Recreational Fishing Alliance Does not Speak for the Millions of Anglers

[Matt]

I think the facts will show mfcn is an alliance of respectable well meaning educated people whom we can or should trust are doing the best they can to ensure important issues are covered with a scientific and environmentally responsible perspective. The animal rights people arent bringing the same caliber or pedigree of concern. I think it is an inentional slight to mention them in the same breath. Bottomline i do not trust rfa to represent my concerns. Too manu of their members sell fish.

[CaptTB]

The animal rights people arent bringing the same caliber or pedigree of concern. I think it is an inentional slight to mention them in the same breath.

They were mentioned in the exact same light Mr. Tinning mentioned Omega and RFA, even though the two are diametrically opposed to each other (despite the inaccurate information and ramblings Mr. Tinning has posted )

The facts clearly show that the RFA has publicly taken a stance in direct contradiction to the wishes of Omega Protein, yet it is OK for Mr. Tinning to mclaim they are working together without any actual proof and all other evidence to the contrary?

Sure, very well meaning people.

Bottomline i do not trust rfa to represent my concerns. Too manu of their members sell fish.

Really. How many members of RFA sell fish? You speak as if you know, so please enlighten me as to how many members of the RFA sell fish. Are you talking recreational fishermen doing it illegally? Do you mean commercial fishermen belonging to the RFA? Giants sold from Charter boats?

Please, elaborate. I am curious where you got your facts from to support that claim.

Capt. Tony Bogan
United Boatmen

[Matt]

Capt, If you are denying that active rfa members sell fish and or are active commercial fishermen then i may accept your challenge to prove my belief. I think i can easily prove there is an ominous intersection between rfa and commercial fishing fwiw.

[CaptTB]

Capt, If you are denying that active rfa members sell fish and or are active commercial fishermen then i may accept your challenge to prove my belief. I think i can easily prove there is an ominous intersection between rfa and commercial fishing fwiw.

Deny? How can I deny something by asking YOU to clarify YOUR comments?

I asked a simple question. Please explain your statement.

Do I think there are people who work as commercial fishermen that also fish recreationally and may belong to a recreational fishing organization? Well duh, of course. I probably know a few guys that belong to the RFA, the JCAA and maybe even some fishing clubs too. Their job may be commercial fishing but they belong to a recreational fishing organization because that is what they do recreationally.

They also probably belong to some hunting clubs because that is something they do for recreation and perhaps are NRA members too.

I was curious if you meant people selling fish illegally or commercial fishermen or what. It was a fairly simple question.

An "ominous intersection?"

I'd love to hear that one, fire away.
Capt. Tony Bogan
United Boatmen

[goose70]

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.

[Matt]

Deny? How can I deny something by asking YOU to clarify YOUR comments?

I asked a simple question. Please explain your statement.

Do I think there are people who work as commercial fishermen that also fish recreationally and may belong to a recreational fishing organization? Well duh, of course. I probably know a few guys that belong to the RFA, the JCAA and maybe even some fishing clubs too. Their job may be commercial fishing but they belong to a recreational fishing organization because that is what they do recreationally.

They also probably belong to some hunting clubs because that is something they do for recreation and perhaps are NRA members too.

I was curious if you meant people selling fish illegally or commercial fishermen or what. It was a fairly simple question.

An "ominous intersection?"

I'd love to hear that one, fire away.
Capt. Tony Bogan
United Boatmen

I think you're sidestepping an important issue. Do you make money from fishing? If so, you do not represent my interests. Nothing personal. Thats just the way it is.

[Matt]

Let me follow up by saying, If you have a financial interest in the outcome of an environmental decision, I want to know.

[CaptTB]

I think you're sidestepping an important issue. Do you make money from fishing? If so, you do not represent my interests. Nothing personal. Thats just the way it is.

I was not sidestepping an issue, I was asking a question based on your comments. Again, it was pretty straight forward. You made a statement, I asked you to clarify. You never did.

Have a nice day.

Goose70, thanks for your response. Having dealt directly with the RFA since its inception (as I have stated before, I do not work for, get paid by or receive any compensation from the RFA in any way) I have a different take than you but I truly do appreciate your comments and your opinion.

Thanks for sharing.
Capt. Tony Bogan
United Boatmen

(PS - when it comes to the specific issue of Omega I can tell you there is nothing Omega and RFA have in common and the RFA is not aligned in any way with them or supportive of them. I have been involved in fisheries issues for over 20 years, sat on the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council for three years, I have never even heard of "Menhaden Matter" and I do not support Omega. RFA fights on many fronts, they cannot always be everywhere every time.)

[Matt]

here is a link to a webpage that gives a vivid depiction of the rally with photos and captions

http://www.fishingunited.com/forum/v...=11805&start=0

and here is a youtube video of Jim Donofrio executive director of RFA giving a heartfelt introduction for Congressman Rob Wittman (VA) who presides of Va's first district (includes Reedville). Wittman's record shows his continuous support for Omega with continuous campaign contributions from the menhaden operation.



I appreciate the effort and passion that the many commercial fishermen and charterboat fishermen put into this rally. Obviously they share the same financial loss when federal law holds conservation higher than private financial interests. To this point, it should be no surprise to see the rally heavily attended by financially interested parties. In this light it makes complete sense that the charterboat guys and Omega are fighting for the same thing. They may not even know it. The laws they want changed are fairly complex.

[Matt]

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?