THE EDGE- March 7, 1997
FISHING JOURNAL
THE EARLY CLOSURE OF THE "ANGLING CATEGORY"
SCHOOL ATLANTIC BLUEFIN
FISHERY
First I'd like to thank Congressman Pallone for convening this
public hearing so that recreational fishermen and members of the
recreational fishing industry can make their feelings known
concerning the problems with the bluefin fishery and with pelagic
fisheries management in general. Unfortunately, it seems like
only yesterday that we were here ranting and raving about this
same problem, the early bluefin closure of 1995. I hope this
won't become an annual event. At that time, there were promises
made that were not fulfilled. This makes it very difficult to
believe fisheries managers and their superiors at the Department
of Commerce. Gentlemen, you have a crisis of credibility that can
not be denied.
I'm here tonight, not to comment for the Jersey Coast Anglers Association of which I am vice president, nor as a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council, on which I hold the obligatory seat from New Jersey. I am here to comment as a fisherman and a businessman whose livelihood is derived from publishing a magazine that teaches anglers how to fish for pelagic species. A businessman like so many others who will comment here tonight or that will comment in writing later. Our businesses and livelihoods are part of what might as well be termed the "Invisible Industry" as far as the Department of Commerce is concerned because dealings with Commerce and its fisheries agencies have made it perfectly clear that recreational fishing remains underrepresented in pelagic management plans and in the regulatory process in general.
The Department of Commerce has spent decades aiding, financing
and promoting commercial fishing to the point that there is not
one pelagic species left than has not been commercially harvested
to the point of being fully, over-exploited or worse. It has
helped commercial fishermen purchase their boats and equipment
with special low-interest loan programs, and then used tax
payer's dollars to buy back those boats after they were permitted
to collapse certain fisheries. It has provided untold public
funds in the form of SK grants to commercial fishing advocates
like NFI, which then use the money to pervert well-intentioned
FMPs into ineffective, watered-down plans that do nothing to
protect the resource. If there was ever an incestuous
relationship with government, it is the one fostered between
Commerce and the commercial fishing industry. It continues to
this day.
Never mind that there is a multi-billion dollar U.S. industry
dependent upon these fisheries that doesn't harvest fish for
market. Never mind that there are hundreds-of-thousands of U.S.
jobs that are dependent upon these fisheries that are negatively
impacted by the biased regulatory decisions that are imposed on
it under the direction of the Department of Commerce. Surely,
recreational fishing is the "Invisible Industry" as far
as regulators are concerned. I often wonder if the Department of
Commerce considers the recreational fishing industry commerce at
all!
Gentlemen, I'm here to tell you that there damned well is a
huge industry dependent upon healthy marine fisheries and a truly
fair and representative allocation share of the allowable harvest
and it's not commercial fishing. President Clinton recognized the
importance of this industry in Executive Order #12962 on
Recreational Fisheries dated June 7, 1995, but with how little
effect it has had on management and expanding sport fishing
opportunities to date, we can still consider ourselves the
Invisible Industry, but not for long much longer. Things are
changing and changing rapidly and the Department of Commerce and
the National Marine Fisheries Service had better welcome us into
the process with open arms or get out of the way.
After the successful attack by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor,
Admiral Yamamoto, the officer in charge of the Japanese fleet,
was heard saying, "I fear we have only awakened a sleeping
giant." Gentlemen, this latest fisheries management debacle
heaped upon years of regulatory bias and disregard for the
overall health of our public resource marine fisheries by the
Department of Commerce and it's agencies, has awakened a sleeping
giant of another sort. Recreational fishing and its wide-spread
tentacles that intertwine through industries with such diverse
business members as boat builders, engine manufacturers, boat
dealers and marinas; tackle manufacturers, wholesalers, and
retailers; charter and party boat operators and owners, marine
fuel manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, coastal tourism,
publishers like myself and on and on. We are coming together with
a greater number of recreational fishermen and their advocacy
groups and it will impact the direction of pelagic fisheries
management in positive ways for the resource and for the benefit
of the Invisible Industry.
Believe me, we know where we stand. When has the Department of
Commerce initiated an Economic Impact Study of the Invisible
Industry? There is one included in almost every FMP for the
commercial user group. When has Commerce shown the least interest
in quantifying the economic benefit of the Invisible Industry?
When has Commerce given credence to the part of the Magnuson Act
that calls for fair and equitable treatment of all user groups in
fisheries management plans? The Invisible Industry represents the
largest user group that receives the least consideration and the
smallest harvest allocations. Fair and equitable, I don't think
so.
The people here tonight, and the thousands more who could not
attend because of the unfortunately timing of this meeting,
deserve better. They are here to protest another poorly planned
and executed FMP that is now costing them untold losses in
business income, income they depend upon to make it through
another season. The closure of the school bluefin fishery was
ill-timed, especially when we consider that it was undertaken
using the same inaccurate statistics that closed it prematurely
last year. Statistics gathered and used in a modeling formula
that is flawed in any number of ways and was supposed to be
corrected so this would not occur again, but was not.
The scramble is now on to correct things by NMFS, not because
it's the right thing to do, but because pressure has been brought
upon Commerce from higher up the political ladder. We're learning
a lot more about how to play the game and you can bet we'll only
get better as time goes by. I only hope we have learned the ropes
in time to prevent further reductions in the populations of key,
recreationally important species.
With regard to the bluefin situation, I suggest the immediate
reopening of the school fish season for the northern sector to
minimize the economic damage already done. If it becomes
necessary to accomplish this by using an additional transfer from
the reserve category, the category commercial interests feel is
theirs by birthright, than so be it.
Second, it is imperative that the inaccurate harvest data for 1995 and 1996 be disregarded and reassessed. The current data overestimates the actual harvest of the angling category by orders of magnitude.
Third, the implementation of a system of accurately determining the true recreational harvest of these fish so we can more closely monitor the harvest and more accurately control overfishing by all user groups. The General Category has a history of going over their quota just in time to receive a transfer from the reserve to make up the difference. This should not be occurring with the reporting regulations and system that is in place for that category.
Last, we must correct the ridiculously low quota allotment of
school bluefin tuna at ICCAT this year. The 8 percent cap on
small bluefin is without precedent and biased against the
recreational user group. It is incumbent upon the Department of
Commerce, NMFS and the State Department to fight on our behalf to
correct this egregious wrong. Further, the angling category
should receive a considerably large quota of the large school,
small and large medium fish so that their presence in the fishery
can be reinstated to levels more closely representative of their
historic participation in the fishery that they dominated
historically.
As we move beyond bluefin tuna and begin the management plans
for yellowfin, bigeye and longfin tunas, the recreational fishing
industry and community must be brought into the process as a full
partner. These plans must be based on accurate historical catch
data so these fisheries can not be erroneously pronounce
"commercially dominated" and therefore commercial
interest will receive the lion's share of the harvest allocation.
Just as bluefin tuna were once the exclusive domain of the
recreational fishing community and industry, these other tunas
have been an integral and extremely important part of this
industry, as well. They must remain so.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. When you return to your offices after the long weekend, keep looking over your shoulders because the Invisible Industry is going to be watching your every move and has no intention of remaining quiet while additional injustices are heaped atop past inequities.
Return to JCAA Home
Page