By Eric Holst

Michael Bean is a prominent wildlife conservation expert and attorney. He is also the author of The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, a leading text on wildlife conservation law. Many consider Bean “the dean of endangered species protection.”

Few people know more about wildlife conservation in America than Michael Bean. A renowned expert in wildlife policy and programs, Michael is hailed as an innovative thinker who has consistently found effective ways to protect our nation’s endangered species, pioneering techniques like Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans that have helped many animals at risk of extinction.

Michael started working at EDF in 1977 where he directed our wildlife conservation policy initiatives for several decades, during which I came on board and had the honor of working closely with him. In 2009, Michael went on to join the U.S. Department of the Interior as counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and later as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary.

Today, we are fortunate to have Michael back as an advisor to EDF, and to have him share his insights on the current state of our country’s wildlife programs and policies.

What drove you to dedicate your career to wildlife law, and specifically, endangered species?

Growing up in a Mississippi River town in Iowa, I spent a lot of time outdoors catching snakes, frogs and turtles, and playing in the creek behind my house. I developed a real fondness for nature and wildlife from an early age. At the time that I joined EDF, endangered species struck me as the most important and serious environmental issue for a very simple reason: once species are lost, they’re gone forever. There’s no turning back the clock. There’s no bringing them back.

So, when it came time for me to choose which career to pursue, I looked for something that combined my personal interests in conservation and wildlife protection with my legal training. EDF offered me the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a conservationist.

What would our ecosystems look like without the Endangered Species Act (ESA)?

Well, we clearly wouldn’t have some of the keystone species that have great influence on other wildlife and broader ecosystems. The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone has had dramatic and profound effects on that ecosystem – elk foraging behavior has changed, and, as a result, key vegetation such as willow is flourishing and beaver populations are thriving. Sea otters have influenced the growth of kelp forests and the lively biodiversity that we associate with the California coast. In the Great Plains, black-footed ferrets have helped control prairie dog populations. These are just a few examples of species that are still around and contributing valuable ecosystem services, despite facing almost certain extinction, thanks to the ESA.

Every community has benefited from the ESA because all of us benefit from biological diversity – economically, recreationally, aesthetically and spiritually.

How do you see the ESA being improved, or reformed, if at all?

The absence of positive incentives to engage private landowners as partners in conservation is a critical need. The ESA itself is currently focused on prohibiting harmful conduct, which is certainly important. However, we need to focus on not just keeping things from getting worse, but also actively making things better. And that comes from encouraging positive behaviors to benefit endangered species. The key need here is involving private landowners.

Most, if not all farmers and ranchers want to be good stewards of their land, and most enjoy the presence of wildlife on their land. But there are regulatory consequences and costs that may discourage implementation of species conservation measures – and anyone who wishes to improve the law’s results should start by addressing these needs through positive incentives.

Michael Bean examined the new role of NGOs in species conservation in his 2001 article Safe Harbor Agreements: Carving Out A New Role for NGOs. Safe Harbor agreements were innovative voluntary agreements between private landowners and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote endangered species protection.

What are some species that you worked on throughout your career that stand out to you as examples of what works and what does not?

I am particularly proud of the success of Safe Harbor agreements with red-cockaded woodpeckers. These birds occur in ten states in the Southeast, but much of their habitat is on private land. In the late 90s, many landowners were unwilling to manage their land as habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Through our work at EDF, we experimented with Safe Harbor agreements, which encouraged landowners to implement beneficial practices that conserved habitat for the birds and helped to recover populations. Today, there are 2.5 million acres of land on which private landowners are laying out a welcome mat for this endangered bird and there are over 100 new family groups of this endangered species on these Safe Harbor properties.

What are the biggest challenges of creating and maintaining successful wildlife legislation?

The biggest challenge facing wildlife legislation is polarization around environmental issues. It’s easy to forget that when the ESA was passed in 1973, it was passed unanimously in the Senate and almost unanimously in the House. A lot of our cornerstone environmental laws were passed in the late 60s and early 70s – the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, to name a few. There was bipartisan recognition at that time that the environment was in need of attention and there was bipartisan support to address these threats.

Hyper-partisanship has affected not just wildlife legislation, but environmental legislation in general.

Today, it is hard to imagine any environmental legislation getting close to that level of support. Environmental issues have become highly partisan. Even the science underlying the issues is being disputed by some skeptics. This hyper-partisanship has affected not just wildlife legislation, but environmental legislation in general.

When it was first published in 1977, Michael’s book was the only publication to “analyze wildlife law comprehensively as a distinct component of federal environmental law.” The second edition was published in 1983 and the third in 1997 (with coauthor Melanie Rowland). The book remains a standard reference for those seeking to understand wildlife law.

How has federal environmental law and wildlife law changed since the first publication of your book, The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, in 1977?

There is a lot more contention and litigation of late than there was in the earlier years. In part, that’s due to partisanship, but it’s also due to other factors as well. The laws that were passed in the 60s and 70s are in the same basic form today that they were in when they were passed. They have withstood the test of time, but the implementation of those laws has become more contentious. You see that in efforts by both the current administrator of the EPA and the secretary of the Interior, who have both worked to roll back the initiatives of the previous administration. This has never happened on this sort of scale in the past, and it’s disconcerting.

What communities are most affected by the ESA? Are there opportunities to improve the way the law works for people, the economy and the environment?

Every community has benefited from the ESA because all of us benefit from biological diversity – economically, recreationally, aesthetically and spiritually. We can now see our national symbol, the bald eagle, soaring in the wild as one of many species that are no longer endangered. That is a profound benefit to all Americans.

Some communities have been affected more than others, but there are opportunities for the ranching and forestry communities in particular to find ways to compatibly manage their lands for economic purposes and help imperiled wildlife at the same time. This was seen with red-cockaded woodpeckers and it’s happening now as we see ranchers working to prevent the greater sage-grouse from becoming endangered.

With a serious effort to look for compatibility, we will see it’s possible to share spaces with rare species and still meet human needs.

The bald eagle was first listed as endangered in 1963. Due to conservation efforts led by EDF, it was successfully recovered and delisted by 2007, with an estimated 10,000 mating pairs in the wild. (Photo Credit: Dave Soldano.)

Related:

What we've learned from 50 years of wildlife conservation >>

Let’s make ESA listings extinct, not wildlife >>

We need to get creative to protect wildlife in the face of climate risk >>

By Eric Holst

Michael Bean is a prominent wildlife conservation expert and attorney. He is also the author of The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, a leading text on wildlife conservation law. Many consider Bean “the dean of endangered species protection.”

Few people know more about wildlife conservation in America than Michael Bean. A renowned expert in wildlife policy and programs, Michael is hailed as an innovative thinker who has consistently found effective ways to protect our nation’s endangered species, pioneering techniques like Safe Harbor agreements and Habitat Conservation Plans that have helped many animals at risk of extinction.

Michael started working at EDF in 1977 where he directed our wildlife conservation policy initiatives for several decades, during which I came on board and had the honor of working closely with him. In 2009, Michael went on to join the U.S. Department of the Interior as counselor to the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and later as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary.

Today, we are fortunate to have Michael back as an advisor to EDF, and to have him share his insights on the current state of our country’s wildlife programs and policies.

What drove you to dedicate your career to wildlife law, and specifically, endangered species?

Growing up in a Mississippi River town in Iowa, I spent a lot of time outdoors catching snakes, frogs and turtles, and playing in the creek behind my house. I developed a real fondness for nature and wildlife from an early age. At the time that I joined EDF, endangered species struck me as the most important and serious environmental issue for a very simple reason: once species are lost, they’re gone forever. There’s no turning back the clock. There’s no bringing them back.

So, when it came time for me to choose which career to pursue, I looked for something that combined my personal interests in conservation and wildlife protection with my legal training. EDF offered me the opportunity to be both a lawyer and a conservationist.

What would our ecosystems look like without the Endangered Species Act (ESA)?

Well, we clearly wouldn’t have some of the keystone species that have great influence on other wildlife and broader ecosystems. The reintroduction of wolves into Yellowstone has had dramatic and profound effects on that ecosystem – elk foraging behavior has changed, and, as a result, key vegetation such as willow is flourishing and beaver populations are thriving. Sea otters have influenced the growth of kelp forests and the lively biodiversity that we associate with the California coast. In the Great Plains, black-footed ferrets have helped control prairie dog populations. These are just a few examples of species that are still around and contributing valuable ecosystem services, despite facing almost certain extinction, thanks to the ESA.

Every community has benefited from the ESA because all of us benefit from biological diversity – economically, recreationally, aesthetically and spiritually.

How do you see the ESA being improved, or reformed, if at all?

The absence of positive incentives to engage private landowners as partners in conservation is a critical need. The ESA itself is currently focused on prohibiting harmful conduct, which is certainly important. However, we need to focus on not just keeping things from getting worse, but also actively making things better. And that comes from encouraging positive behaviors to benefit endangered species. The key need here is involving private landowners.

Most, if not all farmers and ranchers want to be good stewards of their land, and most enjoy the presence of wildlife on their land. But there are regulatory consequences and costs that may discourage implementation of species conservation measures – and anyone who wishes to improve the law’s results should start by addressing these needs through positive incentives.

Michael Bean examined the new role of NGOs in species conservation in his 2001 article Safe Harbor Agreements: Carving Out A New Role for NGOs. Safe Harbor agreements were innovative voluntary agreements between private landowners and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote endangered species protection.

What are some species that you worked on throughout your career that stand out to you as examples of what works and what does not?

I am particularly proud of the success of Safe Harbor agreements with red-cockaded woodpeckers. These birds occur in ten states in the Southeast, but much of their habitat is on private land. In the late 90s, many landowners were unwilling to manage their land as habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker. Through our work at EDF, we experimented with Safe Harbor agreements, which encouraged landowners to implement beneficial practices that conserved habitat for the birds and helped to recover populations. Today, there are 2.5 million acres of land on which private landowners are laying out a welcome mat for this endangered bird and there are over 100 new family groups of this endangered species on these Safe Harbor properties.

What are the biggest challenges of creating and maintaining successful wildlife legislation?

The biggest challenge facing wildlife legislation is polarization around environmental issues. It’s easy to forget that when the ESA was passed in 1973, it was passed unanimously in the Senate and almost unanimously in the House. A lot of our cornerstone environmental laws were passed in the late 60s and early 70s – the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, to name a few. There was bipartisan recognition at that time that the environment was in need of attention and there was bipartisan support to address these threats.

Hyper-partisanship has affected not just wildlife legislation, but environmental legislation in general.

Today, it is hard to imagine any environmental legislation getting close to that level of support. Environmental issues have become highly partisan. Even the science underlying the issues is being disputed by some skeptics. This hyper-partisanship has affected not just wildlife legislation, but environmental legislation in general.

When it was first published in 1977, Michael’s book was the only publication to “analyze wildlife law comprehensively as a distinct component of federal environmental law.” The second edition was published in 1983 and the third in 1997 (with coauthor Melanie Rowland). The book remains a standard reference for those seeking to understand wildlife law.

How has federal environmental law and wildlife law changed since the first publication of your book, The Evolution of National Wildlife Law, in 1977?

There is a lot more contention and litigation of late than there was in the earlier years. In part, that’s due to partisanship, but it’s also due to other factors as well. The laws that were passed in the 60s and 70s are in the same basic form today that they were in when they were passed. They have withstood the test of time, but the implementation of those laws has become more contentious. You see that in efforts by both the current administrator of the EPA and the secretary of the Interior, who have both worked to roll back the initiatives of the previous administration. This has never happened on this sort of scale in the past, and it’s disconcerting.

What communities are most affected by the ESA? Are there opportunities to improve the way the law works for people, the economy and the environment?

Every community has benefited from the ESA because all of us benefit from biological diversity – economically, recreationally, aesthetically and spiritually. We can now see our national symbol, the bald eagle, soaring in the wild as one of many species that are no longer endangered. That is a profound benefit to all Americans.

Some communities have been affected more than others, but there are opportunities for the ranching and forestry communities in particular to find ways to compatibly manage their lands for economic purposes and help imperiled wildlife at the same time. This was seen with red-cockaded woodpeckers and it’s happening now as we see ranchers working to prevent the greater sage-grouse from becoming endangered.

With a serious effort to look for compatibility, we will see it’s possible to share spaces with rare species and still meet human needs.

The bald eagle was first listed as endangered in 1963. Due to conservation efforts led by EDF, it was successfully recovered and delisted by 2007, with an estimated 10,000 mating pairs in the wild. (Photo Credit: Dave Soldano.)

Related:

What we've learned from 50 years of wildlife conservation >>

Let’s make ESA listings extinct, not wildlife >>

We need to get creative to protect wildlife in the face of climate risk >>

By Richard Denison

We are deeply concerned over the nomination of Michael Dourson to head the toxics office at EPA.  Unfortunately, this nomination fits the clear pattern of the Trump Administration in appointing individuals to positions for which they have significant conflicts of interest.  Dr. Dourson has extensive, longstanding ties to the chemical industry (as well as earlier ties to the tobacco industry).  He also has a history of failing to appropriately address his conflicts of interest.  For example:  

• After the 2014 chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia, the state hired Dourson’s company, Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA), to convene and manage a health effects expert panel. TERA then appointed Dourson to chair the panel and act as its only spokesperson. The panel’s report failed to disclose that Dourson and TERA had done paid work for both of the companies that produced the chemicals involved in the spill.  These conflicts only came to light upon questioning of Dourson by a reporter at the panel’s news conference.
• Dourson and TERA have done extensive work on behalf of the so-called Perchlorate Study Group (PSG), which is actually comprised of producers and users of perchlorate. The work was aimed at reducing the stringency of federal standards.  Dourson, who is on EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), was asked to recuse himself from the Board’s 2013 meeting to review EPA’s work to develop a drinking water standard for perchlorate.  Immediately upon doing so, Dourson provided “public” comments to the Board based on the work he had done for PSG.
• In 2012, Dourson and TERA, with funding from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), set up and ran a website called “Kids + Chemical Safety.” (This website is now inactive and TERA itself has been migrated to be a center at the University of Cincinnati.) The site was designed to look like a neutral source of advice for parents concerned about chemical safety, but instead mirrored industry talking points about its chemicals and sought to shift responsibility for ensuring safety to the consumer or parent and away from the industry.

Dourson also has a history of undertaking work, often with significant funding from industry, to undermine public health protections and the science underlying them.  For example:

• Dourson and TERA have worked extensively for the Texas Department of Environmental Quality (TDEQ) to undermine EPA air pollution regulations.
• Dourson set up the Alliance for Risk Assessment, and leads its “Beyond Science and Decisions” project. Heavily funded by industry (see here and here), the project is aimed at undermining the seminal 2009 National Academy of Sciences report “Science and Decisions:  Advancing Risk Assessment.”

Dr. Dourson’s nomination comes at a critical time for the EPA toxics office, which is charged with implementing last year’s Lautenberg Act, which overhauled the ineffectual Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and passed with broad bipartisan support.  That legislation was able to advance even in a highly partisan Congress because all stakeholders saw reform as needed to restore public and market confidence in our broken chemical safety system.  The law struck a delicate balance between public and private interests.

Already, however, that balance has been upset when EPA recently finalized “framework rules” implementing the new law that skewed heavily in the chemical industry’s favor.  If his track record is any indication, Dr. Dourson’s nomination threatens to move us further away from health-protective implementation of the new TSCA.

By Richard Denison

We are deeply concerned over the nomination of Michael Dourson to head the toxics office at EPA.  Unfortunately, this nomination fits the clear pattern of the Trump Administration in appointing individuals to positions for which they have significant conflicts of interest.  Dr. Dourson has extensive, longstanding ties to the chemical industry (as well as earlier ties to the tobacco industry).  He also has a history of failing to appropriately address his conflicts of interest.  For example:  

• After the 2014 chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia, the state hired Dourson’s company, Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA), to convene and manage a health effects expert panel. TERA then appointed Dourson to chair the panel and act as its only spokesperson. The panel’s report failed to disclose that Dourson and TERA had done paid work for both of the companies that produced the chemicals involved in the spill.  These conflicts only came to light upon questioning of Dourson by a reporter at the panel’s news conference.
• Dourson and TERA have done extensive work on behalf of the so-called Perchlorate Study Group (PSG), which is actually comprised of producers and users of perchlorate. The work was aimed at reducing the stringency of federal standards.  Dourson, who is on EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), was asked to recuse himself from the Board’s 2013 meeting to review EPA’s work to develop a drinking water standard for perchlorate.  Immediately upon doing so, Dourson provided “public” comments to the Board based on the work he had done for PSG.
• In 2012, Dourson and TERA, with funding from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), set up and ran a website called “Kids + Chemical Safety.” (This website is now inactive and TERA itself has been migrated to be a center at the University of Cincinnati.) The site was designed to look like a neutral source of advice for parents concerned about chemical safety, but instead mirrored industry talking points about its chemicals and sought to shift responsibility for ensuring safety to the consumer or parent and away from the industry.

Dourson also has a history of undertaking work, often with significant funding from industry, to undermine public health protections and the science underlying them.  For example:

• Dourson and TERA have worked extensively for the Texas Department of Environmental Quality (TDEQ) to undermine EPA air pollution regulations.
• Dourson set up the Alliance for Risk Assessment, and leads its “Beyond Science and Decisions” project. Heavily funded by industry (see here and here), the project is aimed at undermining the seminal 2009 National Academy of Sciences report “Science and Decisions:  Advancing Risk Assessment.”

Dr. Dourson’s nomination comes at a critical time for the EPA toxics office, which is charged with implementing last year’s Lautenberg Act, which overhauled the ineffectual Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and passed with broad bipartisan support.  That legislation was able to advance even in a highly partisan Congress because all stakeholders saw reform as needed to restore public and market confidence in our broken chemical safety system.  The law struck a delicate balance between public and private interests.

Already, however, that balance has been upset when EPA recently finalized “framework rules” implementing the new law that skewed heavily in the chemical industry’s favor.  If his track record is any indication, Dr. Dourson’s nomination threatens to move us further away from health-protective implementation of the new TSCA.

By Richard Denison

We are deeply concerned over the nomination of Michael Dourson to head the toxics office at EPA.  Unfortunately, this nomination fits the clear pattern of the Trump Administration in appointing individuals to positions for which they have significant conflicts of interest.  Dr. Dourson has extensive, longstanding ties to the chemical industry (as well as earlier ties to the tobacco industry).  He also has a history of failing to appropriately address his conflicts of interest.  For example:  

• After the 2014 chemical spill in Charleston, West Virginia, the state hired Dourson’s company, Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA), to convene and manage a health effects expert panel. TERA then appointed Dourson to chair the panel and act as its only spokesperson. The panel’s report failed to disclose that Dourson and TERA had done paid work for both of the companies that produced the chemicals involved in the spill.  These conflicts only came to light upon questioning of Dourson by a reporter at the panel’s news conference.
• Dourson and TERA have done extensive work on behalf of the so-called Perchlorate Study Group (PSG), which is actually comprised of producers and users of perchlorate. The work was aimed at reducing the stringency of federal standards.  Dourson, who is on EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), was asked to recuse himself from the Board’s 2013 meeting to review EPA’s work to develop a drinking water standard for perchlorate.  Immediately upon doing so, Dourson provided “public” comments to the Board based on the work he had done for PSG.
• In 2012, Dourson and TERA, with funding from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), set up and ran a website called “Kids + Chemical Safety.” (This website is now inactive and TERA itself has been migrated to be a center at the University of Cincinnati.) The site was designed to look like a neutral source of advice for parents concerned about chemical safety, but instead mirrored industry talking points about its chemicals and sought to shift responsibility for ensuring safety to the consumer or parent and away from the industry.

Dourson also has a history of undertaking work, often with significant funding from industry, to undermine public health protections and the science underlying them.  For example:

• Dourson and TERA have worked extensively for the Texas Department of Environmental Quality (TDEQ) to undermine EPA air pollution regulations.
• Dourson set up the Alliance for Risk Assessment, and leads its “Beyond Science and Decisions” project. Heavily funded by industry (see here and here), the project is aimed at undermining the seminal 2009 National Academy of Sciences report “Science and Decisions:  Advancing Risk Assessment.”

Dr. Dourson’s nomination comes at a critical time for the EPA toxics office, which is charged with implementing last year’s Lautenberg Act, which overhauled the ineffectual Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and passed with broad bipartisan support.  That legislation was able to advance even in a highly partisan Congress because all stakeholders saw reform as needed to restore public and market confidence in our broken chemical safety system.  The law struck a delicate balance between public and private interests.

Already, however, that balance has been upset when EPA recently finalized “framework rules” implementing the new law that skewed heavily in the chemical industry’s favor.  If his track record is any indication, Dr. Dourson’s nomination threatens to move us further away from health-protective implementation of the new TSCA.

Written by Paige Wolf

Our train into DC from Philadelphia was 90 minutes late for the annual Play-In for Climate Action. As we waited for the light to change at a crosswalk we noticed two men in suits standing beside us.

“I think that might be Tim Kaine,” I whispered to my friend.
“I think so too.”
“Say something.”
“No, you say something.”
“Um, are you Tim Kaine?”
“Yes I am! Who are you and what brings you to Washington?”
“We are here with Moms Clean Air Force to talk about protecting our children’s health!”

That’s the opportunity Moms Clean Air Force gives parents from across the country. Of course, this meeting was by chance. But the dozens of meetings scheduled on the Hill that day would be rare and momentous opportunities to sit down with elected officials to ask  them to support the strongest possible health protections against climate change for our families.

On July 13, 2017, more than 500 parents and children from across the country came together in Washington, DC for a Play-In for Climate Action. This was the fourth – and likely the most imperative – year of the family-friendly protest against air pollution, climate change, and President Trump’s EPA budget cuts.

I met parents who had traveled with their children from as far as Alaska for the opportunity to share their personal message (making my slightly delayed train ride seem like actual child’s play).

Against a backdrop of children playing with parachutes and large blocks depicting “things we love that are threatened by climate change” – under a broiling 100 degree heat index, event speakers included congressional leaders from both side of the aisle: Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR); Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI); and Representative Brian Fitzpatrick, (R-PA 8th).

Representative Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA)

Having Representative Fitzpatrick speak underlined the fact that protections for children’s health should not be a partisan issue. According to a new Moms Clean Air Force survey, the majority of U.S. moms and grandmothers – regardless of background — are concerned about climate and air pollution.

Victoria Barrett, one of the plaintiffs from Our Children’s Trust, a landmark youth lawsuit suing the government for a “stable climate and healthy atmosphere”

Other speakers included Ben Monterroso, executive director, Mi Familia Vota; Megan Boone, lead actress, The Blacklist (TV series); Vanessa Hauc, Emmy-award-winning correspondent, Noticiero Telemundo; Victoria Barrett, plaintiff, Our Children’s Trust; and Casey Camp-Horinek, Native rights activist.

Megan Boone, mom and lead actress of the Blacklist.

After the Play-In, we broke into small groups for scheduled meetings with members of Congress from all 50 states.

More than 300 parents and children had the opportunity to personally share their stories with over one hundred members of Congress and their staffs. We had the opportunity to speak directly to senators Jack Reed (RI), Lamar Alexander (TN), Tom Carper (DE), Maggie Hassan (MA), Roy Blunt (MO), and Catherine Cortez Masto (NV) to ask about their plans to combat climate change, reduce air pollution, and prevent cuts to the vital protections provided by the EPA.

Later that day, the House of Representatives officially affirmed that climate change poses a direct threat to our national security. In a previous bipartisan vote in the House Armed Services Committee had included the following language in the National Defense Authorization Act: “Climate change is a direct threat to the national security of the United States and is impacting stability in areas of the world both where the United States Armed Forces are operating today, and where strategic implications for future conflict exist.”

We can take great pride and comfort knowing parents and our children were a part of that victory. Our vocal advocacy over the years has helped move the needle for bipartisan triumph in the House, as representatives of both parties rejected a climate denial stance pushed by some leaders of the current administration.

We plan to return to the Hill next year in even greater numbers to share our non-partisan and universal message: We  harness the strength of mother love to fight back against polluters because there is nothing more important than our children’s health.

Photos: Ralph Alswang

TELL CONGRESS: NOBODY VOTED TO MAKE AMERICA DIRTY AGAIN

By Robert E. Jones

EDF Gulf Director, Robert Jones, after a recent fishing trip.

Fishing gets in your blood. As a kid growing up on the Texas coast, I spent as much time as possible on the water. Today, an inordinate amount of my time and treasure goes toward maintaining an offshore boat so I can get my salty fix on weekends. I’m one of millions of Americans for whom fishing is a lifestyle. And I’m part of an overwhelming chorus of Gulf anglers who are sick and tired of the broken way we manage recreational red snapper fishing and are demanding change.

The recovery of red snapper is an incredible opportunity. As the stock has rebounded over the last decade, the total amount of catch available annually has grown from 5 million to 14 million pounds. For seafood businesses and consumers, that has delivered tremendous benefits, increasing the value of the commercial fishery from $37 million to $220 million and making delicious Gulf red snapper available year-round in restaurants and grocery stores.

But it’s an entirely different story on the recreational side. Instead of anglers and recreational fishing businesses throughout the Gulf reaping the benefits of recovery, we are stuck in a downward spiral of recreational management failure. Anglers are catching more and bigger fish in state seasons that have become longer and longer – up to 365 days in Texas. As a result, 81% of angler quota is now caught in state waters meaning federal seasons are getting shorter and shorter – like this year’s original three-day season. This has been suffocating our access to the best offshore fishing grounds.

Then last month, the feds did a complete about-face, opening the floodgates with an “all weekends, all summer” recreational season. The problem with this approach is that it will lead to a massive breach of the very science-based catch limits that have brought red snapper back from the brink. We estimate that under the new 2017 season rules, recreational anglers could take as much as three times their safe limit, jeopardizing the fishery. This is a recipe for repeating the disastrous overfishing of previous decades, and returning to the days when my dad and I could barely find a red snapper on a trip. Today we filed a lawsuit to ensure that doesn’t happen. To be clear, we are not trying to end this year’s recreational season and we don’t think fishermen should have to pay the price for the Commerce Department’s misguided decision.

For us, going to court is about more than preventing a return to overfishing: it’s about breaking the cycle of profound recreational management failure and catalyzing innovative, solutions-oriented reforms.

The good news is there are plenty of smart ideas out there that can achieve conservation goals, improve fisheries data, and give anglers more access and flexibility. For example, headboat captains led a pilot project allowing them to take anglers fishing year-round in exchange for requirements they count and report every fish they catch. Charter operators are implementing new electronic reporting systems that provide managers with data in close to real time. Louisiana’s LA Creel data collection program is an example of states working with anglers to deliver a clearer picture of catch rates and provide opportunities for an expanded state role in management. And there are tools that have long worked for hunters that should be considered in the red snapper fishery to improve angler access.

Now is the moment to build out and scale up these new approaches to how we manage recreational fishing. Working together, we can ensure a healthy red snapper stock, extend the success of our Gulf seafood industry, give anglers flexible access, and ensure that future generations of Americans can enjoy the thrill of catching red snapper.

Robert E. Jones, a lifelong recreational fisherman, was raised in Corpus Christi, Texas. He is director of Environmental Defense Fund's Gulf of Mexico Oceans program. 

Fishing gets in your blood. As a kid growing up on the Texas coast, I spent as much time as possible on the water. Today, an inordinate amount of my time and treasure goes toward maintaining an offshore boat so I can get my salty fix on weekends. I’m one of millions of Americans for […]

The post Gulf anglers like me are demanding change appeared first on EDFish.

The program is helping the state cut carbon pollution and injecting billions of dollars into new and innovative clean energy and green technology projects that create good-paying jobs