Fishers wary of 2012 time bomb as conservation law requirement kicks in

on October 23, 2011 at 5:39 AM

By now most of us have read stories about groups who believe Armageddon arrives in 2012. And most of us consider most of them to be operating on the fringe of reality. And we say that with all due respect.

But there's another group that fears 2012, and this one is certainly not out on the fringe. They are America's saltwater fishers and the industries they power that represent 6.4 million American jobs. Some of their representatives gathered here this week for the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership's marine conservation summit. And to them, 2012 could be (forgive me for this) Fishageddon!

That's because on Jan. 1, a well-intended conservation requirement of the Magnuson-Stevens Act -- the law that regulates fishing in federal offshore waters -- is scheduled to throw the switch on a time bomb that could wreck whole sectors of marine fishing.

The issue is "annual catch limits," known as ACLs, another way of saying "yearly creel limits." When the Magnuson Act was reauthorized in 2006 environmentalists of all stripes -- including sportsmen -- liked ACLs. That was because even though Magnuson-Stevens had been around since 1976, the nation still lacks adequate scientific profiles of most marine species. Without that information, whole sections of the marine ecosystem were at risk because we were fishing beyond science.

There had been numerous resolutions and requests to fill that void, but the budgets never materialized, and the major resource user-groups either didn't push the issue or didn't have the political power to see them through.

Determined to stop the dangerous delays, green groups made sure the 2006 bill set the following deadlines for ACLs:

Jan. 1, 2010, for the roughly 120 species receiving heavy commercial and recreational fishing, such as red snapper.

Jan. 1, 2012, for the other 380-plus species and "species groups," some of which live in the same waters as those heavily fished species.

The bill was signed by President George W. Bush to a loud round of applause. Then scientific and political realities began setting in.

It takes several years to conduct a comprehensive stock assessment. NOAA, like most federal agencies, was seeing its financing slashed. Congress had demanded the ACLs, but didn't provide the money to get hundreds of assessments done in any time frame, much less the six years required by the law. And the Great Recession arrived in 2008, worsening the agency's financial hole.

By 2009, it was apparent that while the 2010 deadline would be met, science-based protection for those hundreds of species that had no fisher-constituency was a pipe dream. That meant the nation would continue its tradition of ignoring its responsibility to the marine ecosystem.

Only this time it could have consequences for the people who fish for those "important" species. And that's because fishing could be closed in the areas where those unprotected species live -- which in some cases also happens to be the same range where those important commercial/sport species also are found.

Finally, the fine print in the bill notes that many of those 380-odd lesser species are actually part of ecosystem "stock complex" groups, which actually expands the number of species that must be studied by hundreds.

The fear in the fishing industry is that anti-fishing groups, or even well-meaning green groups seeking to force the government to meet its obligations, would find a solid legal path to close fishing in huge swatches of the oceans.

"That means beginning in 2012 -- just a few months -- you could see fishing for snapper or grouper or tuna or who-knows-what-else closed because arbitrary deadlines based on not one iota of science have been set for hundreds of these others species," said Jeff Angers, executive director of the Center for Coastal Conservation, a marine sportsfishing lobby.

"We could see fishing banned for species that are in no trouble, because the law requires these ACLs deadlines for species people seldom see, seldom even catch."

The fishing industry's solution to Fishageddon is The Fisheries Science Improvement Act (H.R. 2304), introduced by Rep. Rob Whitman, R-Va.

The bill would amend Magnuson to allow NOAA to call for ACLs only on stocks for which they have recent stock assessments; allows the agency the regional fisheries councils to designate which species are fished heavily enough to require full-blown stock assessments, and allow those that see so little pressure to be managed with less intensive and expensive monitoring, and extend the deadline for those fish requiring ACLs to 2014.

"We're not saying we shouldn't look at these other species, we're only saying it's not necessary to do these intensive, time-consuming and expensive studies on them," said Jim Martin, board member of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and former director of fisheries for the state of Oregon.

"We can do the necessary limited monitoring to tell us the general health of those species. Now, if a fishery develops for them, or we detect some problems, then we adapt and require full stock assessments."

Some environmental groups oppose the H.R. 2403, claiming cracking the door on Magnuson-Stevens could unleash a flood of bad amendments. But supporters point out those opponents had no problem with two previous fixes. And this measure, covering just two pages, is precise in its objectives.

Whitman's bill has been gaining bipartisan support, with 34 co-sponsors including five of Louisiana's representatives: Rodney Alexander, Charles Boustany, John Fleming, Jeff Landry and Bill Cassidy. But the fishing industries are worried the measure could get lost in the crazy timetables and politics that descend on a Congress moving toward an election year.

If that happens, they may have a reality-based reason to fear 2012.