 |
| Fishermen march on Washington, DC |
|
Freedom to Fish?
If you’re a reader of my blog, you’ve already heard about the February 24, 2010 Freedom to Fish march on Washington, DC. (If you haven’t seen it yet, check it out at http://www.boats.com/boat-content/2010/02/fishermen-march-on-dc/) A big part of the march was to get out the word and drum up support for the Flexibility in Rebuilding America’s Fisheries Act, HR 1584/SB1255. But there isn’t time to examine these specific bills and the issues surrounding them in a blog – so here’s a more detailed explanation.
The root of the problem with the Magnuson-Stevens act in its current form is that it directs fisheries managers to rebuild a fishery in “not less then 10 years.” Now, 10 years may sound like a long time, but even for a fishery in good shape that may be interpreted as meaning that it should be shut down or severely restricted, just in case fishing would impede the rebuilding. The 10 year time frame (which is arbitrary, by the way – there’s no scientific basis for picking it) draws a line in the sand which proponents of no-fishing zones and closed fisheries can say we will cross, if we dare to catch another fish or two. The current status of black sea bass is a perfect example. Everyone agrees that the stocks are in good shape, but since New York anglers caught more then their allotted poundage of fish, bass fishing has been shut down along the entire coast. NEWS FLASH: sea bass don’t migrate north-south, they more or less migrate east-west (shallower to deeper). Not one single bass caught in New York was spawned in, or would ever so much as visit, a wreck in Virginian waters. So, why the heck are all federal waters closed for bassing…?
And there’s another problem: the Magnuson-Stevens act also fails to consider factors other then fishing, when it comes to evaluating ways to end overfishing and rebuild overfished stocks. In other words, pollution, habitat loss, environmental conditions, and other factors that can have drastic effects on fisheries stocks don’t play into the equation.
Now, before you get me wrong, understand one thing: I’ve always been for restricting commercial fishing as much as need be, to ensure sustainable fisheries. Many times I’ve written about catch limits, by-catch problems, and habitat destruction due to commercial fishing gear. But the new attitude seems to be to throw the baby out with the bathwater – there are some folks out there who want to eliminate fishing altogether, both commercial and recreational, and Magnuson-Stevens in its current form seems to have given them the ability to do it. Folks, don’t sit on your butt on this one, we need our angling voices to be heard, bit-time. Go to www. unitedwefish.com, and click on the “contact your senator” button. Do it right now, please!
|