, the report does appear to recommend reversing course on the strict deadlines and rebuilding targets that repeatedly and successfully rebuilt depleted fish populations.  I do understand the reasoning, but I think there’s a huge lack of perspective here.

First, the report points out that, given the many environmental factors that can affect population size in addition to fishing,  there is considerable uncertainty about how fast fish populations will grow.  For example, climate change and other ecological factors can certainly drive changes in fish stocks.  Thus, the report argues,  rebuilding fish populations within a certain timeframe cannot be assured.

That may be the case, but there are a couple of key points here that the report ignores.  One is that we have no control over natural mortality that comes with such environmental and ecological factors.  And, well, natural mortality plus fishing mortality equals total mortality.  While we can’t control that other stuff, we can control fishing mortality.  Whether we can control fishing mortality enough to allow a stock to rebuild within a time certain, in light of the above mentioned natural factors, is indeed a relevant question.  But the fact that the majority of federally managed stocks have rebuilt or are rebuilding within the prescribed time frames strongly suggests we can.  Sure, there are some that haven’t, but the current law allows consideration of such natural factors in those fisheries when setting rebuilding timelines.  As I said, above, the law stipulates rebuilding “in as short as time as possible”, which in most cases is 10 years “except in cases where the biology of the stock, other environmental conditions” dictates otherwise.  So, such non-controllable factors are actually already addressed under current law.

The report goes on to identify strategies for accommodating  uncertainties which could lessen short-term economic and social impacts. For one, it recommends taking earlier action to avoid overfishing by imposing prompt but gradual limits on fishing when fish populations start to drop rather than waiting until they are overfished.  No argument here.  This strategy could help managers avoid the stricter limits that come with rebuilding badly depleted stocks.  The ASMFC should certainly take note of this one (e.g. striped bass).

Yet the report also recommends basing rebuilding plans on monitoring and controlling fishing levels, rather than on requiring that fish populations recover to a pre-specified target size within a certain timeframe, arguing that this strategy might be less disruptive.  In other words, if managers could keep fishing at a reduced but constant level for a longer period of time, they could rebuild fish stocks while allowing higher harvest levels.

Of course, that seems obvious right?  Why not let people kill more fish while the stock is recovering, and just let that recovery take longer?  But what does “longer” mean?  Instead of 10 years, 20 years?  Or 40 years!?  Don’t know about you guys but I want to see fish stocks rebuild in my lifetime.  Fish are a publicly owned natural resource, and should be managed for the benefit of everyone.  Seriously, why should I have to lose charter business because the resource-extractive sectors want to kill more fluke and drive the stock down to levels where they aren’t available to me?  Regardless, aside from those questions, the suggestion disregards the last 30 years of fisheries management history.

Prior to 1996 (when SFA was passed), managers were able to put off rebuilding in the name of minimizing economic impacts, and the result was, well,  it was chronic overfishing.  It doesn’t take a, brain surgeon, or, ehm, a fisheries scientist to figure that one out. The longer the rebuilding period, the longer managers, under extreme pressure from their constituents and politicians, put off rebuilding as most federally managed stocks bounced along at a low level.  This hurt everyone in those fisheries, but particularly anglers.  Commercial fishermen, at least the good ones, could always find fish to scoop up via net.  But anglers, using the least efficient gear and having the least range, and who really depend on abundance, were stuck busting their rear-ends to find a 14” fluke.  Even after SFA was enacted, NOAA Fisheries and the Councils had to be sued before they would institute rebuilding plans that had any real chance of success.

Such reluctance to act also demonstrates the hazard inherent in the previously mentioned “environmental factors beyond our control” language.  If managers can shirk their responsibilities by claiming that the condition of an overfished stock is beyond their control because of environmental conditions, it’s very likely that they will find countless excuses that “justify” rebuilding failures.  Fishermen are notorious for placing blame for declining stocks on predation, development, pollution, climate change—anything but fishing.  While these factors are certainly relevant, they do not justify continued overfishing.  When fish populations face stress from environmental factors, it doesn’t make sense to continue to catch them faster than they can reproduce, yet fishermen routinely point to such problems, and try to use them as excuses for overfishing collapsed stocks.  Southern New England winter flounder is a darn good example of that.

My overarching point is this: without  firm deadlines and rebuilding goals, managers don’t have the balls to rebuild.  Speaking from  a Manager’s perspective (I sit on the Mid Atlantic Council), I absolutely understand this.  It’s  really freak’n hard to make the difficult but necessary decisions that will cause substantial short-term pain, but are needed to ensure long term sustainability.  It’s particularly tough when your constituency and in some cases politicians are crying for more fish.  The sort of “flexibility” the NRC report seems to be endorsing will give the Councils ample reason to avoid making those tough decisions and to perpetually put off rebuilding.

Advocates of flexibility will continue to say that a 10-year rebuilding requirement is “arbitrary” and not science-based even when such deadlines are endorsed by scientists and, in fact, are actually being met!  And I suppose in the strictest sense, 10 years could be considered arbitrary.  But so is any deadline.  20 years is just as “arbitrary” as 10.  Perhaps I’ve become too cynical, but I have to think that Council members, seeking to placate their constituents, would be unlikely to work any harder to recover a stock in 20 or 30 years than in 10.   And even after that, there’s no reason to believe managers would get serious about rebuilding and wouldn’t only ask for more flexibility down the road.  I have to believe that it would be nearly impossible to implement any finite time frames in any rebuilding plan if we were to take the report’s suggestion seriously.  In truth, “flexibility,” is merely a euphemism for “delay”, and building more “flexibility” into the management system would merely allow managers to avoid the obligation to recover fish populations, and lawsuits resulting from their failure to do so

I talked about this pretty extensively in my first blog.  But I’m gonna hammer it home again, because it needs to be said over and over again.  The firm rebuilding goals and timelines are working.  So much so that I’ve created a “summer doldrums” business for summer flounder (fluke) for my light-tackle clients.  Fluke, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth (e.g. “it can’t be done”, “we’ll all go out of business”) was rebuilt to a level where we are pretty much all benefiting now!  According to NOAA Fisheries summer flounder recreational landings were up 700% from 1989 to 2011 when the stock was rebuilt!

I certainly understand that the situation down south is quite a bit different, and I’m the first one to admit that I’m not an expert on red snapper.  But I do know that one of the defining aspects of that rebuilding plan is that red snapper is much longer-lived and slower growing than a species like summer flounder (or bluefish, black seabass or scup for that matter), and the pain that comes with such rebuilding will likely last a lot longer.  I also understand there are data problems.  But I have to say that the complaints from snapper fishermen sound very similar to what we were hearing from the summer flounder crowd about 6 years ago.  Regardless, to blow up an entire management system, which the conservation minded angling community worked so hard to get in place, and which, overall, appears to be benefiting anglers (who of course rely on abundant fisheries) is pretty damn stupid and short-sighted, especially considering the fact that the vast majority of anglers don’t even really target red snapper.

It’s pretty clear to me that, overall, science-based goals and firm deadlines serve the general public well, even if a few business interests may have to suffer temporarily.  The case of summer flounder makes that clear.  Today, the average Joe can go out into the Bay with his kids with the reasonable expectation of catching a few keeper fluke.  That simply wasn’t the case just a few years ago.

But back to the NRC report…  I didn’t find its criticism of the use of timelines and rebuilding goals  to be balanced or compelling. It acknowledged, but then dismissed, their efficacy  to date, and the criticism was based on theory rather than real-world experience.   While there have certainly been and continue to be problems with the rebuilding programs, I’m pretty sure they are just “growing pains” which, assuming we leave Magnuson intact, will probably abate as the process continues to mature.  With any real world regulatory programs there is always “messiness” in the beginning.   And really, such problems are being addressed by the Councils within the constraints of the current law which already offers sufficient flexibility.  Furthermore, the report failed to coherently and specifically provide an alternative approach, let alone demonstrate that such an approach would have produced superior (or even similar) results.

But where does it leave us?  I’m afraid not in a very good place.  The NRC report, despite clearly recognizing that the rebuilding timelines and goals are working, is quickly becoming “Exhibit A” for the same “more-fish-for-me” crowd that has been working so hard to tear the heart out of the Magnuson Act’s provisions since 1996.  The very provisions that have allowed extraordinary recoveries such as summer flounder to occur.

Perhaps it’s an Irish trait to always have a half-empty glass, but I have a somewhat bleak outlook on the next Magnuson Reauthorization.  The good guys no longer appear to be the good guys, and the public is so darn anti-government/anti-regulation right now.  And then there’s freak’n red snapper, which very few anglers even target, but that stupid fish seems to be driving the debate.  Perhaps most importantly, we don’t have strong leadership on fisheries on the Hill anymore (e.g. Stevenson and, well George W., who was actually quite good).  On the other hand, Congress is so dysfunctional, it’s entirely possible this doesn’t move at all.  Pretty pathetic, but really, that may be a saving grace.   (Note:  my “copy editor” calls this paragraph “needless whiny pessimism that isn’t helping anything.”  I don’t disagree).

Congress is already holding hearings on the Magnuson Stevenson Act Reauthorization.  I actually testified in front of the Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard in July.  You can find the archived testimony here.  Note that my testimony begins at 1:29.  Yet a more recent hearing in the House had a completely different tone: a bunch of guys referencing the NRC’s suggestion for flexibility in rebuilding timelines and goals.  Congress needs to keep hearing from anglers and small business owners like me (and you!) who have and continue to benefit from rebuilt stocks, and not just from the more-fish-for-me crowd who’s new rallying cry around the NRC report is “we told you so”.

Well, the facts show that “WE told you so”.  Nearly two-thirds of the stocks put in rebuilding plans since 1996 have either rebuilt to healthy population levels, or have made significant rebuilding progress. This rebuilding success was responsible for an increase in estimated gross commercial revenues of $585 million—92 percent higher (54 percent when adjusted for inflation) than revenues at the start of rebuilding.  That is incredibly significant.

It would be unwise to go back to a policy that seemed to have so obviously failed our fisheries, our fishermen and the general public.  But that’s exactly where we’re headed if we don’t make our voices heard and exercise our right to influence the direction of fisheries policy.  As we get down to reauthorization time (when that might be is really anyone’s guess right now), we have to let Congress know that this is not what we want.  Stay tuned and I’ll let you know how we can do that.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

CONSERVATION WORKS FOR AMERICA

As our nation rebounds from the COVID pandemic, policymakers are considering significant investments in infrastructure. Hunters and anglers see this as an opportunity to create conservation jobs, restore habitat, and boost fish and wildlife populations.

Learn More
Subscribe

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!

You have Successfully Subscribed!