SEAFOODNEWS.COM [The Editors View] by John Sackton — January 20, 2015 — Are commercial fisheries about to be sacrificed in Washington due to loss of leadership and influence?
Last week NOAA issued the latest statement about their intentions to revise the language of National Standard 1 – the document that controls how regional management councils implement the Magnuson Stevens Act.
For many years the precepts of Standard 1 were fixed: Fisheries must be managed on the basis of the best available science to create the optimum yield in national benefits, defined as both commercial and recreational opportunities. Yet since most fisheries in the 200 mile federal waters were commercial, and producing seafood for public consumption was deemed a national interest, the most visible work of the councils has been in managing the commercial fishery.
At the last major revision of Magnuson, important changes were made that required hard catch limits for all major species, and accountability measures to keep fisheries within their limits. These changes were a major objective of marine conservation groups.
The changes worked: the US created a system that is the best in the world at preventing overfishing.
But as some catches were ratcheted down and quotas reduced, suddenly the recreational fishery which had been less visible reacted to being caught by these limits. Two major examples are the red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico, and the halibut fishery in Alaska. In both cases, the management councils had moved to a system of limited access rights and transferable quotas, ensuring that in fact catch limits were never breached. But as quotas fell due to environmental changes, the recreational fishery did not stay below their allocations, and in both fisheries consistently took more fish than they were allocated.
As new controls were put in place such as shorter seasons, bag limits, or size limits, the recreational lobby rebelled and demanded a different allocation system.
For the Magnuson reauthorization that is currently on the table, the recreational groups want to explicitly change the allocation formulas based on historical share of catch, and instead go to a formula based on expanding the share going to the recreational industry i.e.. those making the outboards, guides, charter businesses, and others who support lobbying to gain additional economic advantage. To do this they want explicit power to revisit allocation decisions every five years.
Such a measure would destroy the ability of the commercial sector to invest and get loans, as the fish supply, already subject to natural variability and controls to prevent overfishing, would be further subject to political manipulation whenever a recreational lobby group was strong enough.
In Congress, for most of the years since Magnuson-Stevens was enacted, there have been powerful Senate leaders from the major fishing states: Alaska, Washington, Massachusetts, Louisiana and Maine, all of whom have supported the commercial industry.
But in some states, especially Florida, the recreational lobby has managed to obliterate commercial fishing. For example, in Florida a state-wide ban on gillnets was voted, due to the political power of the recreational lobby.
Now Florida Senator Marco Rubio is not only the chair of the relevant Senate Committee on Magnuson, but a possible presidential candidate as well – and in that arena he will be anxious to support the recreational lobby.
Does NOAA see the writing on the wall? Are they making agency adjustments to deal with a new force?
NOAA sometimes shows very poor and biased understanding of recreational vs. commercial interests.
For example, in a MAFAC white paper on recreational interests, they state:
"The recreational sector is fundamentally different from the commercial sector in several ways, including their motivations for participating in the fishery. Commercial fishermen prosecute the fishery primarily for personal economic gain. They want to catch as many fish as possible, as efficiently as possible, in order to maximize profit. Conversely, recreational anglers fish for enjoyment, to provide fish for their families, for the challenge of catching specific species, and for spending quality time with family and friends."
This description is a total myth. First, the 'recreational sector' is as business oriented as any sector in our society, and the money and lobbying for these organizations comes from the businesses – from boat and motor manufacturers to guides and lodge operators – who are as profit oriented as anyone else.
Secondly, most fishermen are not simply there for a paycheck. They could earn more money elsewhere. Instead, they are devoted to a way of life that is satisfying, independent, and deeply connected to the ocean. There is no difference between an individual recreational and commercial fishermen's love for the outdoors.
Third, the public benefit of the United States seafood resources is in providing an import and unique source of food to the American people – and even though commercial operations have to be profitable to exist, they use a public resource for a larger public purpose: providing fish and seafood to eat.
It is this aspect of the commercial/recreational divide that is so often overlooked. Why should a few hundred thousand people lock up access to striped bass along the Atlantic coast and prevent the 100 million Americans living near the coast from eating that fish at restaurants? A national resource must be available to most Americans.
The revisions underway should make the commercial side nervous, because we are going to be short of friends, and subject to false campaigns that try negate the work we do as somehow not being in the public interest.
The NOAA revision process makes me nervous.
This story originally appeared on Seafood.com, a subscription site. It is reprinted with permission.