Recreational Fishing Alliance Does not Speak for the Millions of Anglers

[Matt]

I have a question, why did you used to log yourself into your "save flounder fishing" website as "Tony Bogan - Capt/Operations Mgr Bogan's Deep Sea Center"

What is an operations manager and does the paddleboat really go deep sea fishing?

[CaptTB]

I have a question, why did you used to log yourself into your "save flounder fishing" website as "Tony Bogan - Capt/Operations Mgr Bogan's Deep Sea Center"

What is an operations manager and does the paddleboat really go deep sea fishing?

Simple, because I am a captain and operations manager of the riverboats that sail from "Bogan's Deep Sea Fishing Center." That is the name of the marina. It is called a job description along with the name of the marina where I work and where the riverboats dock.

I'll ask again, did you even bother to try and do any research before going down this road?? Apparently you are not very good at it. Most everyone I even casually talk with on message boards knows I do not run fishing boats and have not worked on them or made money from them in a couple of decades.....except apparently you.

Still answered every question you have ever asked me, care to attempt to answer anything yourself?

Probably not, but I'll keep asking anyway.

[Matt]

What question do you want me to answer? It seems like more rhetoric than substance. I am saying the legal loopholes you desire for your family fishing business are not good for most recs. Can I be any more clear? I'm saying the RFA does not represent a diverse base of recreational fishermen, they are mostly supporting the offshore crowd out of NJ. Can I be any more clear about that? I said federal policy has a clear history of setting precedent for local fishing policy. You disagreed, then I found a video of you saying the same thing. We showed that Omega is supportive and lobbying for the same loopholes you desire, which is true but you reject the truth. I think I made a reasonable case that "keep fishermen fishing" is exactly what the comms want, and that why they come to your pro-fishing rallys and are recognized as allies by your people. You can claim you're speaking for all those people who can't find any other way to tie a hook to the end of a line, but I think that the same bs argument the comms use about industrial fishing. Bottomline, your position on this stuff is no different than commercial guys. Thats why Omega supports your cause.

[CaptTB]

I said federal policy has a clear history of setting precedent for local fishing policy. You disagreed, then I found a video of you saying the same thing.

Wrong, I did not disagree and I even reiterated that on pages 5 and 6 of this thread.
from Page 5:

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.

From Page 6:

However, I never made such generalizations as you do. I never said that "fisheries policies are not linked." as if nothing is. We were talking about a specific issue, menhaden and rebuilding requirements of Magnuson. You can climb that soap box and preach all you want but the simply fact remains that menhaden are not and have never been held to the rebuilding guidelines of Magnuson.

I never even implied that there is no linking of fisheries policy in general, please don't try and claim that I said something I did not.

So my comments have been and will continue to be consistent be they in public, online or in print. You really should do a bit more research and stop trying to generalize someone's comments when in fact they were extremely specific. Especially when they went so far as to clarify even further in the same conversation.

Deflect, redirect, avoid. So far that has been your tactic.

We showed that Omega is supportive and lobbying for the same loopholes you desire, which is true but you reject the truth.

The truth? The simple fact that Omega has been able to do what it does proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they currently have no federal rebuilding requirements to contend with, which again is exactly what the point was. Just like your pointing out one specific bill (funny, not even a bill the RFA supports nor is it one of the bills supported by those who organized the rally) that has no bearing on Omega or Menhaden.

You keep trying though. Eventually perhaps you will get something right about me personally or the way the different fisheries are managed. So far you have not even been close.

[Matt]

You keep talking about "rebuilding" as if thats just business as usual. There's a reason why federal fisheries needed to "rebuild" just like there's a reason why Omega supports your position on extending the rebuilding to meet the needs of commerce. Because for Omega, its all about the money.

I don't mind that you're parsing my posts for the lowest hanging fruit, because it gives me a good reason to repeat myself on the stuff you're ignoring. RFA does not represent most recs. The topic of this thread. RFA focus has been offshore from the beginning. Thats okay by me. They can represent whomever they desire. But when they take a position to "keep fishermen fishing" its a headscratcher to me and many others. Thats a commercial position. Most of the true recs here, I think its fair to say, just want managers to apply the best available science and, when in doubt, use precaution. The charter fishermen I am most familiar with, and recs who are aligned with the charter fishing industry, very consistently want what you want... to keep fishermen fishing. I only take mild exception to that position, when I know they have skin in the game. What gets me fired up is when the commercial and charter guys are cloaked as recs trying to tell people we should keep the money flowing just because. I mean geez Capt you're on video very clearly talking about the money. Why can't you admit here, its about the money.

Lets look at another way. In a fishery stakeholder management system, many here know, stakeholders like Larry Simns are appointed to representative people with similar financial interests. This is a fact. I want to congratulate you Capt Tony on your one-term appointment to the Mid Atalntic Fishery Mgmt Council. If I may ask, which stakeholders did the governor think you represented? And i have another question about your declarations of financial conflicts. How does that work on the MAMFC. I mean, I get how Simns sort of gets to say he doesn't actually harvest quahog so he can legitimately sit on the quahog panel. But if you were representing partyboats like the ones your family runs, how could you be impartial about sensitive issues like flounder and seabass?

[CaptTB]

You keep talking about "rebuilding" as if thats just business as usual.

It has been in fisheries that needed it, since 1996.

I don't mind that you're parsing my posts for the lowest hanging fruit, because it gives me a good reason to repeat myself on the stuff you're ignoring.

Have not ignored anything. I have answered your questions and responded to your points. I stayed away from philosophical differences because they are just that. The "I believe because" arguments are opinion, and I respect everyone's right to have and express them. Does not mean I need to debate every small philosophical difference but I gladly will if you like.

RFA does not represent most recs.

Don't pretend that a single group represents the most of anything, but you would have a hard time proving such a statement, which is why the discussion between you and I has revolved around the presence of Omega and the rebuilding issues etc. I would argue that the RFA represents either directly or indirectly (meaning non-members but people of like mind) far more anglers than it does not. You will say the opposite. A philosophical difference that neither you nor I can definitively prove so I did not bother trying.

RFA focus has been offshore from the beginning. Thats okay by me. They can represent whomever they desire.

Except that is inaccurate. RFA started with highly migratory issues back in the mid 90's when it was created. The last decade they have focused on Mid-atlantic and ASMFC issues far more than highly migratory while still obviously dealing with HMS as well. The ASMFC and MAFMC, where RFA spends the bulk of its time for about the last decade, do not handle HMS. They do however deal with Tog and Fluke and Sea Bass and Stripers and Weakfish and Porgies, etc. Hardly "offshore." However, I let comments like them usually slide because it is simply a product of a lack of information and no involvement at the management level of fisheries (or very little) by the person usually saying it. If they were involved in fisheries management they would know that statement is untrue. I would argue the state chapter around the country of RFA also deal directly with most species, the majority of which are most certainly not offshore. But again, those kinds of comments are usually made to try and minimize the group of fishermen involved or are made from a position of ignorance of the facts.

But when they take a position to "keep fishermen fishing" its a headscratcher to me and many others. Thats a commercial position.

Really? Aren't people who fish for sport called recreational "fishermen"??? You say that but that is only your opinion and not based on fact.

Most of the true recs here, I think its fair to say, just want managers to apply the best available science and, when in doubt, use precaution.

There goes that word again, "true recs." I asked you to clarify that and a couple other comments like it in this thread but you have ignored my requests to clarify. Who exactly is a true rec? I am asking you specifically, not rhetorically. Are the people who fish on for-hire boats recs or not? How about from land and private boats? What is the difference between a "true rec and a fake rec?"

The charter fishermen I am most familiar with, and recs who are aligned with the charter fishing industry, very consistently want what you want... to keep fishermen fishing. I only take mild exception to that position, when I know they have skin in the game. What gets me fired up is when the commercial and charter guys are cloaked as recs trying to tell people we should keep the money flowing just because. I mean geez Capt you're on video very clearly talking about the money. Why can't you admit here, its about the money.

They want to keep fishermen fishing as do I. Of course it is partially about money and people making a living and enjoying their past time etc. I have already clearly stated that here and elsewhere. It is in this very thread. I make no bones about it. I am also on video talking about a lot of other things that you just ignore. I am on the public record advocating for many things, including the ability of for-hire boats to continue sailing plus a lot more.

If I may ask, which stakeholders did the governor think you represented? And i have another question about your declarations of financial conflicts. How does that work on the MAMFC. I mean, I get how Simns sort of gets to say he doesn't actually harvest quahog so he can legitimately sit on the quahog panel. But if you were representing partyboats like the ones your family runs, how could you be impartial about sensitive issues like flounder and seabass?

I was not "representing partyboats" nor is anyone representing any specific group. Ask the Regional Administrator (former) Pat Kurkal. If you would like I can point you to the meeting minutes where this very topic is discussed.

I was appointed to the council because of my background in fisheries and fisheries management. According to my oath I took I was representing everyone, the fish included. My experience in fisheries and dealing with thousands of recreational fishermen in my life is what qualified me to be there.

I only served the one term and did not seek to get re-appointed (don't know if I would have been re-appointed but I did not even try) because it was too much of a financial burden for me personally. I never submitted my name for a second term. Even though council members get compensated I was losing more money than I was making with all the time taken off of work so I could not afford to continue even if I had been re-appointed.

[Matt]

I was not "representing partyboats" nor is anyone representing any specific group.

Capt, you were nominated and appointed to the council for a reason. Lets review:

From the law:

The members of each Council required to be appointed by the Secretary must be individuals who, by reason of their occupational or other experience, scientific expertise, or training, are knowledgeable regarding the conservation and management, or the commercial or recreational harvest, of the fishery resources of the geographical area concerned.

From the Dept of Commerce website:

Anthony P. Bogan, a captain at Bogan's Boat Basin in Brick, New Jersey, will fill the New Jersey obligatory seat. Tony, as a member of United Boatmen, represents over 120 party and charter boats, tackle stores and members of United Boatmen from New York and New Jersey. He works at Bogan's Deep Sea Fishing Center and is associated with the Ocean County Tourism Advisory Council, United Boatmen, and various Chambers of Commerce. Tony is excited about the idea of "working to preserve and maintain both our fisheries and the public's and industry's ability to utilize and enjoy those fisheries" which he feels is the primary purpose of fisheries management.

I think RFA and the charter fishing industry routinely misrepresents recs in fishery management. I think the people who get paid to fish are more or less fighting for one thing, and the people who pay to fish typically want something different. Sorry if this seems personal, but it seems like you want to ignore and even deny that distinction, even to the extent that you can't/won't admit who you really represent, or that Omega and you are desiring the same thing. You seem like a decent guy, but this rubs me the wrong.

[CaptTB]

Capt, you were nominated and appointed to the council for a reason. Lets review:

Except you emphasized the wrong part. You did not ask who I am (which we have already clearly established.

On the council I represented everyone, including the fish. I clearly stated what my background was as a reason I believe I was qualified to be on the council. My background in recreational fisheries and management were clearly the reason the powers that be felt I was qualified to hold the seat, which is exactly what I already said.

Tony, as a member of United Boatmen, represents over 120 party and charter boats, tackle stores and members of United Boatmen from New York and New Jersey. He works at Bogan's Deep Sea Fishing Center and is associated with the Ocean County Tourism Advisory Council, United Boatmen, and various Chambers of Commerce.

Tony is excited about the idea of "working to preserve and maintain both our fisheries and the public's and industry's ability to utilize and enjoy those fisheries" which he feels is the primary purpose of fisheries management.

Consistent with everything I have said here and elsewhere.

I notice you ignored the direct question asked of you again.

[CaptTB]

I think RFA and the charter fishing industry routinely misrepresents recs in fishery management. I think the people who get paid to fish are more or less fighting for one thing, and the people who pay to fish typically want something different.

I've heard that one before and from someone who grew up on partyboats I find it laughable to say the least, at least as pertains to the majority of people who fish on partyboats. Do you honestly think the people who run partyboats personally give a rats ass what the regs are??

I have yet to meet at any time in my life a charter or partyboat captain that could care less what the regs are as long as the customers were willing to go on their boat for that species (whatever it may be) with those regs (whatever they were)

The people tell US what they want or are willing to pay for, not the other way around. They tell us not only through their fares being paid but with their mouths. (not 100% of course but the overwhelming majority to be sure)

If people are willing to pay for one Fluke at 64 inches do you honestly believe they would fight for something different?

When talking about my family's customers and the customers of many for-hire boats (at least all the guys I have known and spoken to over the years) your statement could not be further from the truth.

[Matt]

I didn't really understand your last post. As for the one before it...I'm not sure what question you wanted me to answer, or how you're feeling good about your rationalization. You were nominated and appointed to MAFMC because of your affiliation with a specific industry. Thats what the law required. If you had some other special skills in fishery management you're welcome to state it here. The DoC press release evidently left that part out.