Capt TB, here’s how I see it, for whatever my views are worth:
While RFA may not have invited Omega, RFA’s message appeals to Omega because RFA appears to be hell bent on requiring regulators to hold fisheries regulations subservient to some sort of short-term “business impact” calculus. Reading press releases from and listening to RFA, one could be forgiven for assuming that if a particular fishery regulation is found to “harm business” (by whatever definition of “harm” and “business” one chooses), then RFA (like Omega) would seek to have the regulation curtailed or eliminated, even if the impact of doing so on a fishery were unknown. And that’s the most level-headed, moderate interpretation I can divine from RFA’s public statements.
A less charitable interpretation would be that certain RFA leaders use fisheries regulation merely as a weapon to wield against the current President, who they despise for personal reasons having little to do with fisheries. Either way, RFA’s public statements echo the century-old, anti-regulatory, alarmist proclamations that have resulted in the destruction or collapse of nearly all of the planet’s fisheries. This aligns nicely with Omega's base position, even if Omega and RFA disagree on certain details. (Although one wonders how much they disagree, given that RFA was conspicuously absent from the "Menhaden Matter" movement).
The current regulatory process and framework leaves much to be desired; it is deserving of constructive criticism. Nevertheless, even the current flawed system is less likely to result in further fisheries destruction than gutting existing regulation. The so-called “right to fish” is worthless without viable fish populations, as I’m sure you agree.
But in any event, I will concede that I do not know as much about RFA as do many others, or about the intricacies of fisheries management. I do, however, understand regulation, including the economic costs and benefits thereof, in fine detail. I doubt that fisheries is much different than other industries.
I will further offer that RFA likely has many smart members who are dedicated to long-term, sustainable fisheries and who genuinely want to improve the regulatory process to that end, not simply eliminate it or rail against certain politicians. The problem may lie with a few leaders, such as Mr. Donofrio, whose militia-like diatribes give many mainstream anglers reason to pause when considering whether to associate with RFA, or to accept RFA’s voice as representative of their own.
"Don't talk to me about naval tradition. It's nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash." - Sir Winston Churchill