For the five-year anniversary of the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the law that addresses fisheries in the U.S., I collaborated on this op-ed with former National Marine Fisheries Service director Bill Hogarth. He currently directs the Florida Institute of Oceanography.
Remarkable things can happen when key stakeholders and leaders in Washington find common ground for a common good. An excellent case in point is the congressional effort to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, a landmark conservation measure signed into law by President George W. Bush five years ago this January.
In the mid-2000s, we had arrived at a point where our marine fisheries management system just wasn't working in many parts of the country. The clock was ticking to reform our nation's primary law for governing U.S. ocean fish. Disputes among main constituencies were many, but one thing was clear to virtually all -- business as usual was no longer an option.
With numerous vital commercial and recreational fish stocks severely depleted, action was needed to help them recover and prevent others from facing the same fate. Everyone knew the way forward wouldn't be easy, but something had to be done.
A coalition came together at the last minute to pass the legislation. With vital support from the White House, the group spanned traditional partisan lines and included leaders from conservation as well as the commercial and recreational fishing communities.
Initially, the discussion stalled on technical matters, as many debates in Congress do. In the end, however, the effort led to a well-considered compromise that balanced the many competing needs and pressures on our oceans. The linchpin was a new federal mandate promoting more sustainable practices on the water and embracing the usage of strong, science-based catch limits to restore and maintain fish populations at healthy levels.
Every American who loves the ocean and enjoys seafood should applaud this accomplishment. For such policies to be more effective, however, it's critical that Congress continue to support these efforts with adequate funding for fisheries research.
Today, we have one of the most advanced marine resource management programs in the world. For the first time in United States history, by the end of January we are set to have science-based catch limits -- as well as measures to ensure that these limits are not exceeded -- for all of our federally managed stocks. These efforts have put us on track to end overfishing -- the problem of taking species from our oceans faster than they can reproduce -- in U.S. waters once and for all.
Anglers, commercial fishermen and all of those who depend on a healthy ocean are beginning to reap the benefits of these and other reforms in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Twenty-three previously depleted species' populations have been rebuilt, including Atlantic sea scallops, one of the most valuable fisheries in the country, and mid-Atlantic summer flounder. Other commercially and recreationally important species, such as red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico, are heading toward recovery.
There will always be competing needs and viewpoints on how to best manage our nation's fisheries. But the bottom line is that the system is now working. One place where Congress can further support this effort is by providing additional resources for federal managers to have the best science possible to make their decisions.
Collaborative research programs are bearing fruit across the nation. As an example, the University of South Florida is currently working on a cooperative project with partners in the commercial fishing industry to look at new technologies that can be used for stock assessments. The results so far are impressive, thanks in part to the extensive knowledge that many fishing captains have brought to the initiative.
It's clear that science must be the basis for the decisions fisheries managers make, because when we have better data available, everyone wins. Federal budget dollars these days are tight, but improving fisheries management -- and the economy that depends on it -- is a smart investment for us all.
The coalition that came together to reauthorize the Magnuson-Stevens Act was a classic example of how Americans with varying perspectives can put aside their differences and work toward a common goal. Similar support for legislative proposals to promote additional cooperative research and management projects would be an excellent way for members in this Congress to build upon the work of those who came before them.
Carl Safina: Will National Geographic TV's Wicked Tuna Be Better Than Advertised?
Ted Danson and Andrew Sharpless: A Safe Haven for Leatherbacks
A plethora of lobbyists have helped manipulate the legislative system through the stealthy work of a few pensioned former bureaucrats who apparently don’t understand that Congressional testimony doesn’t actually disappear from public record.
While Pew’s Lee Crockett – and probably by default the Florida Institute of Oceanography’s Bill Hogarth – don’t want to see flexibility instilled into the federal fisheries law that they each had a hand in seeing dismantled, a coalition of recreational and commercial fishermen will be in Washington DC on March 21, together in a rally against this type of hypocrisy and revisionist history.
www.keepfishermenfishing.com
(END)
To the exclusion of the fishermen, these former fisheries opponents from the public sector have since buried the hatchet and have found mutual comfort beneath the blanket of Pew Charitable Trusts funding and together have been painting a misleading portrait of joy and contentment within our coastal communities. Nothing could be further from the truth of course, and while these former NMFS staffers are touting to media outlets by trumpeting the fruits of their bureaucratic labor, a coalition of real fishermen, most without the luxury of public sector pension benefits, continues fighting for meaningful fisheries reform at the legislative branch of government.
These fishermen from both the recreational and commercial sector recognize that heavy sacrifice in the name of conservation has been made during the past 36 years of fisheries management, ever since the Magnuson Stevens Act was first established specifically to create a robust and sustainable U.S. coastal fishery, which has led to more robust fish stocks from coast to coast.
(Part 4)
Pressed to elaborate further on the statutory deadlines included in the legislation, Dr. Hogarth told Congress, “We think that 10-year is arbitrary. We think it should be based on the life history of the species, and we think we need that flexibility.â€
House members continued to discuss various amendments to the Magnuson Stevens Act legislation in an effort to provide some of that limited management flexibility Hogarth favored, however, Pew Environment Group and its allies were ultimately successfully in fighting to keep the rigid and inflexible statutory language in place. In the end, whatever commonsense approach was being discussed, and indeed advocated by Hogarth and fisheries advocates in the House, was ultimately squashed when Pew and its political allies successfully worked over Senate leaders who steamrolled through a reauthorized version of the Magnuson Stevens Act by unanimous consent, summarily ignoring the debate taking place in the House Natural Resource Committee.
(Part 3)
Fishermen of course tried warning legislators of this impending “train wreck†during the Magnuson reauthorization debate, bolstered by the scientific analysis of Dr. Hogarth himself. During this time, while Crockett’s group was putting heavy influence on the Senate to pass an extremely restrictive new federal fisheries law to the exclusion of coastal fishermen, Dr. Hogarth was giving contrary testimony in the House which warned of severe socioeconomic impacts given the inflexible nature of some of the newly authored statutory definitions.
In direct questioning from House Natural Resource Committee members in 2006, Hogarth was asked specifically if he thought it made sense to include rigid deadlines for rebuilding fish stocks, or if instead there should be some flexibility for the Secretary of Commerce to adjust timeframes in certain instances. “I think that there should be some flexibility, and I think we have utilized some flexibility,†Hogarth responded, adding “I think the key to this is do we rebuilt these stocks in a reasonable timeframe, and that is the key.â€
(Part 2)
First and foremost, it should be disclosed that both Crockett and Hogarth worked extensively in the federal public sector before taking their current posts as lonely friends of the fish; Crockett having spent seven years working inside a Congressional fisheries committee and another four-and-a-half at the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), while Hogarth himself is the former head NMFS.
While it’s common knowledge that the philanthropic endowments by Pew have given huge financial support to the Florida Institute of Oceanography over the years, what many media outlets probably aren’t aware of is the vast difference of opinion that Hogarth and Crockett once held when the NMFS chief was asking Congress to stop a law from being manipulated by Crockett’s group of anti-fishing, environmental lobbyists.
In an official 2007 memo NMFS director, Dr. Hogarth said of fishing regulations for a number of coastal species, "Based on the language included in the most recent reauthorization, 2010 will be a train wreck.†Call him prophet or genius, but Dr. Hogarth was absolutely correct!
(part 1)