Recreational Fishing Alliance Does not Speak for the Millions of Anglers

[CaptTB]

Just so you know that is from the 2010 rally. Yes, those complex laws are too tough for fishermen to figure out. The issue is not holding conservation higher than private financial interests, the issue is when conservation is done for conservation's sake alone with no benefit to the resource users and only benefit to the resource. Why not help both the fish AND the fishermen??

No one seems willing to answer that one. You do not have to sacrifice the users to save the resource unless things have gone totally to one end, at which point there are no users left to sacrifice anyway because we waited too long to do something.

Fish stocks rebuilding in ten years or 15 years are still rebuilt fish stocks no matter what way you try to spin it.

People like Matt Tinning and Paul Eidman hold up mid-atlantic stocks as examples of the current system working except they obviously do not know the history of many of those stocks.

Summer Flounder only were declared rebuilt after a three year extension was put on the rebuilding timeline, which allowed the stock to continue to be fished while it grew at it's fastest rate ever (while still being fished) which gave industry and anglers time to form SSFFF and prove that the government's science was WRONG on summer flounder and that the stock was almost 50% closer to being rebuilt than they had said it was. Summer Flounder is held up by the likes of PEW as a reason for status quo (see the pew website) and yet the only reason the stock is now considered to be rebuilt is because of flexibility that had to be first done through an act of congress because no such flexibility existed in the law and then at the expense of anglers and businesses that had to pay their own money to do the governments work. HAd it not been for that flexibility that was put into the law (which currently does not exist..it was a one time deal) Summer Flounder would likely be closed right now even though it would be within a few percentage points of rebuilt. The current law would demand it.

Sea Bass and Porgies would also not be considered rebuilt if it were not for a data poor workshop undertaken by the science community (including NMFS scientists of course) The government was perfectly happy to sit back with the pathetic data it has and do nothing different. In the end their science was proven to be even more wrong than that of Summer Flounder.

Help the fish AND the fishermen at the same time. Protect the resource and those that utilize the resource instead of one over the other (in either direction) Helping the people and screwing the fish does not work and neither does helping the fish and screwing the people.
A rebuilt stock is a rebuilt stock regardless of what date on the calendar it became rebuilt. As long as a stock continues to grow or continues to stay healthy (depending on the stock we are talking about) why should it matter what the date is that it reaches a specific size? What advantage, other than to hurt human beings so a fish can reach a certain population size on a certain date, is there to slamming the brakes on healthy fisheries just to reach a certain goal by a certain date?

Summer Flounder were at their largest stock size EVER RECORDED and yet were facing their smallest quota EVER because the clock was running out to reach a specific goal by a specific date.

Same was true with Sea Bass and Porgies, they were just earlier in their rebuilding schedule.

Save the fish AND the fishermen, they both deserve to be saved.

[Shawn Kimbro]

Why not help both the fish AND the fishermen??

No one seems willing to answer that one.

I'm perfectly happy to answer that one. If we look out for the fish first, they'll be there for the fishermen. No brainer. In my opinion, the reason RFA is so strongly supported by commercial interests is because their interests so closely intersect. Fishermen, both commercial and recreational will always want to catch fish until their gone. That's why we need laws like MSA. That's not saying it doesn't need improvement, but I think the last way to do it is by stomping around demanding fishing rights and spouting polarizing ultra-conservative propaganda. (Or ultra-liberal for that matter.) Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I believe there are enough fishermen in the middle of the political spectrum who can work with politicians on both sides to influence the necessary change.

[CaptTB]

I'm perfectly happy to answer that one. If we look out for the fish first, they'll be there for the fishermen. No brainer. In my opinion, the reason RFA is so strongly supported by commercial interests is because their interests so closely intersect. Fishermen, both commercial and recreational will always want to catch fish until their gone. That's why we need laws like MSA. That's not saying it doesn't need improvement, but I think the last way to do it is by stomping around demanding fishing rights and spouting polarizing ultra-conservative propaganda. (Or ultra-liberal for that matter.) Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I believe there are enough fishermen in the middle of the political spectrum who can work with politicians on both sides to influence the necessary change.

Except no one is saying save the fishermen AT THE EXPENSE of the fish, despite what others might try to say to the contrary. The point is simple. If you can do both at the same time, why not do it?

Why not keep fishermen fishing while helping fish stocks at the same time? The current law does not care if you are 99% rebuilt at the deadline. If not 100% (even if you NEVER achieve it) it must stay closed (or severely restricted) until it reaches a specific goal.

That is the point of flexibility. There is nothing in the current bills being proposed that undoes the rebuilding requirements of Magnuson. The issue is come hell or high water do it in ten years, people be damned. That is the current law as it is written.

Some people may not have an issue with putting others out of business and preventing anglers from catching a healthy stock simply because "they" want more fish faster, people be damned.

I for one will never put a fish above a person unless that is the last resort to rebuild a stock, but will gladly sacrifice (as we all have done for years) to maximize the potential of a fishery. But maximize it for the benefit of all people, not just a select group.

If I can keep people in business while still maintaining the growth or health of a stock then that is what I will advocate. Others will choose to say "screw the fishermen, save the fish" and that to me is the wrong attitude.

I believe (and history has proven) that with effort and cooperation we can actually do both at the same time in many if not most circumstances. When the situation requires it, then all bets are off and we must do what must be done to prevent the collapse of a fish stock, I have found few who will argue with that point.

However, as has been the case in many of the fisheries that are rebuilding or have been rebuilt, restrictions were increased/tightened/whatever you wish to call it solely to achieve a certain goal by a date on a calendar, not because that is what was required to rebuild the stock. It was not matter of conservation to benefit the resource but instead a matter of conservation solely for conservation's sake, no additional benefit to the resource was achieved. The same goal was reached only people were hurt simply to do it by a specific date.

No one has answered the question of why it is better to hurt people to help fish when both could have been helped at the same time.

[Matt]

If I can keep people in business while still maintaining the growth or health of a stock then that is what I will advocate. Others will choose to say "screw the fishermen, save the fish" and that to me is the wrong attitude.

This is exactly what the menhaden industry wants, and this is why RFA and Omega are fighting for the same thing.

No one has answered the question of why it is better to hurt people to help fish when both could have been helped at the same time.

That's the wrong question and the phrase "hurt people" once again sidesteps the primary issue. By "hurt people" you mean hurt their private financial interests. In my view those are different subjects. The right question is how much commercial and party boat harvesting can a specific fish stock sustain before the rest of us get screwed by greedy apatheic profit-motivated overfishing. Because frankly in my lifetime I have never not once seen commercial guys or charterboat operators willingly make any sacrifice ever. Its more like the opposite; they always want to take more and argue to take more than is really sustainable.

When antiquated harvesting practice no longer sustains all the people then some of those people need to get out, or be forced out. Hey, when the building industry leveled off there were a few builders who got hurt too. I hope in my lifetime that profit-motivated fishermen get their head around this concept.

[CaptTB]

That's the wrong question and the phrase "hurt people" once again sidesteps the primary issue. By "hurt people" you mean hurt their private financial interests. In my view those are different subjects.

It sidesteps nothing, it is the issue. Everyone, including you, has a "private financial interest, it is called your ability to make a living and pay your bills. When the decision is made to not care about the human beings in the equation and only care about the resource then yes, it hurts people. Hurts them financially, hurts them emotionally. Again, the issue is not with unhealthy or declining stocks, there is no proposed bill that removes or weakens the rebuilding requirement in the MSA, regardless of the propaganda pushed by some.

The issue is, and you sir are the one sidestepping it, if you can continue to rebuild a stock and keep people fishing and businesses in business as opposed to rebuilding it faster and preventing people from fishing and putting people out of business (or hurting them financially) simply to have more fish faster, why would you choose the latter?

What advantage is there to having a rebuilt stock in a shorter time frame while damaging or destroying an industry (or industries) and removing the ability or severely restricting the ability of others to enjoy the fishery as opposed to having THE EXACT SAME REBUILT FISHERY that is EXACTLY THE SAME NUMBER OF FISH but done in such a way that allows people to continue to fish and enjoy that fishery and businesses continue to operate?

For someone that keeps bringing up the phrase sidestepping you sure do a lot of it.

The right question is how much commercial and party boat harvesting can a specific fish stock sustain before the rest of us get screwed by greedy apatheic profit-motivated overfishing.

Out of curiosity who is the "rest of us?"

Are not the anglers on a party or charterboat recreational anglers exactly like you? Are they somehow less deserving because they choose not to or cannot afford to own their own boat or fish from shore? You mix commercial and for-hire vessels together in your comments but the reality is they are not remotely similar to each other. Both businesses, of course. However, I have yet to see a party or charterboat land fish. Last time I checked the recreational fishermen, just like you, catch and keep their fish.

Because frankly in my lifetime I have never not once seen commercial guys or charterboat operators willingly make any sacrifice ever. Its more like the opposite; they always want to take more and argue to take more than is really sustainable.

Perhaps you need to get out more often.

So instead of sidestepping the issue by trying to change the subject, how about answering at least one of the questions posed to you sir?

[CaptTB]

H.R. 2304 (Rep. Robert Wittman, Sen. Bill Nelson) allegedly would eliminate the requirement to establish annual catch limits for particular stocks, and would extend the deadline for rebuilding certain stocks. For those of you watching the menhaden industry prevail over and over, what do you think a law change like this would do for them?

It would not do anything for Omega. This bill seeks to make changes to the Magnuson/Stevens Act. Menhaden are managed by the ASMFC and are not bound to the rebuilding requirements of the MSA.

I am surprised you did not know this. Aside from the fact that I have said here in this very thread, that was part of the point that made it comical that people such as yourself and Mr. Tinning see some correlation between the RFA and Omega. While Omega may support, like the people at the rally said, "saving jobs" the fact remains that the theme of the Rally was "Flexibility in Magnuson" which does not affect Omega or the species it targets.

If there is anything else about the way our fisheries are managed that you do not understand just ask, I will gladly explain it to you.

[Matt]

Menhaden may be under ASMFC but federal policies are a cornerstone of ASMFC policy. Your legal beagles will tell you, if states (and compacts of states) do not adopt federal policies, they are not eligible for federal money. This is a big reason why the flounder federal court decision that some people have devoted their life to overturn also affects the states. BTW, I hate catching 20 shorts for every keeper flounder. Captain, who is taking all the legal fish? I think we both know.

[CaptTB]

Menhaden may be under ASMFC but federal policies are a cornerstone of ASMFC policy. Your legal beagles will tell you, if states (and compacts of states) do not adopt federal policies, they are not eligible for federal money. This is a big reason why the flounder federal court decision that some people have devoted their life to overturn also affects the states. BTW, I hate catching 20 shorts for every keeper flounder. Captain, who is taking all the legal fish? I think we both know.

First off there is no federal funding that is attached to fisheries management for the states if they do not mirror the feds, this is not the 55 MPH speed limit and federal road funding, but you believe what you wish.

And, the reason the Flounder decision affects the states is because flounder, like many other species, are jointly managed by the states and the feds or are managed by the feds but caught in state waters and STILL does not alter the fact that the MSA does not apply to bunker.(which is neither federally managed nor jointly managed) While an overarching premise like "you must rebuild a fishery in trouble" like from a lawsuit will set general policy that is not even remotely similar to the specifics of a federal law vs. state sovereignty. The MSA has existed for decades and yet it still has never applied to bunker. Pretend what you wish to make yourself happy but the facts of the matter show you are getting further and further (farther?) from the truth with each comment.

I am curious, who is catching all the legal fish? You give me too much credit, I am not that smart. Please, enlighten me.

[Matt]

Federal funding absolutely does go to the states natural resource agencies. I did not say feds pay for state fishery mgt. Grant money continuously flows to the agencies though which makes it all the more politically undesirable to blow off a federal policy om any item shared. I guessthis would be the place where i ask u to back your claim that no federal money is on the line. Money is alesys on the line right. Sccording to you rven the yak fishing recs have money at stake. Maybe that explains why omega is attending a rally to support your position even though federal policy according to you does not apply.

[CaptTB]

Federal funding absolutely does go to the states natural resource agencies. I did not say feds pay for state fishery mgt. Grant money continuously flows to the agencies though which makes it all the more politically undesirable to blow off a federal policy om any item shared. I guessthis would be the place where i ask u to back your claim that no federal money is on the line.

Easily proven, look at every ASMFC species that is NOT jointly managed by the feds. Blackfish, Weakfish, pick one. They are not held to ANY of the rebuilding requirements in the MSA, period. And yet, the feds have not somehow magically removed any monies that go to the ASMFC until such time as they do adhere to the MSA. Why? Because they cannot.

That is what we are talking about, not some nebulous "the feds give money to states" topic but the specifics of the bill that YOU brought up and the fact that Menhaden in particular and other fisheries in general that are managed solely by the ASMFC are not bound by the rebuilding requirements of the MSA. The proof that if the states do not follow federal policy there is no repercussions financially or otherwise is in the very fish Omega targets, along with every other ASMFC only managed fishery.

I need not prove a thing, all the proof anyone needs (and more) is easily found by simply looking up the fishery of your choice at the ASMFC. (not a jointly managed species of course)