A Fishy Executive Order

i-357c266a4bda1b11c249d1b69fedb756-bush.jpg

It was with great interest I read last weekend's Executive Order to protect America's striped bass and red drum fish populations, but I'm left wondering whether the President should have the power to make important decisions in fisheries management and conservation? A few excerpts from his speech:

The Vice President tells me there's a lot of fine fishing here, and I'm looking forward to going out and trying to catch some. I love to fish. And the good news is there's a lot of good fishing here is because the Secret Service won't let me go hunting with him. (Laughter.)

I'm going to sign an executive order today to protect our striped bass and red drum fish populations, that's what I'm here to do. The executive order is part of our commitment to end over-fishing in America and to replenish our nation's fish stocks and to advance cooperative conservation and responsible stewardship.

Sounds like the president and I have some things in common on the surface. You see, I like fishing too - or the industry at least. I have great friends involved in commercial and recreational sectors across the country and feel like I have some perspective here. And of course, I also support a commitment to end over-fishing in America and replenish our nation's fish stocks to advance cooperative conservation and responsible stewardship.

But wait... what does the Executive Order actually do? By signing this, Bush has prohibited the commercial sale of these species caught in federal waters and allocated fisheries benefits to the recreational sector. Sounds okay, but we should be honest about objectives. While any effort reduction could benefit a species, the majority of fishing activity for both occurs in state waters. The status of red drum won't be affected and striped bass stocks have recovered with minimal renewed commercial interest to obtain access. So this Order mainly has socio-economic impacts. Consider this portion of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA, S. 104-297):

No (management) measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose.

I'm just not sure whether direct Congressional involvement in these complex decisions is a good idea. Readers?

More like this

The U.S. Magnuson-Stevens Act, key legislation protecting our oceans, was reauthorized in January this year and its first goal is to end overfishing by 2011. It may strike you as ironic, then, that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is attempting to change the rules that protect our…
This is excellent news. The Magnuson-Stevens fisheries act which passed not long ago has a lot of measures to cut overfishing in the oceans. Many important fish species have been fished to the breaking point, and need serious efforts to allow them to recover. This isn't just a matter of…
My local paper, The Vancouver Sun, ran a great 5-part series on the oceans this week written by Larry Pynn titled Shifting Seas. Part One gives an overview of fishing (both past and present) on the British Columbia coast. Part Two is all about the B.C. trawl fishery and their movement to buy and…
John Hocevar visited MBARI yesterday discussing Greenpeace's research on canyons in the Bering Sea. We've discussed this research before but a followup is worthy of another post. Greenpeace has been trying to convince the powers that be to protect deep-sea diversity from fisheries practices.…

Sheril,
I am a NMFS fisheries scientist, working on the large pelagics off the west coast. Upon reading the Executive Order, had been heartened that President Bush sounded as if he was reaching out to environmental groups. After finding your piece I called colleagues on the east coast and it seems you are correct.

This measure has little to do with species sustainability and much to do with economics. I am disappointed, but thank you for pointing this out.

By NMFS scientist… (not verified) on 25 Oct 2007 #permalink

"direct Congressional involvement in these complex decisions a good idea?"

no.

Hey...the drapes look nice...who cares what it looks like inside, right?

By Frustrated Biologist (not verified) on 25 Oct 2007 #permalink

That would require coming out with a position on a controversial and highly-sensitive topic, Steve.

I wouldn't hold my breath.

By Caledonian (not verified) on 27 Oct 2007 #permalink