Introduction
In 2003, eleven states introduced “Freedom to Fish”
(FFA) bills – measures promoted by a concerted, nationwide
campaign of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (a marine
equipment industry lobby/trade association) and other fishing
organizations. Most of these bills died in committee, and
the only one that passed (in Rhode Island) was very different
from the original language. In 2004, eight states have active
FFA bills – CT, DE, NJ, NH, NY, MA, MD, and SC. The Maryland
bill, which is the closest to passing, has also been amended
from the original. The text of many of these bills claims
“that enactment of this legislation is necessary to
ensure that both the interests of the fishing public and
the interests of the marine environment are adequately protected.”(1)
In reality, the measures will likely do serious damage to
both.
The basic language of “Freedom to Fish” acts prohibit
states from closing waters to fishing unless “there
is a clear indication that recreational fishing is the cause
of a specific conservation problem.”(1)
Other criteria set by the acts require the state to show
that no measure, short of closing waters to fishing, will
remedy the problem; indicate “specific measurable
criteria” describing the conservation benefit of the
closure; reopen the area to fishing “whenever the
basis for the closure no longer exists” (a provision
not explicitly linked to the “measurable criteria”);
review any “no fishing” designation at least
every three years; and, limit any fishing closure to an
area “no larger than what is supported by the best
available scientific information.”(1)
Opposition to these bills has come from scientists, state
environmental agencies, environmental organizations, individual
recreational fishers, and the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Bush Administration’s
national ocean management agency. NOAA chief council sent
letters in 2002 and 2003 to the House Resources Committee,
stating its opposition to the federal “Freedom to Fish”
bill. Letters from groups of academic scientists have been
sent to the governors of New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts
expressing concern that passage of “Freedom to Fish”
bills would effectively end the ability of those states
to create marine reserves or any protected ocean zones,
regardless of the demonstrated value of such areas. The
scientists wrote: “Studies show areas within marine reserves
have an average of three times as many plants and animals,
and these plants and animals are 80 percent larger, than
those outside reserves… By protecting habitats, especially
biological structures that may take a long time to grow,
reserves allow for persistence of marine ecosystems that
otherwise could be degraded by a suite of extractive activities.”(2)
In their letter regarding the New Jersey act, the scientists
also pointed out that the bill “sets an unachievable
burden of proof” by requiring that recreational fishing
be determined the cause of an ecological problem, without
allowing the establishment of “no fishing” zones
for comparison – a critical scientific control. “Given
the lack of existing data on recreational fishing, and the
expansive amount of data that this bill requires, it may
be statistically impossible to determine the effects specific
to rod and reel fishing on any particular marine environment,”
they concluded. Moreover, “for many species, recreational
fishing is the primary source of fishing mortality, and
catch-and-release practices are often not effective”
management compromises.(2)
The importance of marine reserves to aquatic ecosystems
has also been recognized by the National Research Council(3)
and a panel of more than 160 independent scientists. The
panel noted that “less than one percent of United
States territorial waters… are protected in reserves.”(4)
Further, the international community, including the Bush
Administration, called for the establishment of a network
of marine reserves at the World Summit on Sustainable Development.(5)
“Freedom to Fish” bills would, in opposition
to these findings, make what may very well be the best way
to protect ocean resources the rarely implemented measure
of last resort for coastal states.
Further argument against “Freedom to Fish” legislation
comes from a three-year-long nationwide study by the Pew
Oceans Commission including scientists, fishers, conservationists,
business leaders, and elected officials. The commission
found that “30 percent of the fish populations that
have been assessed are overexploited… Destructive
fishing practices are damaging vital habitat upon which
fish and other living resources depend.” Along with
the direct threat to fish populations, species like marine
mammals and sea turtles suffer incidental capture, which
in sum are “changing relationships among species in
food webs and altering the functioning of marine ecosystems.”
The Pew Oceans Commission concluded that a network of marine
protective zones is essential to restoring the health of
the oceans.(6) In addition, the
Pew Oceans Commission argues that better marine policy will
only be achieved by consolidating authorities and acting
on the international, national, and multi-state ecosystem-level
scales. However, “Freedom to Fish” acts would have the opposite
effect, resulting in a state-by-state piecemeal approach.
A better approach would be to ensure that state consideration
of proposals to close any marine areas to fishing include
a process that takes public input into account, including
the concerns of the recreational fishing community. For
example, California’s Marine Life Protection Act of
1999 requires the state to revise and amend its current
patchwork system of marine zones through a process incorporating
scientific information and public participation. In contrast,
“Freedom to Fish” acts tie the hands of state agencies without
addressing the underlying problems of natural resources
in decline and citizens who feel left out of the system.
Of the states where “Freedom to Fish” bills
have been introduced, all but one have marine coasts. The
exception – Pennsylvania – passed a resolution
expressing support for coastal states to pass “Freedom to
Fish” legislation. Rhode Island is the only state to have
passed a modified version, in July 2003. But supporters
are mobilizing in other coastal states to get “Freedom
to Fish” bills passed during upcoming legislative
sessions. In a related move, Wisconsin recently added a
“right
to hunt and fish” amendment to its constitution.
At least four states have similar constitutional amendments,
and almost twenty other states have considered or are considering
these amendments. In addition to the above states with known
ongoing or prior successful “Freedom to Fish”
campaigns, there are 11 other coastal states where bills
might well surface.
The long list of opponents of “Freedom to Fish”
acts (including local and national environmental organizations)
have argued that the nation’s waters and marine resources
are a public trust that should be managed for the benefit
of all. They also maintain that most states already have
sufficient measures to protect the recreational fishing
community’s interests, in the event that the state
considers closing an area to fishing. Instead of balancing
environmental and industry concerns, “Freedom to Fish”
bills create an unfair playing field that fails to acknowledge
the importance of natural resource sustainability in order
to favor the short-term benefit of a few – a move
that will hurt fish populations and the very sport these
acts claim to champion.
Talking Points
- The “Freedom to Fish Act” would effectively end
the ability of states to create marine reserves, which
are an important conservation tool for the restoration
and protection of ocean ecosystems.
- The act’s requirement that fishing be proven the
cause of an ecological problem before an area is closed
to fishing demands an unachievable level of proof. The
only way that conclusive data could possibly be obtained
would be to study similar marine areas, some of which
allow fishing and some of which do not. But the establishment
of such “no fishing” study areas would be
prohibited by the act itself.
- Thirty percent of U.S. fish populations are overfished;
many more fish are so poorly understood that their status
is unknown. States need to be able to choose among all
possible conservation tools to reverse these dangerous
trends, including the use of “no fishing”
zones to protect marine wildlife and habitats.
- The Pew Ocean Commission recently suggested that marine
resources should be managed on a multi-state ecosystem
scale. The “Freedom to Fish Act” does the opposite
by restricting the use of an important conservation tool
in the states where it is enacted. The act may effectively
sabotage efforts to achieve sustainable marine resource
management in neighboring states.
- The nation’s waters and marine resources are a
public trust that should be managed for the benefit of
all, not for the short-term benefit of a few. The “Freedom
to Fish Act” takes a scientifically credible conservation
tool away from states, while minimizing the importance
of protecting ocean resources for future generations.
Links to Relevant Bills
California
SB
281 (Railed in committee but reconsideration granted,
Apr. 22, 2003)
Connecticut
SB
551 (Passed Environmental Committee, Mar. 17, 2004)
Delaware
SB
80 (Referred to Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, Apr. 16, 2003)
Massachusetts
S
2043 (Referred to Natural Resources and Agriculture
Committee, Jun. 30, 2003; House concurred Jul. 14, 2003)
Maryland
2003
HB
1160 (Re-referred to Environmental Matters Committee,
Mar. 10, 2003; Unfavorable committee report Mar. 22, 2003)
SB
535 (Referred to Education, Health, and Environmental
Affairs Committee, Jan. 31, 2003)
2004
SB
13 (Passed Senate, Feb. 2, 2004; Favorable report by
House Environmental Matters, Apr. 1, 2004)
HB
202 (Passed House, Feb. 27, 2004; in Education, Health,
and Environmental Affairs, Mar. 1, 2004)
New Hampshire
HB
1420 (Sent to interim study, Feb. 19, 2004)
New Jersey
2003
A
3326 (Reported out of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Committee, Mar. 6, 2003; Amended on floor, May 15, 2003)
S
2323 (Reported out of Environment Committee with amendments,
Mar. 17, 2003)
2004
A692/S1458
(Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, Jan. 13, 2004)
New York
A
7299 (Referred to Environmental Conservation, Jan. 7,
2004)
S
5381 (Passed the Senate, Jun. 17, 2003)
Pennsylvania
HR
313 - A resolution urging neighboring states to pass
FFA. (Unanimously passed, Jun. 16, 2003)
Rhode Island
H
5686 (Signed into law, Jul. 10, 2003)
South Carolina
H
4119 (Referred to Agricultural, Natural Resources, and
Environmental Affairs, Apr. 30, 2003)
Texas
SCR
41 (Passed the Senate and referred to House State Cultural
and Recreational Resources, May 23, 2003)
Washington
HB
2205 (Referred to Fisheries, Ecology, and Parks Committee,
Mar. 5, 2003; Re-introduced and retained in present status
of second special session, Jun. 11, 2003)
SB
6027 (Referred to Parks, Fish, and Wildlife Committee,
Mar. 7, 2003; Re-introduced and retained in present status
of second special session, Jun. 11, 2003)
Press Clips
|
