Balancing Act

(from the July, 2008 issue of National Fisherman)

We’re all familiar with rants about the lack of balance on the Regional Fishery Management Councils, with the negative effects on our fisheries of undue influence and rampant “conflicts of interest,” which are always attributed to the commercial fishing industry. Brought forth by disgruntled people or organizations, they are always a prelude to proposals for either restacking the Councils or for reducing their influence in the federal fisheries management process. These proposals invariably increase the reliance on science and scientists, regardless of how questionable the science might be or how compromised the objectivity of the scientists.

I’ve been digging through the N.M.F.S. annual reports to Congress on Council membership for 1990 to 2007, trying to determine how skewed – or not – it actually is.

Accepting the words of the trustworthy and right-thinking “conservationists” as I always strive to do, I was expecting to see complete and utter domination of every Council by commercial fishermen or their representatives. Going back to 1990, of the 110 to 114 total voting Council members, from 27% (‘01) to 33% (‘97 and ‘98) were classified by NMFS as “commercial” and from 18% (‘95 and ’96) to 25% (’03, ’05 to ’07) as “recreational.”

Looking at particular Councils, in 1991 the commercial representatives outnumbered the recreational reps on the New England, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, Caribbean and North Pacific Councils and were outnumbered by the recreational reps on the Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic and Pacific Councils. In 2007, the latest year for which a report was available, the commercial reps outnumbered the recreational reps on the New England, North Pacific and Caribbean Councils, were outnumbered by the recreational reps on the South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Western Pacific Councils and were tied on the Mid-Atlantic Council.

Government and “other” voting members made up from 44% (’03) to 51% (’95 and ’96) of the total. They were at 47% in 2007.

Commercial domination? Not hardly, and the proportion of commercial representation is falling from year to year, from 32% in 1990 to 28% in 2006. Who’s really in control? By the numbers, it’s the government reps, who made up from 37% (’90 to ’97) to 38% (’98 to ’07) of the total.

These reports bring up several interesting and, I’d argue, critical points regarding who’s managing our fisheries, how balanced and representative the process really is, and where the imbalances actually lie.

First we have the domination of fisheries management by the government people. And, bearing in mind that it takes new Council appointees a term or so – three years out of nine – to become effective, the state and federal members, who are on the Councils just about in perpetuity, have even more relative power. All things being equal, this wouldn’t be a problem, but the Wallop-Breaux program, taxing recreational fishing expenditures and giving the revenues to state fisheries agencies, injects a level of bias into the process that’s hard to ignore. Having more fish to catch means that more money is spent catching them, and the easiest way for the sports to catch more fish is to increase the recreational allocation. That’s a real conflict.

Then the largest user group by an overwhelming margin, seafood consumers, is virtually absent from the fisheries management process. We have somewhere approaching 300 million people in the U.S. who enjoy seafood. Who’s looking out for them, working to ensure they have access to their share of high-quality, domestically-produced fish and shellfish? Commercial fishing representatives are, but not directly. Certainly not recreational fishing representatives, many of whom think that aquacultured product should be all that the non-fishing public is entitled to, and definitely not the “conservationists” whose actions, if not their words, demonstrate that they don’t want anyone catching much of anything at all. What of the food service people, the restaurateurs, the consumer groups?

And finally, where are the people who want to preserve our coastal communities and our maritime heritage. Do you have any idea how many fishing businesses, docks or ports have disappeared over the last two decades because of fisheries management decisions? I doubt that anyone in Silver Springs is counting, but living in Florida, I’m an eye-witness at ground zero. The “conservationists” have compellingly demonstrated that their interests stop at the shoreline and don’t extend to working stiffs with real jobs, but there are an awful lot of folks out there who realize the value of an honest-to-goodness working waterfront. Why aren’t they in the process?

More balance in the Councils? For sure, but not the way the antis are misrepresenting it.              

Nils E. Stolpe