Future of Fishery Councils Debated

Published Sunday, March 27, 2005
Future of Fishery Councils Debated - Anglers and scientists clash on fish management issues.

By Cory Reiss
Ledger Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- James Fensom spent the past six years listening to endless scientific data and policy squabbles over fish stocks that seem in constant peril.

Last month, he wrote Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to say he doesn't want to be considered for a third term as an appointee on the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council when his seat reopens in July.

"The current regulatory process is a disservice to marine life in the Gulf of Mexico," the Panama City lawyer and recreational fisherman wrote, "and this is particularly true for the state of Florida."

Fensom's nine-page letter, in which he railed against a "mass of overlapping and conflicting regulations, confusing policies, and conflicts of interest," voiced widespread frustration with the system that governs fish in U.S. waters.

Complaints from Fensom, environmentalists and scientists underscore recommendations in a report last year by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy that have become central to a fight over fisheries.

Lawmakers are preparing to overhaul the nation's fish management law, known as the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

The revision and related actions will involve many policy decisions, such as management of ecosystems instead of individual fish stocks. But one of the most heated and fundamental debates is over control of the 29-year-old council system, either by fishing industries or those who want science to play the leading role.

The livelihoods of millions of anglers are at stake in recreational and commercial industries worth at least $48 billion a year combined. So, too, is the price and availability of local favorites, like shrimp or grouper.

Critics accuse the eight regional councils, which are dominated by fishing interests, of giving higher priority to fishing economics than to data that warns of overfishing. They say that has led to the collapse of groundfish populations in the Pacific, the overfishing of red snapper and grouper, patchworks of seasonal closures and ad hoc regulations.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration hosted a conference two weeks ago that drew more than 300 fishers, scientists and environmentalists who hashed out their differences before the Bush administration makes its wishes clear to Congress.

Some argue for taking powers from the councils and giving them to scientific panels.

But many members of the regional management councils oppose such changes, which the ocean commission recommended in a report that painted a dismal picture of marine health. Congress created the ocean commission and President Bush filled it.

"I just don't agree," said Louis Daniel, a state fisheries official from Morehead City, N.C., and chairman of the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, which governs fisheries from North Carolina to the Florida Keys. "We have done everything that has been asked of the South Atlantic council."

Many regional council members contend science and management decisions cannot be separated, but critics say they are just protecting their hold on power.

The ocean commission made 27 fishery recommendations, including broader council representation and stronger scientific committees, which are part of each council, that would make key decisions about catch limits. The panel also called for measures to enhance management and reduce conflicts of interest.

Fishers have a long history of fighting among themselves as well as with scientists and environmentalists.

Karen Bell, manager of the A.P. Bell Fish Co., a commercial long line fleet in Cortez, Fla., said the process is highly charged. A member of the Gulf council, she has scrapped with Fensom, the recreational angler.

"I am not a bad person and I am not just trying to rape the environment," she said, "but he's made me cry, for God's sake."