Fishing Freedom

United Nations Rejects Ban

2010-03-18T11:33:00.000-04:00

UN rejects export ban on Atlantic bluefin tuna

DOHA, Qatar – A U.S.-backed proposal to ban the export of Atlantic bluefin tuna prized in sushi was rejected Thursday by a U.N. wildlife meeting, with scores of developing nations joining Japan in opposing a measure they feared would devastate fishing economies.

Monaco introduced the proposal at the 175-nation Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, or CITES. It argued that extreme measures for the iconic, migratory fish were necessary because the stocks have fallen by 75 percent due to widespread overfishing.

But as debate opened, it became clear that the proposal had little support. Only the United States, Norway and Kenya supported the proposal outright. The European Union asked that implementation be delayed until May 2011 to give authorities time to respond to concerns about overfishing.

Japan, which imports 80 percent of Atlantic bluefin and has led the opposition to the ban, reiterated its arguments that CITES should have no role in regulating tuna and other marine species. It expressed willingness to accept lower quotas for bluefin tuna but wanted those to come from the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, or ICCAT, which currently regulates the trade.

"Japan is very much concerned about the status of Atlantic bluefin tuna and Japan has been working so hard for many years to ensure recovery," Masanori Miyahara, chief counselor of the Fisheries Agency of Japan, told delegates. "But our position is very simple. Let us do this job in ICCAT, not in CITES. This position is shared by majority of Asian nations."

Monaco tried to sway the delegates by reminding them that ICCAT has for years failed to maintain sustainable quotas that were supported by its own scientists. It also unsuccessfully tried to dispel fears that a CITES listing would last forever — even including language allowing Atlantic bluefin to be delisted once the stock recovers.

"This exploitation is no longer exploitation by traditional fishing people to meet regional needs," Monaco's Patrick Van Klaveren told delegates. "Industrial fishing of species is having a severe effect on numbers of this species and its capacity to recover. We are facing a real ecosystem collapse."

The tuna defeat came hours after delegates rejected a U.S. proposal to ban the international sale of polar bear skins and parts, showing that economic interest at this meeting appeared to be trumping conservation. It also raised the prospect that a CITES meeting that was packed with several dozen promising proposals could end next week in failure for environmentalists.

The Americans argued that the sale of polar bears skins is compounding the loss of the animals' sea ice habitat due to climate change. There are projections that the bear's numbers, which are estimated at 20,000 to 25,000, could decline by two-thirds due by 2050 due to habitat loss in the Arctic.

But Canada, Greenland and several indigenous communities argued the trade had little impact on the white bears population and would adversely effect their economies

2010-03-02T07:57:00.001-05:00

Email received from Nils Stolpe dated Feb. 28th 2010

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 was the day that US fishermen* found their
collective voice, and that voice was a roar. And that roar echoed in the
halls of Congress. It was the day that two dozen US legislators heard
that roar loudly and clearly, and responded unequivocally that they were
committed to the cause that brought us all to Washington - to Fix
Magnuson Now.

The day was a complete success from the fishermen’s perspective, and I
can’t imagine it turning out any better than it did. Upwards of 5,000
fishermen were there, on the very steps of the Capitol, to express their
dissatisfaction with the anti-fishing weapon that federal fisheries
management has been turned into; a weapon based on the Big Lie that
fish-ermen shouldn’t be involved in managing their own fisheries. Some
fishermen expressed it with religious fervor and some expressed it with
humor, but they all expressed it with passion, with pride, with
integrity and with conviction. Anyone who was there and was listening
couldn’t have missed that.

But there was a downside.

One of the major themes was the chasm that has developed separating
fishermen from the federal fisheries managers and the federal fisheries
management system. This was echoed by speaker after speaker. The
NOAA/NMFS presence at and reaction to the rally provided compelling
evidence that this chasm is getting wider and deeper, and that the
peo-ple in charge at NOAA/NMFS aren’t at all interested in bridging it.

Two days before the rally Jim Donofrio, Executive Director of the
Recreational Fishing Alliance and one of the rally’s chief architects,
was contacted by NOAA/NMFS with a request to have Eric Schwaab, newly
appointed NOAA Assis-tant Administrator for Fisheries, added to the
agenda. When Jim found that Mr. Schwaab wasn’t interested in support-ing
our cause, legislation to bring much needed flexibility back to the
Magnuson Act, he graciously declined and he did so with the unanimous
support of all of us who were involved in putting the rally together.

On the day of the rally Mr. Schwaab issued a press release, which he
passed out to the media reps in attendance, stat-ing that he was there
“to listen to those who have come to rally Congress.” But, as Tony
Bogan, another rally organizer and president of the party/charter boat
association United Boatmen, said, “his press release stated that he was
‘there to listen’ to fishermen, but he spent the majority of his time
talking to reporters instead of listening to any of the thou-sands of us
that were available.” And from what I’ve read subsequently, and based on
his press release, his talking had everything to do with convincing
those reporters that neither the rally nor the changes to the Magnuson
Act that it was in support of were necessary.

In other words, according to Mr. Schwaab and NOAA/NMFS, all of those
fishermen had wasted their time, their money and their energy and had
wasted the time and energy of all of those legislators as well, because
we didn’t need what we were asking for.

I’m not going to speculate here on how appropriate it was for the person
in charge of the Obama administration’s fish-eries agency to be actively
campaigning against legislation introduced by high ranking Democrats and
sponsored by more than thirty legislators from both parties at a rally
of people who are supposed to be his constituents during his second week
on the job. Nor on exactly whose interests he was representing while he
was doing it. But for the sake of all of our fishermen, there are some
serious questions about this that demand to be answered.

What of the rest of his press release?

I’ll start off with his plea for patience on the part of fishermen,
predicated on his agency’s success in rebuilding four fisheries.

I’m familiar with two and know that the “success” in their management
only started when cooperative research pro-jects inarguably demonstrated
that there were far more monkfish and sea scallops available than the
NOAA/NMFS vessels, crews and scientists had been able to find on their
own. While perhaps Mr. Schwaab hadn’t yet been briefed on these
fisheries (the sea scallop fishery is the most valuable in the country
and the monkfish fishery is the most valu-able federally managed finfish
fishery on the East Coast), his claim that their management success was
due to “rebuild-ing” was slightly less than accurate. They were both
cases of fishermen working cooperatively with NMFS scientists and
showing them how to find the monkfish or scallops that were there all
along. (Unfortunately, such positive out-comes are unlikely in the
future because NOAA/NMFS plans to transfer $6 million from the
cooperative research budget to a campaign to force catch shares on
fishermen who might not want them.)

As far as the third of the four species he mentioned, for as long as
people have been fishing on the East Coast, the blue-fish population,
regardless of fishing pressure, has cycled from high abundance to low.
In fact, a page on Mr. Schwaab’s agency’s own website states “cycles of
low and high abundance of bluefish follow a pattern…. Several re-cent
studies have examined potential causes of this pattern and have found no
biological explanations.” This cycling happens with or without
management, and bluefish are at a high level of abundance now. His
scientists don’t know why but Mr. Schwaab wants us to believe that his
agency and its management program are what did it.

I don’t know anything about the king mackerel fishery, the fourth that
he claimed as a “we rebuilt it” success. Perhaps he got that one right.

But most troubling to me was his ongoing advice to just sit back and let
the management measures work because the sacrifices that fishermen are
making now “have the potential to result in significant long-term
economic benefits to fishing communities.” In his release Mr. Schwaab
asserted “I am familiar with fishing communities, their proud
tradi-tions, and the challenges we face in keeping them vibrant for
future generations.” I don’t know how much time Mr. Schwaab has actually
spent on the ground in those fishing communities, but I’ll bet he’s
never seen a fishing business or a fishing-dependent business closed
down because of management cutbacks required by unnecessarily
restrictive rebuilding requirements that was eventually replaced by
another fishing business. Tee shirt shops, condominiums, convenience
stores and fast food places definitely, but never another fishing business.

And what are the displaced business owners and employees in these
fishing communities going to do while they’re waiting for these
arbitrary rebuilding targets to be reached? Become investment bankers
and finally get something from the federal government other than pain
and suffering? That might keep them vibrant, but it sure won’t keep them
as fishing communities.

Mr. Schwaab’s press release ended “I am interested in hearing the
concerns of everyone involved, and I look forward to a cooperative and
productive relationship,” but it seemed as if he wasn’t really
interested enough to listen to the big-gest gathering of involved and
committed fishermen than I’ve ever seen.

On Wednesday I heard 5,000 fishermen saying that they were tired of,
threatened by and paying grievously for a fed-eral management system
that was being run from the board rooms of billion dollar foundations by
people who are about as far removed from the docks, beaches or marinas
that any of us frequent as it’s possible to be. Those founda-tions have
spent hundreds of millions of dollars on legislation that makes the fish
more important than the fishermen and has taken all of the human
judgment out of a system that was originally designed to rely on that
judgment.

Congressman Pallone’s and Senator Schumer’s legislation is the first
step, now that we have the knowledge, the safe-guards and the will to
avoid another plunge into overfishing, in getting us back to the level
of sustainable management where the fishermen matter as much as the
fish. It’s too bad that the new head of the National Marine Fisheries
Service had decided by his eighth day on the job that we don’t need
anything like that, that what we really need is more of the kind of
“fish first” management that brought us all to Washington.

I’d respectfully suggest that Mr. Schwaab find a somewhat more accurate
definition of “cooperative” than the one he’s presently using.
________________________________________________

*When I write ”fishermen,” that’s my personal shorthand for men who
fish, women who fish, kids who fish, and all of the people whose
livelihoods depend in all or in part on those fishermen keeping on fishing.
________________________________________________

In what is an unfortunate postscript, on February 26 Mr. Schwaab sent
out an invitation to “participate in an informal stakeholder call to
introduce and familiarize myself with the interests and view points of
you and your community,” scheduled for the afternoon of Monday, March
15. While it’s a sure thing that a host of foundation subsidized
fisher-men and so-called marine conservationists will participate, that
is the first day of the Boston Seafood Show, the most important annual
event for the seafood industry in the U.S. That’s about the best way I
could imagine to guarantee that an awful lot of commercial fishing
industry leaders would not be available. Let’s assume that it was just
an oversight. Considering that one or two phone calls or about a half a
minute’s worth of web surfing would have revealed this con-flict, Mr.
Schwaab seems even more out of touch with the real fishing industry than
his press release would indicate.

South Carolina Says NO

2010-02-22T08:34:00.000-05:00

The people in the state of Florida need to do what the people in the State of South Carolina have done and push our state government to pass like legistration.

RFA-SC Members Lobby For Resolution
February 3, 2010 - In a concurrent resolution, the South Carolina legislature is working to oppose any fishing area closures off the coast of South Carolina associated with the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (SAFMC) proposed amendments to the fishery management plan for the grouper/snapper fishery. Two bills currently in play are H 4497 and S 1095 and call upon the SAFMC to not adopt any version of Amendment 17A that includes the closure of areas off the coast of South Carolina to fishing activities.

South Carolina members of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) lobbied extensively to garner support of this important issue, and the response from the legislators is being applauded by RFA and its South Carolina Members. "We need these passed immediately," said RFA-SC member Cantey Smith of Charleston. "These bills advocate protection of our economy, jobs, our ability to do what we love and the state of our offshore fishery. Smith stressed that fellow South Carolina anglers should pick up the phone or send a letter to their local legislator asking for support of the resolutions, adding "South Carolina values are at stake here."

In the resolution sponsored by Rep. Thad Viers of Myrtle Beach, Sen. Ray Cleary of Georgetown, Horry and Charleston Counties and Sen. Ronnie Cromer of Lexington, Newberry and Saluda Counties, South Carolina House and Senate members made it very clear that any proposals under consideration for closures by the SAFMC were "unjustifiable and would create severe economic hardship to the state and its coastal counties, including significant job loss at a time when job creation is badly needed and is a priority."

"Between NOAA restrictions on snapper and grouper, and the proposal to shut down the entire coast to bottomfishing, I'm not sure how much our coastal sector can bend," said Charleston charter captain, Mark Brown. "Our local fishing industry is close to broke as it is now."

The concurrent resolution reads that "any closed area to fishing off the coast of South Carolina will result in excessive fishing pressure on the remaining open areas, causing localized depletion of fish species, further, seriously impacting fishermen, employment, and the local economy." Furthermore, the Assembly "strongly urged representatives of South Carolina on the SAMFC to cast votes in opposition to any amendment that will result in any area of the state's coast being closed to fishing of any kind."

Ideally, RFA would like to see other coastal states within the SAFMC domain follow suit before the council reconvenes in March to vote on the area closures. "RFA is thankful to Congressman Henry Brown for contacting members of the House in South Carolina to get this done," said Jim Donofrio, Executive Director of the RFA. "Mr. Brown is primary co-sponsor of HR 1584, the Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act, and a champion for science-based and sustainable fisheries management. We would like to see more of our coastal legislators step up on behalf of their constituents the way these South Carolina representatives have," Donofrio said.

Another Obama Appointment that Lied

2010-01-29T08:12:00.000-05:00

At her U.S. Senate confirmation hearing to head the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, celebrated marine biologist Jane Lubchenco was introduced as "the bionic woman of good science"
Lubchenco said she believed the time had come "to create a new climate of trust."

Science, the medium of her mastery, is her choice for the rapprochement.

What was needed, Lubchenco offered, was "data to believe in."

Lubchenco has been a Pew fellow, a member of the Pew Oceans Commission and the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative that evolved from it.

Lubchenco has been a Pew fellow, a member of the Pew Oceans Commission and the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative that evolved from it. In these endeavors, she was teamed with Leon Panetta, the former chief of staff for President Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama's choice to be CIA director.

She also lists herself as a director of the Pew trust-financed SeaWeb, which describes itself as existing to "raise awareness of the world ocean and the life within it," according to Nils E. Stolpe, a columnist for National Fisherman, who has been reporting on the Pew campaign for many years.

"I don't find (Pew-financed science) to be really clean," said Eric Anderson, president of the 75-member New Hampshire Commercial Fishermen's Association. "I have questions about how pure and clean it really is, there's a lack of transparency."

"The Pew jacket on her — that scares me," Gloucester fisherman Russell Sherman said.

Vast in wealth with an endowment in the billions and generous to an arsenal of environmental platforms worldwide, some pre-existing and some created by Pew interests, the descendents of Joseph N. Pew, founder of Sun Oil Co., have created a powerful force that advances along political fronts under many banners.

Only days ago, the Pew Environmental Group, through the "Herring Alliance," activated a federal lawsuit against NMFS, demanding it crack down on the herring fleet, which is allowed to trawl in mid-levels through areas of fish-rich waters that are closed to groundfishing trawlers.

RFA Pushes for Flexibility Bill

2010-01-23T05:43:00.000-05:00

RFA pushes for flexibility billAction hoped to aid recreational anglers, those dependent on fishing for livelihoodComment Email Print Share By Robert Montgomery
ESPNOutdoors.com

While some in the fishing industry advocate a more measured and diplomatic approach to a federal management strategy that is closing ocean fisheries to both sports anglers and commercials, the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is coming out with both guns blazing.

"Management has been a mix of policy based on emotions and agendas based on politics, with a little science," said Jim Donofrio, RFA's executive director. "This needs to be fixed."

Click here for archive
Ostensibly, the Magnuson-Stevens Conservation and Management Act (MSA), signed into law by President Bush in 2007, was supposed to right the wrongs of decades of poor management while helping to restore and sustain fisheries.

Instead, asserts Donofrio, it has been used to bludgeon recreational anglers and the economies of coastal communities dependent on sport fishing. Two of the most damaging blows were delivered by closing black sea bass and red snapper fisheries.

"Black sea bass was at 200 percent over its projected biomass, and yet NOAA (National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration) closed it down because we may overfish it," Donofrio said. "Some in NOAA are career people and there's some balance there, but these actions (fishery closures) are being driven by the administration, which is carrying out the Pew agenda and that is to close the oceans down."

The Pew Oceans Commission is a private, independently funded, organization. Jane Lubchenco, who served on that commission, now is head of NOAA.

To combat what it perceives as an assault against both recreational and commercial angling, RFA is leading a Feb. 24 "United We Fish" rally on the steps of the Capitol.

Some in the industry question RFA's alliance with commercials for this rally, since the latter, along with habitat degradation, are primarily responsible for depleted stocks.

"Everyone deserves equal access under the law. That's why we are partnering," Donofrio said. "We are opposed to use of nonsustainable (commercial) gears, but that's a regulatory issue."

And along with the rally, RFA is working with members of Congress to pass the Flexibility in Rebuilding America Fisheries Act (H.R. 1584 and S. 1255) to amend MSA and soften its impact on recreational angling and those dependent on the sport for their livelihood.

In short, the bill would extend the time for rebuilding of overfished fisheries.

"Right now, it's 10 years to rebuild fisheries, with one year to end all overfishing," Donofrio said. "But that's statutory overfishing, not biological.

"Also, Pew basically wrote the overfishing definition, making it sound like cancer or child abuse. As a result, the bill (MSA) passed with not much debate. They outgunned us.

"Now, they are being exposed for the scoundrels they are. These decisions are being made based on emotions and agendas, not science."

Before MSA's passage, Pew pushed for the creation of ocean preserves, with no public access, the executive director continued.

"But they couldn't get anywhere with that on a federal level, so they went to the states," he said. "California is the perfect example. Then they got involved in reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens in 1996 and again in 2005."

Now, anglers are fighting back.

"We're going to win this one," Donofrio said.

And just what would winning (passage of the flexibility bill) achieve?

"It would allow limited access instead of closures," he said. "Also, the bill would get us a marker. Then we could have a hearing and debates. We want the Pew people there, too.

"Right now, NOAA science is not enough, even though it is considered the 'best available' and has to be followed. We say that all science should be considered. Right now, there are statutory definitions that make no common sense."

While agreeing that MSA is heavy-handed, some in the fishing industry, however, don't believe that adding "flexibility" is a good management strategy.

The Center for Coastal Conservation said, "Optimum yield cannot be achieved if the fishery is not allowed to be rebuilt to sustainable levels, and we do not believe a legislative 'fix' that permits continued overfishing indefinitely is the way to go ... "Rather than unwinding the hard-won victories in conservation and management standards and rebuilding plans in MSA, efforts would be better focused on creating free markets for catch shares, leveraged buyouts to right-size overcapitalized fleets, and implementing economic and science-supported fisheries management decisions that put the resource first, for the benefit of all user groups."

In a letter to Lubchenco, several fishery, conservation, and environmental groups recommended that NOAA "develop and fund a data collection system adequate to provide the timely and accurate catch data necessary to properly manage this (recreational) sector in compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act."

Additionally, the American Sportfishing Association (ASA), which signed that letter, intends to announce a "multi-step campaign that seeks to protect both the fishery resource and recreational fishing opportunity."

RFA, though, believes that more assertive action is needed. "It's a shame that some of our friends want nothing to do with fixing the Magnuson-Stevens Act and continue to look for 'constructive solutions' when the real answer is right there in the Senate and House," said Jim Hutchinson, Jr., RFA's managing director.

"The use of non-scientific, arbitrary 'time-specific' deadlines is destroying our coastal communities by removing recreational access to fisheries."

March on Washington, DC

2009-12-19T07:16:00.000-05:00

FISHERMEN TO MARCH ON WASHINGTON, DC

For Immediate Release, December 10, 2009:

Recreational and commercial fishermen, support business owners, families, and community leaders will gather at the steps of our Nation’s Capitol on February 24, 2010 from noon to 3 PM to show congress a united front of the impacts caused by the unintended impacts of the Magnuson Stevens Conservation and Management Act as revised effective January, 2007 (RMSA). The overly restrictive management requirements created by the RMSA based on non scientific arbitrary deadlines are forcing anglers off the water, eliminating commercial fishing, preventing consumers from purchasing locally caught fresh seafood, destroying small family businesses, increasing unemployment, and adversely affecting coastal communities.

We fully support real science based management and the conservation of our marine resources while also being able to sustain recreational and commercial fishing activities, providing locally caught seafood, sustaining small family businesses, and supporting our coastal communities. Please stay tuned as the details are being developed and will be provided. Make your plans to join us for this historic event and work with us in a United effort from coast to coast.

UNITED WE FISH and FISHING MATTERS

CCGF urges all elected officials to work together and to join the efforts by the leaders of other coastal states for the best interests of our coastal communities and the Nation.

This effort is being coordinated by many organizations and individuals including but not limited to CCGF, RFA, FRA, United Boatmen of New York, United Boatmen of New Jersey, MSSA and more to be announced.

CCGF is a 501(c) (6) non profit that represents recreational for-hire vessel owners and operators, supporting businesses, and recreational anglers from the Gulf of Mexico

News on Red Snapper Ban

2009-12-18T08:21:00.000-05:00

I just got this information today 12/17/09.

Marine Fisheries has moddified the Red Snapper no harvest area. The area still includes South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. Instead of using 66 feet as the beginning dept, it is now set to be from 98 feet to a depth of 300 feet. This will reduce the no harvest area considerably.

We can thank recreational groups as the RFA

Hijacking Fisheries Management

2009-12-14T09:06:00.005-05:00

HIJACKING FISHERIES MANAGEMENT
How Pew Charitable Trusts has co-opted the management process using paid-for science and a well-oiled media machine.
In late 2006, “Fisheries Face Collapse by 2048!” was the headline read and heard around the world – at least in the world of Washington, DC. It just so happens that Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act at that precise moment. The press stories sighted a study led by Dr. Boris Worm of Dalhousie University. While objective observers might question elements of the study, it was the media hype that the Pew Charitable Trusts (“Pew” or “the Trust”) wanted out there as part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to influence the Congressional debate on the Nation’s primary fisheries law. Dr. Worm, a regular recipient of funding from Pew, working with SeaWeb, a Pew-funded public research group that specializes in media campaigns, worked on the message and the timing to get as much media coverage as possible. They were successful. Big media loves a crisis, and when you have the money and the manpower it’s easy to plant a good fish tale.
Dr. Worm’s article was quickly labeled by top fisheries scientists and managers for what it really was – a Pew advocacy piece like much of his prior work funded by the Trust. The kicker at the end of the piece calling for “no-fishing marine reserves” as the cure was the final giveaway, a goal high on the agenda of most Pew funded organizations! Worm’s work in the past had been branded “invalid”, “misleading” and “undermining the trust placed in science.” As it turns out this was a textbook study in disseminating misinformation disguised as science to a willing media with the express purpose of influencing Congressional debate. Such scare tactics have become the darling of the radical environmental movement.
The media firestorm was part of a broader, coordinated attack that included misleading ad campaigns aimed at smearing key politicians facing re-election. The targeted Members of Congress just happened to be those involved in crafting scientifically sound legislation that also recognized the needs of recreational fishermen and industry. This campaign was led by another Pew-funded environmental group, the Marine Fish Conservation Network.

The Pew Charitable Trusts is the 800-pound gorilla of ocean issues. Created with funding from the Sun Oil Company and sitting on a $4.1 billion war chest, it is an organization that refuses to let reality get in the way of their agenda. In public documents their self-mandated mission is to “save” the oceans. They claim that the primary purpose (of the Trust) ‘is to award grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carryout the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes.’ This validates that Pew grant recipients are carrying out the ideas and motivations of Pew. The impact of such tactics is changing the direction of fisheries policy. True management and conservation is gradually being replaced by a call to stop all fishing through the use of paid-for science funneled to the media through Pew-financed conduits, and touted by Pew-funded environmental organizations. Much of their agenda is anti-fishing, even on well managed, rebuilt or rebuilding fish stocks, to the point of being little more than a cleverly disguised attack on the public’s access to the ocean. That’s recreational fishermen like us.
For example, Pew funding has enabled ecologists to drive the scientific agenda for the implementation of California’s Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA), which is now on course to close 20% of that state’s waters to recreational fishing. Pew Fellows serve on the Science Advisory Team of the MLPA, where they push closures while ignoring current fishery management practices, which, on the West Coast, are already the most restrictive in the world! Fishermen proposed a constructive network of MPA’s that exceeded Pew-funded scientific guidelines, but the political faction wanted blood! Their network lobbied the Governor for an even more extreme proposal and now California’s angling community is fighting a losing battle to stop a runaway train that is making it harder to find a place to fish.
Pew is a major grant provider to universities and professors in the marine sciences and the major provider of funds to environmental groups that push the party line. Those groups include The National Environmental Trust, Oceana, Earthjustice Legal Defense, the New England Aquarium, the Public Interest Research Group, National Audubon Society, National Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Marine Fish Conservation Network, Wildlife Conservation Society, Friends of the Earth and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Combined, these groups have received over $200 million of Pew money and most have openly endorsed the implementation of arbitrary no-fishing zones!
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is particularly worrisome. It is attempting to become an umbrella group for sportsman’s organizations and has attracted the participation of some fishing organizations with the lure of Pew money. The American Sportfishing Association and the Coastal Conservation Association are among the board members of the Partnership. And when the going got tough during the Magnuson Act reauthorization, they ended up on the same page as the Pew-funded groups.
This is what Congressman Pombo, then chair of the House Resources Committee had to say recently. “Throughout the long process to reauthorize the Magnuson Act the RFA was consistently at the table, insisting on sound conservation policies based on the most accurate science. Their goal was clear, a sustainable fishery so that this generation of recreational fishermen and the following generations would have fish to catch. Most of the other organizations engaged in this debate had other agendas or were totally missing in action. At the end of the 109th Congress it was clear to me that the RFA was the only player left insisting on protecting the future of recreational fishing. I will always be grateful to them and respect their tenacity during what proved to be a difficult reauthorization.”
Since the implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996 the management of U.S. fisheries, while far from perfect, has become a model for the rest of the world. Yet Pew continues to use scare tactics to drive its agenda domestically while the most egregious problems can easily be found abroad. Their agenda may sound laudable, but the reality is that their goal is to stop fishing. Pew used the money of its well-heeled donors like a school-yard bully during the debate and attacked those who stood in their way. Pew has seriously damaged the ability of recreational fishermen to do what we love to do – go fishing.

Welcome

2009-12-08T08:35:00.002-05:00

Welcome to The site for protecting Florida Anglers right to fish. This will be a fishing and political blog, meaning I will state how I feel that politics alone with other government appointed commissions are affecting our rights and freedoms.

Above I use the word rights, but fishing is not really a right, but a privilege. You do not have the right to keep all the Reds that you can catch, nor blues, trout and many other species. If you break these rules you can be fined or even arrested. So you have the privilege to fish as long as you follow the rules.

With this though in mind, we depend on our elected officials to pass laws that are sound and will be followed by the appointed officials when making decisions affecting our privilege of fishing. President Obama is doing all that he can to circumvent the legislative process. Read what the RFA has to say:

12 MILLION U.S. SALTWATER ANGLERS IGNORED
NEW FEDERAL ATTEMPTS TO CIRCUMVENT LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
A recently published federal taskforce report is causing a great deal of concern for America’s
recreational fishing community. For longtime members of the Recreational Fishing Alliance
(RFA) however, the claim that saltwater anglers have been kept out of the review process is
nothing especially new. According to the RFA however, it’s good to see the national sportfishing
industry starting to report it as passionately as coastal stakeholders have for the past few years.
The report from the president’s newly appointed Interagency Oceans Policy Task Force outlines
a federal initiative that could conceivably pave the way for more restrictive governmental actions
in further denying access to recreational anglers, similar to what’s already been accomplished in
California with the marine life protection act (MLPA).
RFA has been actively engaged in the
MLPA battle on the west coast for over seven years, as the California RFA chapter especially
has fought tirelessly against compromises made between various industry allies and hardline
environmentalist. The non-scientific based Pacific Coast closures now seem poised to extend
eastward as the new Interagency Oceans Policy Task Force has introduced a comprehensive
federal policy for all U.S. coastal, ocean and Great Lakes waters. Under the guise of protection,
the current second phase of the Task Force direction is set to develop zoning initiatives which
could potentially close vast areas of fishable waters, permanently.
“In reviewing the Report, there are strategies, principles, objectives and other authorizing
language that stands to have profound impacts on the recreational fishing community,” said
RFA Executive Director Jim Donofrio in official comments to Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White
House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). In writing on behalf of RFA members
nationwide, Donofrio said “RFA is concerned about the relatively rapid speed at which CEQ is
advancing with this initiative and the apparent lack of opportunity the average recreational
angler will have when the final Policy and subsequent bureaucracy is put in place
In a recent meeting facilitated by RFA to introduce Mid-Atlantic and Northeast coastal
stakeholders to the new Director of External Affairs, Andrew Winer, it was revealed that several
national trade and conservation groups had actually participated in the Interagency Oceans
Policy Task Force discussions. As reported by ESPN Outdoors, RFA hopes that any future
discussions involving recreational anglers that will ultimately impact coastal stakeholders will
actually include those coastal constituents. "We're hoping that after listening to the real
stakeholders who live and breathe within these vibrant coastal communities every single day,
that perhaps Mr. Winer can help us shake a little sense into these Beltway insiders who think
they understand recreational fishermen," said Jim Hutchinson, Managing Director of the RFA.
While the RFA commends CEQ for bringing wide national attention to the management of our
nation’s marine resources, as a national saltwater political action organization representing
marine businesses and users alike, RFA is opposed to any taskforce recommendations that
might be enacted through the Executive branch as opposed to through legislative efforts.
“Considering the broad implications and hundreds of stakeholders groups that will be affected,
the most appropriate course of action would be through the Legislative branch,” Donofrio said in
the letter to CEQ, adding “Stakeholders would have a greater opportunity to discuss the virtues
and flaws of the legislation in a more deliberate, transparent process.”
PRESS RELEASE
Recreational Fishing Alliance
176 B South New York Road, Galloway, NJ 08205
P: 1-888-564-6732 F: 609-404-1968
On June 18, Donofrio testified before the House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee
on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife in a hearing convened to review H.R. 21, a bill which
would establish a new national policy for our oceans. The RFA was the only recreational fishing
organization invited to testify before the Congressional Committee. “RFA maintains that
Magnuson must remain the nation’s primary fisheries law and that any national ocean policy
spawned from H.R. 21 provide guidance and recommendations to Magnuson, not supersede it,”
Donofrio said during the afternoon session back in June.
Several hardline environmental groups have been pressuring Congress and the Obama
administration to implement new overriding marine laws, however, several key federal
legislators have helped stymie the repressive ocean policy legislation. “This bill’s not going to
go anywhere,” said Rep. Don Young (R-AK). “You may try to work it through the House, you
may have the Speaker help you out, but I’ll stop it dead in the Senate, because you’re not going
to mess with my waters in Alaska, you’re not going to mess with my fishermen as you’ve done
in the past,” Young added.
Donofrio said the RFA is unnerved by glaring similarities of the new report and H.R. 21, the
Ocean Conservation, Education, and National Strategy for the 21st Century Act. “This appears
to be an attempt by the Executive branch to circumvent the established legislative process and
enact policy that failed as legislation 5 years in a row,” Donofrio said, adding “RFA believes
enacting laws through Executive order and proclamation sets a dangerous precedence.”

We all need to ban together to fight to keep our oceans open to reasonable fishing regulations

Rick Hale