This week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Yates vs. the United States. Commercial fishermen John Yates was caught with dozens of illegally caught grouper, he destroyed much of the evidence of this crime, and he was charged under a law designed to prosecute people for destruction of evidence. He is now suing the government for overreach.
The question of whether a law most commonly known for being used to deal with destruction of financial records can also be used to deal with destruction of evidence of illegal fishing is an interesting one. The Obama administration claims that the law was designed to be a generic Federal destruction of evidence ban, and it has also been used, according to a USA Today article, to “go after the destruction of cars, cash, cocaine, child pornography- even murder weapons and bodies.” It seems to me that it is an appropriate role of government to write regulations to ensure that our shared natural resources are sustainably exploited, it is an appropriate role of government to enforce violations of those laws, and it is an appropriate role of government to punish people for destroying evidence of those violations. A much bigger problem, however, is with much of the media coverage of this case.
Article about Yates vs. the United States are full of fish puns. US News and World Report called it a “fish tale,” and asked if the government “went overboard” in their prosecution. Months after publishing an opinion piece written by Yates that’s full of blatant lies about the case, Politico called it a “fish story.” TIME refers to the case as a “fine kettle of fish,” and a Fox News called it “fishy business.” While I always appreciate a good fish pun, I can’t help but notice that none of these articles mention that illegal fishing is bad*, and many are actively claiming that it’s no big deal. “Does the nation’s highest court have bigger things to fret about than six dozen 19-inch fish? Certainly,” asked USA Today. The coverage in Forbes referred to the whole case as “absurd.” NPR’s story included a quote from Yates saying that his crime of illegally catching dozens of fish is essentially just “a speeding ticket.”
In reality, illegal fishing is a very serious problem. Over a billion people, most of whom are poor, depend on fish as a source of animal protein. The global fishing industry employs hundreds of millions of people around the world, and is worth tens of billions of dollars a year. More than half of the world’s fisheries are fully exploited, according to the United Nations food and agriculture organization, and many are overfished. Overfishing can result in the collapse of entire communities, as we saw with the Canadian cod collapse, as well as ecological devastation.
To ensure that the fishing industry continues to provide jobs and food, we need strong science-based regulations, and fishermen need to play by the rules, including minimum size limits that aim to ensure that fish can reproduce before they are killed. The National Marine Fisheries Service notes that illegal fishing negatively affects “fisheries, marine ecosystems, food security and coastal communities around the world,” and “risks the sustainability of a multi-billion dollar U.S. industry.” Worldwide, WWF estimates that illegal fishing results in economic losses of over $23 billion a year. The Pew Environment Group’s illegal fishing project notes that stronger criminal penalties are needed to deter this practice.
If we need to have a national discussion over whether the government prosecuting someone for destroying evidence of a Federal crime under a law designed to prosecute people for destroying evidence of Federal crimes is “big government overreach,” fine. But illegal fishing is only a punchline if you don’t care about global food security, ecosystem health, or jobs for honest fishermen.
*The TIME article mentions that illegal fishing targeting endangered species, which is not what the Yates case is about, is bad.
While your plea for sympathy to allegations of criminality is heard, it is unsubstantiated. The facts are not. This NOAA fisheries a/k/a NMFS have abused fishermen for years. During the regime from 1999 until present, good hardworking fishermen have been overcharged, both civilly and criminally. The whole industry was abused. Any research into this topic would educate you on this. As to the original case, these fish that were “so-called” short were measured by a state agency, untrained in the federal law covering the measuring. The FWC officer testified that he does NOT measure fish in accordance with federal law. NOAA received a document from the FWC expert that said if these fish had been measured properly they averaged over 20 inches, and that was frozen. This same FWC expert also agreed that fish shrink. So these so called “short” fish were all probably legal. We will never know because he did not measure pursuant to federal law. Fishing is civil, whether you like it or not. The only criminal statute is for harassing an observer. To try to put a man away for 30 years is insane You can spin this anyway you want, but the men and women abused, yes I said abused, by this agency and others, should be criminal. They are trying to feed their families and pay their bills just like anyone else. It is hard work and they take pride it in. Shame on you trying to spin this into something it is not.