Rick Crawford
There are three significant threats that the fly fishing industry faces today: Policy, Population and Pollution (GHG emissions, plastics, etc). I call these threats the “3 P’s” and the recent events surrounding federal fisheries policy and management are a perfect demonstration of how the “3 P’s” are negatively impacting the fly fishing industry today. If you are unfamiliar with federal fisheries policy and management, below is a bit of background provided by the American Fly Fishing Trade Association (AFFTA):
U.S. ocean fisheries are managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act (MSA). This law has been successful in moving federal saltwater fisheries toward sustainability,
although work remains to recover depleted fish stocks and to ensure overfishing does not occur.The MSA was last amended in 2006 and is up for reauthorization this Congress. AFFTA believes
reauthorization efforts should concentrate on maintaining and strengthening the law’s conservation
focus. In particular, AFFTA encourages MSA reform that increases protections for important habitats,
considers the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification in fisheries management decisions,
provides for ample forage fish populations, advances science-based tools and methods that foster more
accurate and efficient data collection, and ensures adequate funding for managers to achieve the MSA’s
mandates. AFFTA opposes measures that would compromise the scientific and conservation principles
currently in the law that have led to the recovery of many fish populations.
I wholeheartedly agree with and support AFFTA’s position on MSA reform because it is based on science and not on political or economic needs, which is what S. 1520, the “Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act,” also known as the “Modern Fish Act” is proposing. Basically, it agrees that there is a need for scientific evidence to manage fisheries, but if that evidence contradicts economic improvement, it will side in favor of short-term gain versus the long-term sustainability of the fishery. This is bad for anyone in the fishing business because such policies will put our fisheries in decline. Case in point, consider that the Commerce Department recently overruled a NOAA limit on red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico despite the fact that experts concluded that this will very likely delay the red snapper’s recovery.
Additionally, human population is roughly at 7.3 billion today and estimated to be roughly 9.7 billion by 2050, so it makes sense to put policies in place now that prepare and conserve our resources so that we will be able to meet the demand of an increasing population. If we fail to do this and over-exploit our natural resources, we will all experience what is known as “the tragedy of the commons.” Smart policy based on science are our best chance of ensuring that the fly fishing industry continues to thrive for generations to come. The Commerce Department’s recent overruling of a NOAA limit to red snapper is an excellent example of why recreational catch limits are critical to a sustainable fishery because as worldwide population continues to rise so does the need for catch limits. I wish this wasn’t the case, but it’s a necessary regulation to ensure that we avoid the tragedy of the commons, and future generations are able to continue to enjoy recreational angling, as well as eating red snapper for dinner.
Finally, the “Modern Fish Act” makes no mention of climate change and its negative impact on fisheries around the world. About 97% of climate scientists regularly publishing in peer-reviewed journals accept scientific evidence that Earth is warming primarily because of human emissions. Burning fossil fuels emits greenhouse gas emissions which warm our planet, and because our planet tries to naturally regulate its temperature, the ocean absorbs the CO2 and warms the oceans and increases ocean acidification. Ocean acidification affects the growth and survival of many marine species, and will negatively impact people who rely on fish as not only a source of protein, but as a source of income. Climate change is also causing sea levels to rise, fish to migrate to cooler waters and is killing coral reefs, all of which decrease the sustainability of our fisheries and the fly fishing industry’s growth. Denying the science on climate change and its impact on our fisheries is a recipe for disaster.
In summary, the “Modern Fish Act” is a superior illustration of how the “3 P’s” threaten our fisheries, and therefore, the fly fishing industry. When we ignore science, and marry bad policy with the significant increase of human population and the negative effects of climate change, the fly fishing industry suffers. However, the “Modern Fish Act” has some good merits such as bi-partisan support and some level of a science-based approach to fisheries management, but it is short-sighted and lacking in its ability to make fisheries management decisions based on scientific evidence. I believe in science, as well as a science-based approach to conservation because at the end of the day, no fish equals no customers!
So, how do we prevent the tragedy of the commons and protect natural resources from the effects of climate change and bad policy? It’s simple…science is our best bet when it comes to the future of our fisheries, and the future of the fly fishing industry, which is why I support the “AFFTA Policy Statement on Federal Fisheries Policy and Management.” As a member of the American Fly Fishing Trade Association, I appreciate that AFFTA represents the interests of its members and is fulfilling its mission to “promote the sustained growth of the fly-fishing industry.” Thank you, AFFTA!
Sincerely,
President, Emerger Strategies