LEMMINGS TO WASHINGTON, LINE FORMS TO THE RIGHT...

There is a “United we fish” rally planned for the end of February and this is one fisherman that won’t be going on the trip. I find the entire premise of this event to be very misleading to sporting anglers like myself and the recreational angling community.
As stated by the organizers of this rally, Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA), the mission is to call out “against the unintended negative impacts of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).
“ The MSA is the primary federal law governing management of America’s ocean fisheries. It was originally implemented in 1976 to phase out foreign fishing fleets and promote America’s fishing industry. It was later updated to promote sustainable fishing in the US by requiring managers to end overfishing and rebuild depleted fish stocks. Now the RFA wants to undermine the progress we’ve made in fisheries management by bringing “flexibility” to the MSA. New Jersey Congressman Frank Pallone and New York Senator Charles Schumer are the prime sponsors of this backwards looking legislation (HR 1584 and S 1255)
RFA argues that we should weaken the MSA so that we can take more fish NOW, keep boats and people working, and worry about rebuilding fisheries later. While this sounds good to the common man in this down economy, what they fail to point out is that BECAUSE OF the MSA, there are more fish now and thus more jobs are available.

Think about it: summer flounder, Porgy (Scup), black sea bass, bluefish, and others, have all rebounded because of the MSA. This is a boon for people like me, who rely on lots of fish in the water. The last thing I need right now is a change in the law that will put more fish populations at risk.
The media has commented that this march on Washington represents an “unprecedented alliance between commercial and recreational fishermen”. Let’s all remember: any changes to the MSA will proportionately increase the commercial take. Ultimately it may mean that recreational anglers get fewer fish, not more. How come the RFA doesn’t mention this? Just one peek at commercial fishing websites and magazines like “National fisherman” and it is clear that this sector will be dancing a jig on the decks if the Magnuson Act is changed. Any true recreational fisherman reading this should realize at this point that there is a lot to this story that is not being told.

The RFA and commercial fishing interests could not even bring this issue to light if there weren’t so many fish in the water at this time. The MSA is right on the brink of achieving the success that it was originally designed to do, which is to rebuild fisheries and sustain them for the future.
To add flexibility and change the MSA now would be a 10 year step backwards for all of us. To me, more fish in the water means more business for everyone that works on the water or supports the people that do.

If Congressman Frank Pallone and the RFA were truly interested in the resource and “saving the fish” they would celebrate this fact.
Note that as a Monmouth county NJ resident, I have always been a Frank Pallone supporter and have a lot of respect for the great environmental work that he has done for all of us here at the shore and elsewhere. Frankly, I find his involvement in this particular issue counterproductive to what I thought he really stood for.

The incessant mantra of blaming the government for mis-management, poor science or pointing at environmental organizations and spewing the propaganda of closing down our oceans, losing our rights to fish is both tiresome and completely false. If they weren’t so busy focusing on the negatives and put their collective energies into something really important we would all be better off. Sure the existing system of data collection has it’s flaws, but it is “under construction” right now and it is up to us as anglers to make sure that we do our part to help improve things. If groups like the RFA would put some energy into promoting this instead, I would be more inclined to think that they wanted to be a part of the solution instead of promoting the “end of the sport fishing is near, “enviros are going to shutdown the oceans” mentality.

It is readily apparent that both parties are more concerned about the business of fishing, gaining votes and not the resource. This holds true for Pallone and Schumer as well. It’s all about jobs! I agree that this is very painful, especially for those affected by the recent Red snapper and grouper closures in the South Atlantic. We really have to examine the cause for the closure more closely. The science is not perfect but if it is even close to being right there is a serious problem. If the fishery has the potential of collapsing now, what will happen if we continue to take from the resource without constraint?

In this economic disaster we are all living within, it’s easy to hold this jobs line and gain support, but to do this at the expense of a fishery during it’s infancy of recovery is a major mistake. Without a long term vision, there won’t be any fish to worry about anyway.

As an American sport fisherman, I take my right to fish very seriously. My request is simple. I want to be able to access the water, go fishing and enjoy my time on the water. If I choose, I could occasionally bring a fish or two home and feed my family. Can I afford any more fees and or charges to fish or launch a boat? NO, but if that’s what it will take to improve things, I am in. Ideally, any and all fees that I was charged by the state or federal government to enjoy my sport would be safeguarded and funneled back into improving local enforcement, access, conservation and habitat.

Keeping this in mind, do I really want to belong to and or support groups that are supported by companies that are interested only in the business of fishing? Companies that put profitability over sustainability? Entities that exist for short term over long term profit? Why should I, as a “conservation minded angler” want to rally behind the business of fishing? Do I really need more fisherman/boats on the water and fewer fish to catch? Groups like the RFA and the SSFFF claim to represent the recreational angling community but they do anything but that. The member roster reads like a marketing journal for the marine trades than a rec fishing group.

It’s about money and jobs, and the resource is always an afterthought for these groups. Remember that the more they stir up and agitate the recreational angling community, and get everybody to believe that the sky is falling, the more memberships and money they make. This tactic is right out of the NRA playbook.

When fisheries collapse because we have been taking too many fish, something has to be done before you lose the species. It’s that simple. It’s not some left wing enviro conspiracy, or some government plot, it’s the reality of greed and a growing population.

All you have to do is take one look at the recent history of the Striped bass fishery and the handwriting is on the wall. The fishery collapsed. Laws and awareness changed. The fishery rebounded. Fisherman did a victory dance. Fishermen proceed to kill and take more because they perceive victory. Here we are in 2010, and fishermen are now asking why are we catching less stripers? Where are all the bass that were plentiful 5 years ago? Here we go again.

Fisheries science will always be elusive at best, so erring on the side of caution will ultimately be very good for our sport and all the businesses involved. Let’s all do our best to work together on a better data collection system and remember that practicing conservation, having patience and cautious optimism will prove to be the best game plan for the long haul.

Before you hop on that bus and start chanting “save our fish” on President Obama’s doorstep, true recreational anglers need to consider both sides of the story and realize that they could be promoting the destruction of what we all care about most. The fish.