Flounder Moritorium possible after 2007

[Bob Allen]

My take on the Flounder regulations for 2007--and beyond

The Manusun Stevens act , now 30 years old, expired. The re-authorization bill which has been years being drafted(started in 1996), will be introduced as HR 5018 . As the Bill was being written, some pressure was put on Congressmen Gilchrist and Saxton to include phrases which jeapordize the future of the flounder fishery. . The 10 year flounder rebuilding plans are cast in stone and cannot be changed, however when the flounder targets were being selected, the year 1930 was selected with an estimated flounder population of 204 million pounds. 1930 was apparently the historic high for estimated summer flounder populations. Only Congressmen Gilchrist and Saxton can change the wording of the legislation and those interested in influencing the legislation must write the Congressmen as well as one's own Congressman to suggest that this legislation be defeated if the wording cannot be improved. The drastic reductions in flounder quotas for 2007 will be followed by a total moratorium on flounder harvests for many years beyond 2007 as the targets are unrealistic and unattainable. Recreational anglers must write letters asking for improved wording in HR 5018 from Gilchrist and Saxton , or that HR 1058 in the present form be defeated.

Bob Allen, Hampton, Va

addresses:

Hon Jim Saxton
2217 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave, SE
Washington DC 20510

Hon Wayne Gilchrest
2245 Rayburn House Office Building
Independence Ave, SE
Washington DC 20510

[Matt]

First of all, the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act did not expire. It was amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 96 and federal lawmakers have been content with the way federal fisheries are being managed. Unfortunately there's much more to this than summer flounder. Summer flounder are a poster child for the true ineffectiveness of federal fishery management. Environmentalists have already won in court, and they will not back off now. If you want to write a letter, write'em asking why you pay Larry Simns, the president of the Maryland watermans association, an equvalent of GS15 step 10 salary to make decisions for you.

[Matt]

[Q]reds originally wrote:
BTW. The Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is up for reauthorization.


[/Q]

yes, and has been for five years. Nothing new. The problem is the law, as amended by the sustainable fisheries act, places entirely too much emphasis on the welfare program aspect of fishing business management, and not enough on any kind of natural science. Thats why a guy like GS-15 step 10 Simns is the right man for the job. Who besides a waterman would know how much money the watermen need. I'll bet Simns couldn't pass a 10th grade algebra exam.

[Matt]

[Q]reds originally wrote:

the name of the game is money and influence, not algebra.

[/Q]

True. That was also the 'name of the game' when commercial hunting was legal. Eventually the rules of the game changed from greed and ignorance to simple math. 1000 people shooting at 100 animals doesn't make sense. Unfortunately the game has changed. Now its an entitlement program for the small businesses in fishing communities (per National Standard 8 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act), with the greedy and ignorant surrounding themselves with lawyers and spindoctors to make a welfare program look like wildlife management.

History suggests the current system of marine fishery 'management' and 'conservation' has a bleak future. I think the continued appointments of people like Simns is a positive thing, because greed and ignorance promises to accelerate change. People who can't pass a 10th grade algebra exam are not qualified to make natural resource decisions for an educated constituency.

[Matt]

[Q]reds originally wrote:

I'm sure Larry Simns can buy and sell you.

[/Q]

I'm sure Larry Simns bought your political support, but he'll never buy mine. I tried to be sympathetic to Maryland's commercial fishing welfare program, but I can't get past the greed and ignorance. Simns' loyalists don't care about anybody but themselves. That fact is evident everytime I leave the dock. The best thing I can say about Simns is that he's been extremely effective, but I don't think history will be kind to his legacy.

[Q]reds originally wrote:

The Magnason Act makes allowances for all user groups, not just the people who want to pursue a hobby.

[/Q]

The MSFCMA was intended to develop domestic fishing capacity. Now the primary legal focus is managing overcapacity. All the players in the NOAA-NMFS structure are under tremendous pressure to use better science, and stop throwing caution to the wind. So the welfare loophole is closing. Summer Flounder is probably the best example of how federal managers feel scrutiny. The environmentalists won a court decision citing a plan that did not provide reasonable means to rebuild the stock by a certain time. In my opinion, a positive legal precedent was established by the outcome of that lawsuit. Now fishery management plans that come out of the regional councils must pass rigorous external peer review, and the secretary of commerce knows it. This means an eventual end to the kind of 'wink and nod' management that qualified Simns. Managers will become increasingly required to understand complex biological principles, and apply an appropriate level of precaution to avoid this kind of legal trainwreck. That’s a tall order if you can't pass a 10th grade math test.

[Q]reds originally wrote:

I’ve met and done business with people with double PHD’s and also people who never graduated from high school, but had plenty of common sense. The common sense will win most every time.

[/Q]

Where's your data? I understand the distinction you're trying to draw, and its flawed. Its like saying college is a waste of time. Besides, a 10th grade algebra exam is a far cry from a doctoral discertation. I used the 10th grade math test to show how low the bar is currently set. I didn't say how high the bar should be set. You're rebutting an argument I didn't make.

[Q]reds originally wrote:

If you think science is the complete answer, you should delve deeper into the Flounder mess.

[/Q]

I didn't say science is the complete answer. History and law are also very important. History says federal fishery management is largely ineffective. Law requires managers to rebuild a stock in a certain timeframe. Specific to summer flounder, the law was upheld in 2000 by the U.S. Court of Appeals. In their infinite common sense, unscientific management ignored the law and are now faced with a no-win situation. More timely data and better overall science could have avoided this.

[Matt]

[Q]reds originally wrote:

The greed and ignorance is on both sides of the table, the loser is the bay.

[/Q]


I agree, except the law in question doesn't directly concern the bay, and profit motivated people are usually the most greedy.


[Q]reds originally wrote:

No the Magnason Act was developed to keep foreign countries off the US' fishing grounds. The amendment are what has changed the original intention.

[/Q]

Exclusive Economic Zone policy began in the 40s, was further shaped in the 60s, fishery policy applied in the 70s. Not until the 80s under Reagan was our EEZ formally established. While the original Act did restrict foriegn fishing, it provided government subsidies to develop the domestic fleet. The Sustainable Fisheries amendment of 1996 created specific requirements for management, including specific rebuilding periods. And more subsidies to buyout failing fishing business.

[Q]reds originally wrote:

the end result will be a user group going to the political barrel when they don't like the scientific answer.

[/Q]

You might be right, but this is a bigger issue than people are aware. There's a network of conservation and environmental groups prepared to litigate, and I believe if they are pushed to do it, they will do it, and they will win.

[Q]reds originally wrote:

No you presented an argument that a college education was the only answer, not true. To me passing or not passing an Algebra exam means nothing

[/Q]

show me where I said that or implied it. I didn't say it, and I don't believe it. I questioned a single person's specific qualifications to do a specific job.

[Matt]

I think the NJ charterboats/headboats are doing the most crying, but there's gonna be plenty of whining to go around if NMFS sticks to the plan. I think they will stick. They'll probably cook some numbers and lessen the impact, but bottomline the MAFMC screwed up. They didn't take the 2000 ruling seriously, and now they're making a balloon payment. Whining or not, I think what's coming is just another step in fishery management evolution. If we stick by the rule and make the flounder cuts, federal management will learn to tighten belts a little sooner. Or congress will weaken the law with steep opposition from the left-of-center conservation alliance, and the councils may not feel need to improve the science with better data collection. I don't think a majority of stakeholders really want weaker conservation laws. Most of us want laws that prevents management from proceeding without caution, with menhaden as the posterchild. But I will agree with you reds, theres some flagrant double standards out there. You might read me complain about the nets, but I'm well aware of the problems on the other side. Also, its important to note that this immediate ruling is for 3 miles out. The ASMFC may or may not follow suit for landings in the bay. Example, you can't harvest striped over 3 miles out. You can whackem in the bay.

[Matt]

I welcome it. If decision makers increase striped bass exploitation when the best available science suggests natural mortality is sharply increasing, we'll be that much closer to a sweeping policy reform.