Conventional wisdom has it that in politics, you never change your position on an issue for fear of being thought wishy-washy. Case in point: John Kerry, a man divided.
Unconventional leaders, though, are made of stronger stuff. They understand that issues often change with the times, the economy, new information, hard-won experience, and sometimes even the weather. Hurricanes and tsunamis, for example, have the power to change public policy.
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist would be more impressive to thinking people in North Florida if he weren't so wedded to a position he held in 1994 favoring a constitutional amendment that prohibits commercial fishermen from using nets that trap fish by the fins, tails or heads.
Voting on the "net ban," Floridians said they wanted to ban nets that would entangle and kill little fish that weren't intended as part of the marketable harvest, and also trapped dolphins and manatees. Depleted fish stocks in Florida waters was a concern of environmentalists for one reason, but the amendment was also favored by sports fishermen and the tourism industry, both of which wanted the supplies protected for recreation.
The true impact of the 11-year-old ban is hard to assess, with conflicting studies showing that while fish populations have increased a little because of reduced commercial fishing, sports fishermen are taking so many fish that the net gain is almost nil.
Clearly the fish didn't get any vote. And Mr. Crist has opted to stick with the side that will appeal to an unusual alliance of voters when he runs for governor - environmentalists, sports fishermen, tourism and coastal real-estate interests.
In so doing Mr. Crist is sticking with a political position on a situation that should be addressed by looking at marine biology and science as well as the unintended and devastating consequences the net ban has had on North Florida. An entire way of life that has survived for hundreds of years in the Panhandle has been replaced by poverty, depression and joblessness.
Mr. Crist would not be alone if he saw the perceived problem one way in 1994, and in 2005 was able to acknowledge that the amendment is in need of clarification, if not repeal. The Tallahassee Democrat editorial board favored the amendment in 1994, but today our view is that the net ban hasn't demonstrated great value in protecting fish stock statewide, and that its minimal environmental success hasn't been worth the terrible hardship on the region's commercial fishing industry.
Lawmakers are trying to balance all interests a little better with legislation, which Mr. Crist has hastily rejected as unconstitutional - though such a decision belongs to the judiciary, not the attorney general.
Sen. Al Lawson, D-Tallahassee, and Rep. Will Kendrick, D-Carrabelle, have filed bills clarifying that certain types of netting materials can be used to harvest mullet. The key is allowing a material and mesh size that stretches to a hole large enough to allow smaller fish to swim through and spawn, while providing a productive catch of legal-sized fish that go to market.
The legislation is, as Mr. Lawson points out, not a means of getting around the net ban, but a way to clear up ambiguities in the existing law.
The Fish and Wildlife Commission has constitutional authority over hunting and fishing regulation, but it has failed to implement the amendment in a way that is fair to all sides. This legislative challenge is needed to help bring fairness to an amendment that was oversold as a panacea in 1994.
