Rationalizing the irrational

(from the July, 2006 issue of National Fisherman)

PEver hear of “fleet rationalization?” It’s what managers use to justify getting rid of fishing capacity. If you’ve bought the argument that we don’t have enough fish because of too much fishing, it makes sense. And it makes sense as well that government folks do the rationalization, ‘cause they’re objective, they’re for the fish. Oh, and I probably don’t need to add that it’s only the commercial and for-hire fishing sectors that are getting rationalized.

At the same time this “rationalization” is going on, we’re being besieged via the airwaves and the internet with ads promoting even more recreational fishing and boating. Fair enough, you say. These are paid for by the recreational fishing and boating industries to sell more of their products. Like auto manufacturers still pushing horsepower, that’s what they’re supposed to do, with little or no regard for the resources that they depend upon. That same kind of economic self-interest is what’s being used to justify attempts to force commercial fishermen out of the management process, isn’t it? Whether it’s petroleum or fish, profit comes in and conservation goes out the window.

Would you believe that the government is supporting such public relations efforts as the Take Me Fishing program? Bureaucrats who, in the name of conservation, are working assiduously to destroy large parts of our commercial fishing industry, our fishing communities and consumers’ rights to fresh, locally produced seafood couldn’t be working to increase the number of folks who fish and boat for recreation, could they? That would be like a government-sponsored ad campaign promoting driving farther and faster in bigger cars.

Well, if you do a little bureaucratic veil piercing, you find that the Take Me Fishing program was created by the Recreational Boating and Fishing Foundation, which is funded by the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund with Wallop-Breaux (W-B) bucks. The Wallop-Breaux Act imposes a tax on the sale of recreational fishing and boating gear and fuel (see http://training.fws.gov/library/Pubs9/sportsfish.pdf). The fund, administered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, is also used to build launching ramps and pump-out stations, improve angling access, buy research, etc. Most of the money is passed down to state fisheries agencies, making up a sizeable part of each state’s fisheries budget.

So on one hand we have managers (federal and state bureaucrats) diligently at work destroying… oops, sorry, rationalizing the commercial fishing industry, and on the other we have the same managers (federal and state bureaucrats) enticing more and more people to boat and fish, catch and release, enrich our estuaries with hydrocarbons, tear up the eel grass beds, run over the manatees and engage in other recreational activities. “Conservation” is being forced on the commercial fishing industry by the heavy hand of government, while the other hand is pushing for more outboard motor sales, more recreational fishing trips, more rods, reels, lines and lures, more and more of everything connected to angling and yachting.

A bit irrational? Not really. The more people zipping around on jetskis, dragging expensive lures through the water and fighting “gamefish” to exhaustion, the more they spend and the bigger the Wallop-Breaux cash cow becomes. That means bigger budgets for federal and state agencies that depend on W-B funding. Bigger budgets mean the guys and gals in charge have more employees and more turf and pull down bigger bucks. It’s only irrational if you’re really interested in saving the fish, and what’s that have to do with successful empire building?

So, as we’re looking forward to a summer of gas prices way above three bucks a gallon, our bureaucrats have to do something to keep those boats in use, ‘cause they’re getting thirteen and a half cents for every gallon of gas they burn (or exhaust into your favorite estuary). What better way to invest their Wallop-Breaux bucks than in a public relations campaign to keep those props a’ spinning?

And just to show you that this isn’t a two-way street, there’s also the Saltonstall-Kennedy program, which imposes a duty on fish products imported into the U.S. Originally the program was intended to fund projects to aid the commercial fishing industry. Not any more. Those dollars not kept by the USDA, which collects the revenues, go to NMFS and are used to balance that agency’s budget. If we assume an inverse relationship between how much fish we produce and how much we import, what are the chances of NMFS or NOAA being institutionally objective?

So if management or allocation decisions seem irrational at first glance, put yourself in the shoes of the bureaucrats that are making them. From where they’re coming from, they might be right on target.

Nils E. Stolpe