The concept of putting more "flexibility" into fisheries management has become a real hot-button issue in much of the recreational-fishing community, particularly since late last year when Rep. Walter B. Jones (R-NC) introduced into Congress legislation intending to change our national fisheries. The Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2007 (HR 4087) would allow federal fisheries managers to extend deadlines (generally set at a maximum 10 years by the current Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act) for rebuilding some stocks.

We focused (and took a position) on this very issue in our February editorial. That brought a more immediate and passionate response than any recent editorial, with many strongly agreeing with Sport Fishing's stand and some contesting it.

You can choose sides and comment on this issue in our forums here. (registration required)

THE QUESTION: DO WE NEED LEGISLATION TO ALLOW MORE FLEXIBILITY IN OUR NATIONAL FISHERIES LAW?

 

The RFA Statement The federal fisheries law, the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA), imposes unachievable requirements on fisheries managers. The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is calling on Congress to allow limited flexibility in the management of fisheries, but only in cases where the stocks have shown a positive growth trend or substantial rebuilding progress. For instance, summer flounder fishing mortality has decreased over 80 percent; total harvest has decreased over 96 percent; and both total-stock biomass and spawning-stock biomass have increased 251 percent and 280 percent, respectively, yet the law has required quota reductions for the past three years. A similar case could be made for red snapper, West Coast rockfish and others around the country. The RFA will not waver in our commitment to long-term conservation of the resources we cherish, but we do believe managers should not be held to arbitrary timetables and requirements.   The marine environment is dynamic and fisheries science can be uncertain. Three leading fisheries biologists recently made this point in testimony to Congress. Scientific uncertainty itself is not a problem, if management can be adaptive and accommodate such uncertainty. However, current law prohibits such an approach. The MSA requires overfished fisheries to be rebuilt in 10 years. The arbitrary time frame resulted from a 1996 policy negotiation, not a scientific decision, made by members of Congress who sought compromise. The arbitrary time frame does not allow managers to consider the dynamic nature of the marine environment or fish populations. Most objective observers would agree that total mortality on fish is not limited to direct fishing activity because there is an undeniable connection between fish and the complex ecosystems of the ocean, land and air. Those same observers would also agree that even with zero fishing mortality, it is highly unlikely that the existing statutory requirements can be met for all species.   Limited flexibility will allow for the continuation of conservation and rebuilding of fish stocks while maintaining the many small businesses that depend upon recreational fishing. It will also help us continue to do what we love to do – go fishing.	The PEW response As an avid angler, I love to fish, and I spend as much time as I can doing just that. Like you, I want the fish to be there when I head out. No one brags to his or her friends about fishing all day and only catching two or three fish. That said, fishery management should ensure that there are plenty of fish not only for you and me, but also for generations to come.   To accomplish this goal, fishery management should be based on science not politics, should never allow fishing at unsustainably high rates (called overfishing) and should take aggressive action to rebuild depleted fish stocks. Congress recognized this in 1996 and again in 2006 by passing legislation designed to implement these management principles. But now, some fishing interests are calling on Congress to provide fishery managers with "flexibility" to bypass the law. In essence, these fishing interests want economics to trump conservation.   Is that a good idea? Not if we look at the history of U.S. fisheries management. Prior to 1996, managers could avoid cutting quotas to end overfishing and rebuild depleted stocks for economic reasons. Since cutting quotas creates negative economic impacts on commercial fishermen, managers used this flexibility to avoid making these tough choices. Predictably, stocks of cod, flounder, snapper and grouper crashed.    Congress recognized this problem and passed legislation in 1996 that requires managers to establish plans to rebuild depleted fish stocks to healthy levels within 10 years, if biologically possible. Implementation of this requirement has led to rebuilding success with Atlantic sea scallops, yellowtail snapper, red grouper and lingcod.     In 2006, Congress made further changes to federal law that require managers to put an end to overfishing. Now, just one year later, we hear fishing interests asking Congress to turn back the clock and give managers the flexibility to again avoid making tough decisions. History shows that allowing economics to prevail over science is shortsighted and is, in the long run, bad for fishermen. If we weaken the law, management will suffer at the expense of both fish and fishermen.
RFA Rebuttal Nature doesn't work on an arbitrarily set rebuilding time frame as has been advocated by Mr. Crockett. When rebounding fish stocks don't rebuild at the rate Congress calls for, flexibility, which incorporates sound science, is called for. There are actually two resources to be protected: the fish resource and the human resource. The human resource, made up not only of anglers but small businesses such as tackle and bait shops and charter boats, can only survive with reasonable access to the fish resource. We contend that a closure, or regulations so restrictive that they constitute a virtual closure, is not reasonable access, particularly to stocks that have shown strong recovery. It is misinformed or misleading to equate the scientific standards set forth in the bill we support with pre-1996 law, which largely allowed managers to ignore scientific advice.	PEW Rebuttal Mr. Donofrio's legislation doesn't provide "limited flexibility"; it actually opens a hole large enough to steer a factory trawler through. The bill adds four vague new reasons to extend rebuilding plans for both commercial and recreational fisheries that can be applied anytime. In some cases, flexibility could be a double-edged sword, allowing for damaging industrial fisheries the same exemptions granted to sport fishermen and small businesses. Clearly, this is in no one's best interest.     Current law already allows "limited flexibility" since the 10-year rebuilding requirement can be extended when it's not biologically possible to meet. This allows managers to factor environmental variables into rebuilding plans. Managers have used the flexibility in existing law to its fullest extent, creating a rebuilding plan for red snapper that runs 31 years and rebuilding periods for West Coast rockfish that range from 10 to 82 years. More flexibility will bend the system past the breaking point.

You can choose sides and comment on this issue in our forums here. (registration required)

Jim Donofrio serves as the executive director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (www.joinrfa.org). Donofrio, who co-founded RFA in 1995, holds a 100-ton master license from the U.S. Coast Guard.

Lee Crockett directs federal fisheries policy activities for the Pew Environment Group (www.pewtrusts.org). He has more than 20 years of experience in ocean policy with Congress, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the nonprofit sector.