DEAR MR. FANTASEA, PLAY US A TUNE - Sheriff Rides High On a Horse With No Name

I recently stumbled upon an interesting discussion thread at the Salt Water Sportsman website between the magazine’s managing editor John Brownlee, commercial fish distributor Jim Chambers (retired biologist), and a Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) Texas member named Capt. Tom Hilton.

At one point in this ongoing thread, Mr. Brownlee infers that catch shares would be fine for the charter fleet who he claims to have “never considered as purely recreational anyway. But I think it should be left up to the charter fleets in question to decide for themselves. If they want it, fine, if not, equally fine." Not entirely sure where Mr. Brownlee thinks this IFQ will come from, perhaps offered up free of charge by some charitable member of the commercial sector (certainly not splitting the ‘pro’ and ‘am’ recs in half, right?)

Later, Mr. Brownlee flip-flops and says “I do not favor catch shares for recreational fishermen, or for charter boats,” but adds it is up to “fishermen themselves should decide.” Well, the majority of recreational fishermen, which includes the party and charter boat captains, tackle shops, marinas, boat dealers and the individual anglers they serve have said NO to catch shares; perhaps if the mainstream sporting media would help put that bold, unified message forward on behalf of the entire recreational fishing community, we wouldn’t be having this convoluted debate.

As he’s apt to do in many emails and message board threads, Mr. Brownlee lectures Hilton as he would anyone else who dares question him, stammering “I've been doing this a lot longer than you,” reminding me of those times of our youth when parents said “children should be seen and not heard,” or the old “do as I say, not as I do.” Then, strangely, Mr. Brownlee launches into his blind attack on the Recreational Fishing Alliance with regard to the Magnuson Stevens Act stating “no one saw it coming, including the RFA, and we are trying to do something about it. Get off your high horse.”

Apparently, Mr. Brownlee never read Hijacking Fisheries Management in 2007 – perhaps he also missed RFA’s official presentation at the NOAA Fisheries’ Marine Recreational Fishing Summit in Alexandria, VA from April 16-17, 2010. Most assuredly Mr. Brownlee has ignored RFA’s frequent and incessant attacks on annual catch limits and accountability measures based on random angler data collection during the past 7 years.

The only “high horse” that I see is the one on which Sheriff Brownlee sits perched as judge and jury, particularly as he claims, “the problem isn't catch shares, it's the Accountability Measures put in the MSA in the 2006 reauthorization and then the strict interpretation of them by NMFS. No one saw that coming.” Certainly no one who read a Bonnier Publication since 2007 saw this coming, because Mr. Brownlee and his posse have refused to publish any of the RFA perspectives since the reauthorization of Magnuson-Stevens in 2006! 

Another humorous if not distressing point of view comes with Brownlee’s red snapper predicament on which he claims “I'm well aware of what a mess that is, but we support the Fisheries Science Improvement Act which can fix many of the problems we're going through with snapper and other species.”

The rub here of course is that the Fisheries Science Improvement Act doesn’t actually impact red snapper – it only deals with fisheries which have not had a recent assessment (mahi and cobia for example). Red snapper are currently going through a major benchmark assessment with full report to be released this year; red snapper in fact are regularly assessed and would not qualify for relief under this particular legislation promoted by Mr. Brownlee and the folks at Bonnier Publications, which shows that perhaps he’s been doing this a lot longer than the rest of us, it’s not to say he’s been doing it well.

Take for example how Sheriff John Brownlee and his posse supported a Billfish Conservation Act that has been ‘billed’ as turning Pacific billfish into gamefish only species. What neither the Sheriff nor his aforementioned “we” ever explained to anyone in the mainstream media is that fact that Hawaii and the Pacific Insular Areas were still allowed to ship blue, black and striped marlin to the continental United States for sale, and that local demand in Hawaii and the Pacific Insular Areas could by law now be met by foreign caught billfish sold directly to the Hawaiian markets.

As for the term “overfishing,” another ‘opinion’ Mr. Brownlee might’ve enjoyed was this Overfishing: A Term of Art written in 2010, or even “Fatally Flawed” Science Killing America’s Number One Outdoor Pastime in 2009. Reading Mr. Brownlee’s comments here back and forth with Capt. Hilton, I’m reminded of the old adage, “if a tree falls in the woods but there’s no one there to hear it, does it really make a sound.”

In Mr. Brownlee’s personalized editorial world, if he’s never published it on the pages of a Bonnier Publication, I guess it has simply never been said.

One final observation in terms of the Bonnier point of view. Mr. Brownlee and his own conservation editor, Rip Cunningham, have been quick to label anyone who questions Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) as nothing more than a conspiracy theorist cowering from the imaginary Black Hawk helicopters above. In this particular thread, Mr. Brownlee says “No one denies that EDF and others are spending a lot of money to push catch shares,” adding later “they simply have more money than we do and are better organized.”

While he agrees that “disagreeing with their goals is a legitimate concern,” he seems quick to dismiss overall criticism of EDF’s questionable efforts to “influence public policy.”

Take for example these important facts which none of the Bonnier Publications (Salt Water Sportsman, Sport Fishing, etc.) have been willing to recognize. During the past 3 years alone, EDF and the EDF Action Fund have invested more than $750,000 in establishing their own fishing organizations, including the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance, Gulf Fishermen’s Association and South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association.

According to IRS tax records, the EDF-created Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance actually doled out $48,000 in 2011 in order to create a new organization called the Charter Fishermen’s Association; the fact that EDF would fund a fishing organization based on ownership of commercial fish shares, which in turn would create its own recreational fishing organization, has sent up red flags throughout the state of Florida with commercial fishermen, recreational anglers and legislators alike.

At election time 2012, RFA revealed that the Director of the Charter Fishermen’s Association was a failed tech stock investor Michael Miglini, who takes a $40,000 salary from the Charter Fishermen’s Association; he’s also become one of the biggest owners and resellers of red snapper stock in the Gulf of Mexico. According to one commercial fisherman, Miglini and his companies are “essentially the people with red snapper allocation. If you would like to go catch and sell red snapper from the Gulf you call them, everyone does.”

According to emails associated with a potential inspector general’s review of the Gulf fisheries issues surrounding sector separation plans and EDF’s financing of various pseudo fishing organizations, one commercial fisherman described Miglini’s business entity, Great Sage, Inc, as “a private company whose primary function is leasing red snapper to the Gulf's fishermen. I have heard they own hundreds of thousands of shares.”

Mr. Brownlee and his conservation editor dismiss the conspiracy theorists and radicals, but the IRS tax records show that guys like Mr. Miglini are actually commercial fish brokers masquerading as recreational charter boat captains through a non-profit association that was actually founded by a commercial fishing group with start-up funds from a radical environmental organization. These are the facts, despite Mr. Brownlee’s dismissiveness.

Mr. Brownlee asks “what is illegal about a group trying to influence public policy?” Back in October of 2011, Mr. Miglini gave comments before the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council in which he described his Charter Fishermen’s Association as an organization “formed by a group of captains who each wrote a check out of their own personal or charter business accounts and pooled our resources to get organized and engage more effectively in this council process.”

Considering the IRS records showing the true source of the income, one has to wonder if Mr. Miglini actually broke any federal laws in terms of full disclosure and honesty in public testimony.  So yes Mr. Brownlee, the answer to your final question above, I would say its is both “illegal” and immoral to stand before a legislative or regulatory body and tell blatant lies to further a cause, especially one which places a public resource into complete control of one or more private entities.

RFA saw this train wreck coming all along Sheriff, you apparently just ignored every one of the 911 calls since riding into town on that big white horse of yours.

Giddyup!

(View ongoing discussion with Mr. Brownlee at Sportfishermen.com).

BARNEY FRANK’S WARNING TO CONGRESS - “Be Skeptical of Environmentalists”

One day out of office following his retirement, former Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has already begun making new political waves.

On January 4th, 2013, Politico reported that the outgoing congressman had asked Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick to send him back to Washington as interim senator following the confirmation of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) as secretary of state. “I’ve told the governor I would now like, frankly, to do that,” Frank said in an interview broadcast on CNBC, explaining that the new fiscal cliff deal “means that February, March and April are going to be among the most important months in American financial history.”

For our nation’s saltwater fishermen, the first quarter of 2013 could be one of the most important periods in fisheries management history as well, given the state of four different federal fisheries disasters declarations by the Commerce Department in 2012, a broken federal fisheries law (Magnuson Stevens Act) now up for reauthorization debate, and pending presidential appointments of critical angler interest, notably the Secretary of Commerce and a NOAA Administrator.

ENVIRO’S LACK “VALUES”

Fishermen have long blamed a radical new preservationist agenda for the problems experienced at the federal, regional and state level of government, a sentiment strongly echoed by Frank himself. In an interview with Saving Seafood, Rep. Frank criticized the policies of some environmental groups as overly rigid, and he urged lawmakers to listen to fishermen and ultimately called for elimination of the 10-year stock rebuilding requirement in the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Frank also described outgoing NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco as "unfit for the job," noting her unwillingness to consider changes to the arbitrary 10-year requirement.

"Her instincts are to be disagreeing with people," Frank said of Lubchenco, a 2009 presidential appointee who will be replaced in 2012.

Frank said the fishing industry has made notable strides in recent years, explaining that there now exists an "east coast fishing alliance" composed of fishermen and industry advocates from the Canadian border to the Florida Keys, an alliance he called critical in coming years as the Magnuson-Stevens Act comes up for reauthorization by 2016. One of the key items of interest for Magnuson reauthorization according to Frank is that lawmakers should change the 10-year requirement, which he called "rigid," arbitrary and not based on independent science. "If you can reach the goal in 13 years instead of 10, and have much less of a negative impact on the working people of the economy, why not do it," he asked.

Frank said he's not willing to compromise on other environmental issues like global warming and clean air, but said the "reproductive rate of fish is a [subject] much less fit for absolutism than many environmentalists think."

"No matter what your connections might be, don't assume that the environmentalists are the right voices and the fishermen are simply greedy," Frank said explaining that environmentalists can be needlessly inflexible on certain issues, and sometimes lack a "hierarchy of values."

CUTTING OFF THE LEGS OF SPORTSMEN

The environmental movement today – particular big money showroom environmental organizations like Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), Pew Environment Group (PEW) and their beard group the Marine Fish Conservation Network – have certainly lost their way. Those fishermen (like members of the Recreational Fishing Alliance) who have stood up to question the management of our fisheries have put themselves under environmental non-government organization (ENGO) scrutiny and disdain as social media campaigns to malign the point of view held by any fishermen who question the bureaucratic process have turned hateful – that’s as Rep. Frank describes as lacking in values.

At the upper corporate level of the environmental business industry, ENGO’s like EDF, Pew and the Marine Fish Conservation Network hire out-of-work congressional staffers, public relations experts and former media executives, all while using scare tactics and propaganda at the grassroots level to recruit idealistic college students to carry out their anti-fishing message. Leaders at these organizations refuse to enter into serious debate or discussion at the public, grassroots level of the fisheries management process, and prefer to sit back in their wood-paneled boardrooms to devise ways of further disparaging the individuals who hope to improve the balance of commerce and conservation.

The environmental movement has most certainly lost its way, and their activist efforts today are more about preservation than they are about conservation. Consider for a moment the post-Sandy efforts in New York and New Jersey to rebuild valuable infrastructure following the devastating storm. The National Park Service, under heavy pressure by ENGO groups, has decided to not renew a 40-year lease by the owners of Nichol’s Marina in Great Kills Harbor, removing several hundred boat slips (and several hundred boaters/anglers) from the equation. Essentially, the ENGO lobbyists are looking to remove the human footprint from the earth by cutting off the legs of our nation’s sportsmen.

THE OTHER, OTHER WHITE MEAT

Congressman Barney Frank has been a passionate supporter of fishermen’s rights, speaking at two national rallies in Washington DC spearheaded by commercial and recreational advocates alike to bring attention to the plight of our coastal fishing businesses. Rigid language written into our nation’s federal fisheries law and passed by unanimous consent of the GOP-held Senate in 2006 has contributed to serious and catastrophic loss within the fishing industry.

Fisheries managers today are finding in next to impossible to navigate their way through the legal requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, forcing fishermen to actually stop fishing when rebuilding targets are met and statutory ‘overfishing’ or ‘overfished’ thresholds are removed. The grand hypocrisy is now being uncovered by Congress and fisheries experts alike – as fish populations grow, the opportunity for fishermen to fish diminishes.

During the past six years, recreational and commercial fishermen have continued to plead for Congressional attention, while the showroom environmentalists have fought back to diminish our role in government action. While fishermen try to point out the empty-headed logic of the fisheries management process today brought about by rigid and inflexible legislation coupled with the Commerce Department’s failure to address bureaucratic negligence with science and data collection, ENGO groups blast the fishermen for being out of touch with the resource, labeling protest and the protesters as “fringe” elements within our community.

The showroom environmentalists have spent all of their time telling Members of Congress that the fish are fine, that the fishermen are wrong; is it any wonder then that in the recent attempt to fulfill the $150 million federal fisheries disaster relief package that many House members simply viewed the package as pork? Hell, it’s been the ENGO’s who have done nothing but refer to fishermen as pigs, it only stands to reason that Congress would think of anything fishing related as nothing but pork!

THE FACTS ABOUT THE SANDY PACKAGE

When the U.S. Senate voted 61-33 in favor of a $60.4 billion disaster relief package on December 28, 2012, there were 12 republicans who joined with 49 democrats in supporting legislation entitled ‘‘An Act making appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments and agencies of the Government.’’ While conservative pundits and lackadaisical reporters called this the “Sandy package,” HR1 was actually a complete package to make cash appropriations available for various natural disasters which occurred in the United States during the 2012 calendar year – which just so happen to include important funding for Sandy relief.

In a bipartisan letter from 14 U.S. Senators to their respective appropriations leaders in the Senate on December 11, 2012, a request for $150 million in funds was formalized by legislators from Alaska, Mississippi, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. In response to four federal fisheries disasters official declared by the Secretary of Commerce, nine democrats and five republicans in the U.S. Senate signed off on this letter in asking that the appropriations committee authorize relief funding these disaster declarations made under Section 308( d) of the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act and Section 315 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

“These designations allow Congress to appropriate federal relief funds to alleviate the harm caused by natural disasters to fisheries and the fishing industry,” the letter noted, explaining how “disaster assistance funds can be used to repair or restore fishing equipment and infrastructure, compensate for losses, restore fisheries habitat, support workforce education, provide low-interest loans, and conduct monitoring and cooperative research focused on improving stock assessments.”

Regrettably, few reporters bothered to ask any serious questions with regard to the $150 million appropriation request; fewer still were inquisitive or concerned enough to ask about the basis for HR1 or the actual intent of the “Act making appropriations for the Department of Defense and the other departments and agencies of the Government.” Five GOP senators signed on to that letter, yet the mainstream media lackadaisically following the lead of angry conservative pundits simply ignored this fact.

Again, the original disaster relief bill put forth by the U.S. Senate in late December was an attempt to address multiple natural disasters in the United States; while there was no doubt some additional fat in the final figure, sloppy reporting by the national media helped make a federal case out of critical regional issues. Regrettably, the $150 million was removed from the final legislation, no doubt in part to the aggressive work of ENGO’s working over Congress to minimize the input of coastal fishermen.

After all, why the need for federal fisheries disaster monies when PEW, EDF and Marine Fish Conservation Network have spent the past 12 months telling key congressional staffers that there’s simply nothing wrong with our coastal fisheries?

FRANK ADVICE FOR 113TH CONGRESS

Offering advice to new members of Congress, outgoing Congressman Frank asked that they recognize fishing as “an important economic interest, a cultural interest, a social interest and...understand that the fishermen are very responsible, that nobody has more of an interest in regulating fishing than the fishermen," while adding, "be skeptical of our friends, the environmentalists."

Skepticism is a good bit of advice Mr. Frank, and the best place in the world to cut through the debate and rhetoric is in Congress through open discussion with stakeholders and interested parties. My hope is that you will in fact be given that temporary Senate seat, where perhaps then we can move forward with Senate deliberations on the problems affecting our coastal fishermen.

As Barney Frank said, nobody has more of an interest in regulating fishing than fishermen; and no one has more on the line with regard to the sustainability of our fish stocks than the coastal anglers themselves. ENGO lobbyists at EDF, PEW and the Marine Fish Conservation Network have done nothing more than attempt to suppress discussion and debate of stakeholders and constituents. If they truly embraced the democratic process and American exceptionalism, the ENGO’s would agree to debate and allow Congress to hold Committee hearings on the fisheries management issues in America today.

The big question is, are the showroom environmentalists and ENGO lobbyists willing to malign and vilify environmental champions like Barney Frank for daring to question these groups and their leadership “values” and for warning Congress to be “skeptical” of their actions and initiatives?

Or once again will they attempt to hide from debate by defaming and demoralizing other groups and individuals for daring to petition for a governmental redress of grievances?

The bottom line is that fish is not pork, fishermen are not pigs, and many of the ENGO’s simply have no core values. As for the angling organizations and conservation groups who have acquiesced to ENGO pressure and joined forces with many of these coalitions of deceit in opposition to sensible fisheries reform while supporting arbitrary, time-specific deadlines and rigid overfishing definitions, please take not that you have only been made complicit (perhaps unknowingly) in the continued slaughter of our industry through widely supported congressional neglect of coastal fishing interests.

SPORTSMEN'S ACT OF 2012 STALLS - "PROGESSIVE" PLAN MEETS REPUBLICAN ANTI-TAX BACKLASH

“Ten bucks. That’s what killed the progressive, popular, good-government Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 yesterday. Ten bucks, or the increase of the cost of a federal duck stamp from $15 to $25.”

And so it is, the lead sentence from Ben Lamb’s Outdoor Life piece on November 28th regarding the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, and how it was killed in the Senate over a $10 fee increase.

In other words, the democrat-led Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, complete with a 66% tax increase on the price of a federal duck stamp (a tax increased supported and endorsed by the national group Ducks Unlimited), stalled because republicans agreed that a ‘yes’ vote to increase taxes would be in clear violation of section 302(f) the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Slice it and dice any way you want, but the Senate is prohibited by law from considering legislation that would cause a committee's allocation of either budget authority or outlays to be exceeded. Additionally, Senate Budget Committee ranking member Rep. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) pointed out that the Sportsmen's Act would require $14 million in new federal spending, and thus, Sessions says, would violate the spending levels set in the Budget Control Act (BCA). "The BCA limited spending in various accounts as part of an agreement to raise the debt ceiling, the debt limit," Sessions recently told The Hill.

Sen. Sessions acknowledged that a $14 million override is small compared to the sums Congress usually spends, but he said Congress needs to be more principled if it is going to reduce the budget deficit, which is why he stood out as one of the sole republicans earlier in the month to come out in opposition to this piece of legislation, most of which he supports in principle.

"We cannot breach those levels. It is a sick pattern and makes a mockery of law and responsible governing," Sessions told The Hill.

According to Lamb at Outdoor Life however, Sen. Sessions has a more sinister reasoning behind his opposition of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012. “The sad fact is that most Republicans are still smarting over the re-election of the bill’s sponsor, Montana Sen. Jon Tester,” he wrote in his opinion, adding “That’s the real reason they killed the bill, behind the guise of procedural posturing.”

Here’s the real “posturing” being done as perpetrated against the recreational hunting and fishing community as a whole. The Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 failed because there simply too many cooks in the kitchen.

Ducks Unlimited wanted to raise the federal duck stamp fees; the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) supported language to keep the Environmental Protection Agency out of the lead regulation game with regard to fishing tackle and bullets; the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) was hoping to see more funding from the Pittman-Robertson Act dedicated to development and operation of public shooting ranges; the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) supported the creation of a new National Fish Habitat Board to for “establishing national goals and priorities for aquatic habitat conservation;” even environmental groups like Nature Conservancy pushed for elements of this bill, like authorizing use of 1-1/2% of Land and Water Conservation Fund appropriations for purchasing access to public lands from private sellers.

All totaled, there were about eight different pieces of legislation bundled together under one broad-based bill, devised with the help of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation and their Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus. The problem of course with this many individual and diverse special interests included under one big umbrella is that it only takes one little tear in the fabric to get everyone else all wet.

After following the procession of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 through the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate during the course of several months, it’s been pretty interesting to see how so many individuals joined up with a caucus of one distinct voice. We at the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) certainly agree with and support certain pieces of legislation which have been bundled into the final package, however, we cannot sensibly endorse all legislative language under the umbrella, nor are we able to promote bills which are not supported by our stated mission “to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation’s saltwater fisheries.”

In other words, because elements of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 to allow for the importation of polar bear trophies from Canada or putting mandates on increasing duck stamp fees for U.S. waterfowl hunters are not issues supported by our mission, RFA is not able to sensibly endorse or support the entire umbrella.

I know it’s hard for folks like Ben Lamb to understand, but here’s the political reality simplified – no one buys a whole carton of eggs if one of them is cracked.

In the end, this appears to be about partisan politics destroying the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012, but not necessarily for the reason Lamb states. Even democrats like Sen. Frank Lautenberg and Sen. Bob Menendez who had opposed this legislation numerous times before had turned out with a favorable ‘yes’ vote on November 26th, a pretty good indication that something was amiss.

After reading through the Senate proceedings on November 26th, it’s quite clear that this was a vote about a tax increase and the apportionment of more money towards government programs. It was indeed a partisan standoff between democrats and republicans, with a very clear edict under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

I’m sure the leaders of each of the organizations with their own dog in this hunt knew about the very tenuous thread by which their umbrella was woven. One slip, and the house of cards would come crashing down. Amendment 2875 was offered clearly as a request for Senators to ignore the Congressional Budget Act, if even just this one time. Some, perhaps Ben Lamb is one of them, would argue “hey, what’s $10?”

For the constituents, it’s not just $10 – it’s another $10! And as far as more taxes go, Congress has drawn a line in the sand – for now. As dysfunctional as we all believe it to be, so long as our elected representatives continue to add another fee here coupled with a new appropriation over there, the bickering will continue.

Individual saltwater anglers and business owners who had been asked to sign on to a pledge or petition to help pass the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 in the Senate may want to consider the following items in terms of saltwater fishing and the sportfishing industry as included in this bundle of legislative items, and where the RFA position stands on these specific items of marine interest.

Section 121 of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 would provide an exemption for fishing tackle to allow the continued use of lead in sinkers, jigs, some types of fishing line, and other materials deployed by saltwater anglers. As a stand-alone piece of legislation (S.838) called the Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Protection Act, this language would block ongoing attempts by some environmental groups to federally ban lead in recreational fishing equipment and ammunition by clarifying the Toxic Substances Control Act. RFA supports S.838.

Section 122 of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 includes the same language regarding Pacific billfish that has already been signed into law by President Obama on October 5th. The so-called Billfish Conservation Act of 2012, which is in fact law today, would ban foreign imports of Pacific-caught billfish into the continental United States, but still allows those fleets to land and sell billfish in Hawaii and other Pacific Insular Areas like Guam and Samoa.

Furthermore, the new Billfish Conservation Act will allow commercial fishermen from Hawaii and these Pacific Insular Areas to continue to sell blue marlin, black marlin and striped marlin inside the continental United States. RFA did not support amendments made to the Billfish Conservation Act legislation since 2011 which now provides a loophole to allow for the continued sale of Hawaiian-caught billfish in the continental United States.

Additionally, because the U.S. Senate already sent the Billfish Conservation Act (S.3422) to the President for his signature into law (which has already taken place), RFA believes inclusion in the final Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 is mostly irrelevant at this time.

Section 123 of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 authorizes a report to be completed within 18 months on the feasibility and benefits of keeping inactive oil platforms in place for fish habitat. RFA endorses this language, while also supporting the Rigs to Reefs Habitat Protection Act (S.1555) which regrettably is not bundled into this final bill; S.1555 which would authorize the use of certain offshore oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico for artificial reefs (perhaps pending results of the final report which would come from approval of section 123 of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012).

One additional piece of legislation incorporated into the final Sportsmen’s Act of 2012 is S. 1201, otherwise referred to as the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act. The primary purpose of this language according to the bill’s sponsors is to “conserve fish and aquatic communities in the United States through partnerships that foster fish habitat conservation, to improve the quality of life for the people of the United States.” To meet these lofty goals, S.1201 would create a National Fish Habitat Board to further promote, oversee, and coordinate the implementation of the Act while “establishing national goals and priorities for aquatic habitat conservation.”

RFA believes the creation of additional councils, commissions, boards, and summits offer excellent opportunities for bureaucrats and appointed professionals to meet and discuss important ecosystem issues in the United States. However, in the real world where U.S. anglers are being denied opportunities to fish because of an inflexible federal fisheries law bound by inadequate science and a “fatally flawed” recreational data collection program, the creation of a National Fish Habitat Board will be of no relevance to saltwater anglers.

So, the U.S. Senate has stalled on a comprehensive package of legislation in the form of the Sportsmen’s Act of 2012. RFA offers the very best of luck to those supporters in getting this legislation passed. But for saltwater anglers hoping for improved access to vital saltwater fisheries, sensible reform of our nation’s federal fisheries law remains the most important action for congress to address in the coming months.

Protection of important fish habitat in the Gulf of Mexico is critical, and ensuring that environmental groups are impeded in their efforts to ban lead fishing tackle are key issues which should be taken up by Congress on behalf of saltwater anglers and business owners. However, RFA is not about to cry crocodile tears because of stalled legislation pushed by a group caucus, peer pressure mentality, especially given that there are many other pressing concerns which Congress should be addressing right now in terms of angler access and the future well-being of our recreational industry.

Sure, it’s just another $10 fee heaped on the nation’s sportsmen – and a $14 million override is relatively small when compared to the sums Congress usually spends.   

But the term “progressive, popular, good-government” is more than just a misnomer, it's an oxymoron wrapped in political doublespeak - another tax bundled up in a feel-good package which regrettably has very little impact on your access to coastal fisheries. 

Especially when considering the fact that Sandy's impact on the recreational fishing community alone on the East Coast could top $500 million...think about that when priortizing Congressional spending on critical saltwater angling interests in our frontyard!

STICKS & STONES MAY HURT ME, BUT JCAA ALLEGIANCE WITH PEW IS KILLING US

Recently, the Jersey Coast Anglers Association (JCAA) decided to take a swipe at the national Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) and our New Jersey Chapter (RFA-NJ) through the poison pen of their new messiah, the “great and powerful” Anthony “OZ” Mauro.

RFA and RFA-NJ spend so much time organizationally working to fix the mistakes of rank amateurs like OZ and his buddies on the JCAA Board of Directors, so it probably shouldn’t be much of a surprise to see more sniping from the peanut gallery. What probably WOULD surprise many anglers in New Jersey however is to learn exactly why the JCAA Board and Professor Marvel himself would have so much animosity towards RFA and the RFA-NJ.

Perhaps the criticism comes down to a simple story of cash contributions and broad-based coalitions.

JCAA REALIGNS FOR FUTURE BAILOUT

Back in June of 2001, JCAA boasted 900 boats and 11 different Jersey Shore ports in their annual fluke tournament. Less than two months after the contest, JCAA changed their official IRS non-profit in order to become “eligible for grant money from organizations like the PEW foundation” (according to the July, 2001 newsletter which can be found at http://www.jcaa.org/jcnl0107/ByLaws.htm.)

In addition to helping JCAA secure additional funding from organizations like the Pew Environment Group as described in the 2011 newsletter, the bylaw change also outlined “what becomes of the assets if and when the association is dissolved,” explaining that should JCAA become inactive and cease to function that “the various assets, equipment and property of this Association shall be donated to another organization.”

The official change bylaw 20 years after the original founding of the JCAA goes on to outlines how a particular organization would receive the JCAA’s properties as a result of a 2/3 vote of the member clubs left in the organization, explaining would need to have a purpose similar to that of the JCAA.

Within just a few years of this bylaw change, JCAA became active as an organization serving within various groups and organizations, one of which is directly funded, founded and affiliated with the Pew Environment Group, the Marine Fish Conservation Network.

“Another major accomplishment of the Association (JCAA) has been to form partnerships with other leading organizations whose missions are in line with, or overlap, the objectives of the Association,” the JCAA website says, explaining “These partnerships are critical in establishing a united voice on the broad issues affecting marine sportfishing.”

A few of those groups listed as having a “united voice” with saltwater anglers in New Jersey according to the JCAA board is the Marine Fisheries Conservation Network. It’s entirely conceivable, according to the bylaw change, that a 2/3 vote by the remaining JCAA members could result in all assets and properties presently owned by JCAA being turned back over to the Pew-funded Marine Fish Conservation Network, or perhaps other “similar” organizations in New Jersey like the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance or New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen Clubs.

SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY

It should be noted that JCAA is not only one of the only angling organizations in the United States still associated with the Marine Fish Conservation Network, but JCAA’s own legislative chairman, Tom Fote, is also an official Advisor to the Marine Fish Conservation Network. According to their IRS forms, in his official duties as an Advisor, Mr. Fote has a responsibility to help provide overall policy direction for the Marine Fish Conservation Network and coordinate policy development.

Following a national fishermen’s rally in Washington DC in 2010 organized by the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) which the JCAA board refused to support or endorse, Lee Crockett, director of federal fisheries policy with the Pew Environment Group, told Roll Call newspaper that his organization has been active in shaping a new catch share policy, explaining how “Pew has also funded advocacy groups, including the Marine Fish Conservation Network and the Ocean Conservancy, to lobby for the policy.”

In addition to helping provide their “overall policy direction,” Advisors like Mr. Fote also nominate and elect two individuals to serve on the Marine Fish Conservation Network’s board of directors, while participating in conference calls and meetings to review, comment, and sometimes help write network documents. It therefore should reasonably be assumed that Mr. Fote and fellow Marine Fish Conservation Network advisors like Greenpeace, Conservation Law Foundation, National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Ocean Conservancy, Oceana, Sea Web and the Sierra Club all helped write a scathing review of legislation meant to reform the federal fisheries law on behalf of “fishermen and conservationists under the Marine Fish Conservation Network umbrella.”

Since JCAA joined forces with hardline environmentalists who support a National Ocean Policy, marine reserves, catch shares, and leaving our broken federal fisheries law in place to the detriment of 7-1/2 million saltwater anglers in the United States today, their annual fundraising fluke tournament has taken a marked hit. What once was a popular statewide contest in New Jersey in the 1990’s has taken a hit due to Mr. Fote’s stubborn defiance to keep working with Pew groups with tournament participation dropping precipitously.

The 2009 contest, for example, saw one of the deepest drops to just 576 boats, down to 564 in 2010. By 2011, the numbers dropped again, down to just 463 boats. Finally in 2012, the JCAA fluke participation fell to just 400 boats. Is it the economy? Gas prices? Perhaps, yes to both.

More specifically though, the JCAA Board of Directors has refused to support legislation to fix our federal fisheries law, they openly opposed a free angler registry in the state of New Jersey and testified against the program in an Assembly hearing, hop-scotched their way through President Obama’s executive order for a new National Ocean Policy, advised the Marine Fish Conservation Network in its attacks on fishermen and legislators who would support fisheries reform, and more recently campaigned to have a Marine Fish Conservation Network lobbyist-of-record take a seat on behalf of New Jersey anglers at the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC).

BOARD FIDDLES WHILE ANGLERS BURN

JCAA’s original 1981 founders have mostly moved on, while the present JCAA board and lifelong legislative chair have stubbornly resisted democratic changeover, attacking those who would criticize questionable alliances and dubious inaction. In recent years, RFA has reached out to the JCAA board numerous times for assistance and support within the recreational fishing community of New Jersey.

For example, the Board refused to support a legal challenge brought about by coastal fishermen against NOAA Fisheries in response to the sudden mid-season closure of black sea bass in 2009; when RFA and others asked the JCAA Board to help oppose language in an omnibus amendment which would further provided NOAA with the power to make in-season closures based on “fatally flawed” data, the JCAA Board refused.

In the same September newsletter in which JCAA attacks the RFA, a column written by New Jersey’s MAFMC representative, Chris Zeman, points out that the 2012 landings for black sea bass along the Atlantic Coast were more than likely over the allowable quota for this season according the Marine Recreational Fishing Statistical Surveys (MRFSS) probably as of Wave 3 (May-June) collection period. Had RFA not been singularly effective in getting the required changes to the omnibus amendment in 2010, the coastal black sea bass season would’ve already been closed down at this point.

There are six waves of MRFSS data, and it’s more than likely that NOAA Fisheries will be using their “fatally flawed” survey program to shut down the black sea bass fishery sometime his fall based on Wave 4 through Wave 6 data, but thanks to this aggressive effort by the RFA, a major portion of the 2012 black sea bass season was salvaged.

It should be noted that NOAA Fisheries tracks the overall make-up of the regional fisheries councils in terms of the actual “Interest Sector” that person represents. For those who are recreational fishing representatives, an ‘R’ designation is given; for commercial fishing interests, that designation would be ‘C’; while for members of academia, lawyers or representatives of environmental organizations, a other or ‘O’ listing is given in the overall matrix. Zeman, a lawyer and environmental manager who has formerly worked with Marine Fish Conservation Network advisory board member Oceana, is designated an ‘O’ by NOAA Fisheries.

Had the JCAA’s recommended candidate actually been appointed a position to the MAFMC, the balance of the Council’s authority would’ve been shifted away from the 5-4-4 majority of Recreational-Commercial-Other, granting voting majority instead to the Other side to the detriment of saltwater anglers throughout the entire Mid Atlantic region.

Of course, this is precisely the fishing political process that Professor Marvel simply cannot understand.

FOTE, THE RADICAL ENVIRO?

JCAA’s latest attack on RFA is not to be unexpected; Matt Tinning, executive director of the Marine Fish Conservation Network and a longtime political strategist and lobbyist is currently working on rigging coastal elections around the country through the help of Environmental Defense Fund and Pew Environment Group. Tinning, himself a former legislative director for Ocean Conservancy and one-time political analyst for the Australian Government in their Washington Embassy, has been working to defame the RFA and our fisherman-friendly legislators around the country, finding a willing participant in Fote and friends at the JCAA.

They do of course make strange bedfellows, Tinning and Fote. Strange too, given that Tinning and his friends at Pew almost helped shut down the coastwide summer flounder fishery as of 2009, a move that would’ve surely bankrupted the JCAA fluke tournament. Due in part to management flexibility for rebuilding timelines incorporated into the federal fisheries law by Rep. Frank Pallone (opposed by Tinning and the Pew-funded Marine Fish Conservation Network), the summer flounder fishery was allowed an extra 3 years of rebuilding to allow anglers to the right to access the stock.

Additionally, scientific work funded by the Save the Summer Flounder Fishery Fund (SSFFF) in 2008 which helped identify significant issues with the natural mortality figures used in assessing summer flounder and led to an allowable increase of some 3 million pounds to the 2009 landings.

Hard to believe, while Fote’s buddies at the Network were blasting anglers for asking Rep. Pallone for additional help in incorporating much needed management flexibility into the federal law, the JCAA Board refused to contribute any financial support to the SSFFF efforts to improve the science and data collection.

So no, it’s no surprise that the JCAA Board of Directors chose to publish the recent RFA attack by the wealthy safari hunter and outsourcing magnate from Colts Neck, NJ, Professor Marvel. What is surprising however is that there are still a couple of hundred saltwater anglers in the state of New Jersey who are willing to jump in the hand-basket with these charlatans for the long trip to a hot place…

(By the way, who kills and skins a striped horse to hang on their wall anyway?!?!)

SOMETHING’S FISHY ABOUT THE PEW/EDF ELECTION STRATEGY

 

Rep. Steve Southerland of Florida’s 2nd Congressional District is what we at the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) call a Fishing Champion.

Since his election to Congress in 2010, Rep. Southerland has stood up for all fishermen along the Gulf of Mexico, recreational and commercial alike, while passionately representing coastal interests in the House Natural Resources Committee.

In the face of a presidential executive order creating a National Ocean Policy, Rep. Southerland asked the tough questions, eliciting confusing and contradictory answers by the White House staff and NOAA administrator as to whether new laws and regulations would be required.

Rep. Southerland doesn’t pitch softballs to bureaucrats, but instead demands answers to tough questions as to how the appointed government employees plan on delivering on their pledges to the American people; a perfect example being congressionally mandated requirement that NOAA Fisheries overhaul their recreational angler data collection program by the 2009 deadline, an important scientific task which the government has still not met and for which Rep. Southerland has been particularly vocal.

In recent years - and in light of the government’s failure to meet their congressional mandates for improved science and data collection - extremist non-government organizations like Pew Environment Group (PEW) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) have invested heavily in a cap and trade fisheries program which works by limiting the number of fishermen while trading away ownership of the fish stock itself to a few, well-heeled groups and individuals.

Falsely claiming to represent the best interests of all fishermen – even getting invited to testify before the House Natural Resources Committee in favor of their privatization scheme - the individuals who own shares of fish stocks are hoping to expand on the PEW/EDF fisheries ownership plot, breaking down the barrier between the commercial and recreational sectors in a winner-take-all battle over resource allocation.

TWO-PARTY ‘CATCH SHARE’ OPPOSITION

In a recent debate before the entire House of Representatives, Rep. Southerland (a Republican) joined ranks with liberal Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank (a Democrat) in passing legislation designed to halt funding on the spread of this all-out fish grab. Also known as ‘catch shares’ or individual fishing quotas (IFQs), this devious plan devised by PEW and EDF has had a debilitating impact on the New England fishing communities, forcing small-scale operators, individual owners and private anglers out of action while allowing big corporate operators, often from out of the region, to buy their way into ownership of what once was a public natural resource.

Rep. Southerland should be commended for standing up to this take-over attempt, but the environmental organizations like EDF and PEW - those who wish to limit fish harvest to a few well-connected and hand-selected advocates- have a lot riding on this investment scheme, and they’re not about to let a freshman Congressman like Steve Southerland stand in the way of their corrupted agenda.

According to IRS tax documents, EDF has invested more than $750,000 in the past 3 years alone in creating pseudo fishing organizations like the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance, Gulf Fishermen’s Association and South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association. As these EDF-funded organizations continue to lobby legislators and fisheries managers to further restrict coastal fishing opportunities in an effort to further divide the community and expand upon these limited entry business models, investors have been lining up at the trough.

Take Michael Miglini for example, a former tech investor from Austin, TX who was quoted in an Associated Press story on August 5, 2000 following one of the most volatile days in Wall Street history as having “lost more money in this week than I made in the previous two years." According to the AP story, Miglini had recently sold his construction company and invested heavily in technology stocks which completely collapsed in the market turn.

Twelve years later, Miglini is the owner of fisheries IFQs through several different business interests, including South Atlantic Fishing, Inc. and Great Sage, Inc. In 2011, he received another $48,000 from the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance to start a new organization called the Charter Fishermen’s Association (CFA), a group designed to look like a recreational fishing industry outfit made up solely of recreational charter boat captains. Upon closer look at the CFA board of directors however - Gary Jarvis, Mike Jennings, Michael Colby, Billy Archer, Chad Haggert and Steve Tomeny - one will also find three of the six members also hold commercial IFQ permits, while another is president of a commercial marine association.

BUYING UP THE BYLINES

The opinion sections of Florida newspapers have been heavy with anti-Southerland rhetoric by many of the EDF-endowed fishermen all claiming to represent the poor, huddled masses. A little bit of research will show however that the individuals do not in any way, shape or form represent the interests of the fishing public, especially not when their goal of privatizing natural resource has been directly funded by New York City and Philadelphia based environmental business organizations like EDF and PEW.

In addition to Jarvis, Jennings, Colby, Tomeny and Miglini, other representatives of the EDF-funded groups getting printed bylines in newspapers up and down the Gulf Coast of Florida of late, as well as in publications as far north as Massachusetts, including Jim Clements. A board member of the EDF-funded Gulf Fishermen’s Association, Clements recently told the Gloucester Times how he is financing one of his two boats for a captain who has no shares of fish and is therefore not able to fish. “He is doing fine by leasing the allocation for each species of fish that he catches,” Clements said, essentially describing how he functions as the broker through this method of coastal sharecropping.

In actuality, Clements doesn’t have to struggle any longer trying to fill a single bucket of fish himself just to secure a living in commercial fishing; not so long as he gets harvest shares which he can then lease back to real fishermen at a significant profit. Clements and others have created a rather unique investment opportunity, all thanks to the gracious support of the environmental business leaders and lobbyists at EDF!

Then there’s recent Tampa Tribune editorialist Dean Pruitt of Madeira Beach, another Gulf Fishermen’s Association board member and EDF funded captain who recently slammed Rep. Southerland for having “humiliated Florida recreational fishermen who have traveled to Washington to testify before his committee.” Pruitt bases his argument on a recent political action alert issued by environmental lobbyist Matt Tinning of the Pew-funded Marine Fish Conservation Network who describes CFA’s Michael Colby as having been “treated with remarkable contempt” at the congressional, adding how another charter captain named Terry Gibson also “endured a similarly offensive barrage.”

FROM STATE PEN TO PENNED STATEMENTS

What neither Pruitt nor the Australian attorney turned Democratic strategist turned environmental lobbyist Tinning divulge is Colby’s financial relationship to EDF through CFA, or Gibson’s direct employment by PEW (what Gibson himself has called one of “the most incredible experiences” of his life.)

Pruitt also fails to acknowledge that he spent four years in federal prison after admitting to using "deceit, craft, trickery, and dishonesty" to undermine federal enforcement of grouper regulations in the early 1990s. CFA member Steve Tomeny was also fined $12,000 after pleading guilty in the 90’s to making false statements to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to trying to meet a qualifying annual threshold of 5000 pounds of commercial caught red snapper. In the same case, Theodore Tomeny was sentenced to six months' home confinement, three years' probation and fined $20,000.

Another political operative and headline generator is Tallahassee attorney Tommy Warren, a man Tinning describes as a “lifelong Gulf private angler.” Truth be told, part of Mr. Warren’s life was actually spent behind bars following a 1973 bust aboard a shrimp boat traveling between Cuba and Havana in an attempt to buy 10 tons of marijuana to smuggled back into the U.S. Youthful indiscretion perhaps, but Warren was finally granted an official pardon by President Bill Clinton in the mid 1990’s, and has since been a top fundraiser for both the national and state Democratic parties according to Federal Election Commission data.

As for whether Mr. Warren has entered the political firefight to undermine Rep. Southerland for purely partisan reasons, or perhaps professionally through his Tallahassee law firm (Settlement Services, Inc) is not entirely known. But with millions of dollars of environmental funding in play on political action campaigns through EDF and PEW, not to mention legal settlement opportunities in securing potential ownership rights of coastal fisheries, you can bet that where there’s smoke there’s fire.

Environmental non-government organizations are spending copious amounts of cash to steal the November elections away from coastal fishermen. Instead of doing the heavy lifting and grassroots effort themselves, they’ve contributed millions of dollars in the Gulf of Mexico over the past several years in an attempt to convert natural public resource into private equity, with a core group of pseudo fishermen and political operatives doing the extensive lobbying on behalf of their corporate benefactors.

The Gulf of Mexico has now become ground zero in EDF’s campaign to “help advance catch shares throughout the country.” On behalf of 7-1/2 million individual saltwater anglers at risk of being denied the opportunity to fish recreationally in the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic and all across our nation’s public waters, the RFA gives thanks to Rep. Steve Southerland, a true Fishing Champion and staunch advocate for individual rights.

EDF, PEW and the political action committee from California known as Oceans Champions have brought their cultural battle to Bay County, FL in hopes of stopping an effective legislator early in his congressional career. The radical environmental warriors who believe they know what’s best for our oceans like yes men, legislators who are unlikely to ask the hard questions and more than willing to take a few handouts in exchange for the peace and quiet that often comes with blanket compromise.

For legislators like Steve Southerland - those who are unwilling to give away their constituency’s essential liberty for a little personal safety – the only path is the straight and narrow. Good thing for Florida’s second congressional district and for the U.S.’s 7-1/2 million saltwater anglers, Congressman Steven Southerland is a true Fishing Champion!

Join RFA today, and together let’s fight for your right to fish!

(Journalists interested in seeing the IRS 990 forms used to compile the financial information included above may contact Jim Hutchinson at the Recreational Fishing Alliance.) 

HOW PRIVATE INVESTORS ARE LOOKING TO CORNER THE FISHERIES MARKETS

“On the most volatile day ever on Wall Street, plunging technology shares sent the stock market into a stomach-churning rout…”

This was the lead sentence in an April 5, 2000 story in the Associated Press about a massive selloff of stocks just 12 years ago at a time when both Nasdaq and Dow had each recorded their widest point swings in history on record volume. The primary culprit of this mass movement of stock was the technology sector, what many financial analysts had called “insanely overvalued” while explaining the big drop in price “long overdue.”

One tech stock investor who got pounded especially hard was Michael Miglini of Austin, TX. "I lost more money in this week than I made in the previous two years," Miglini said at the time, telling the Associate Press that he had recently sold his construction company and invested heavily in the stock market on technology stocks.

"It was the absolute worst timing possible," Miglini said, adding "It's a painful lesson."

After losing his shirt in the stock market, Miglini started up a new business out of Corpus Christi, TX in May of 2001 called Great Sage, Inc., running a fulltime business in the Gulf of Mexico operating fishing and dive boats and hiring staffers and interns to help with grant writing and social media campaigns.

Just 10 years after learning a “painful lesson” as a technology investor in the stock market, Miglini has now gotten himself in on the ground floor of a new investment opportunity revolved around personal ownership of once public resources. Miglini now runs several business enterprises listed under NOAA Fisheries has having an ‘IFQ User ID’ which is what is required for a business owner to apply for individual fishing quota (IFQ) and transferable shares of fish stock.

In addition to possessing an IFQ User ID for himself, Miglini is the owner of at least two other enterprises out of Corpus Christi, TX listed in NOAA shareholders listing forms, including South Atlantic Fishing, Inc. and Great Sage, Inc. Miglini’s Great Sage itself is also connected to other Gulf of Mexico limited liability corporations (LLC) including Going Pelagic, Out to Sea, and South Atlantic Grouper, Inc.

While technology stocks are old news at this point, ripe for the picking are stocks of fish which are now being eyed by business savvy investors looking to corner the market on a once publicly held resource. Miglini now owns commercial IFQs for deepwater grouper, red grouper, gag grouper, shallow water grouper, tilefish and red snapper, ensuring that he can get paid for harvest even if he doesn’t actually perform the work. Once an IFQ allocation is established, a commercial owner like Miglini can catch that share of fish to sell direct to market, or he can sell the shares outright when the timing is right, while leasing out that harvest to real fishermen until such a time is right to cash in and sell out.

Same thing that Miglini did in the late 1990’s when he sold his Texas construction company and invested all the profits in technology stocks, stocks which eventually collapsed. This time however, Miglini has received some start-up cash from groups willing to help him invest, like Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). In the past 3 years, EDF and their political action arm have invested more than $750,000 on Miglini and his associates, helping him to form several non-profit organizations in the Gulf of Mexico designed to give cover to efforts to wrestle fish stocks away from the public domain, including the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance, Gulf Fishermen’s Association and South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association. As these organizations have continued to lobby legislators and fisheries managers to further restrict coastal fishing opportunities to further divide the community and expand on limited entry schemes to protect individual shareholders’ bottom line, Miglini has been active in creating yet another investment diversion.

In 2011, Miglini took $48,000 from the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance account to start a new organization called the Charter Fishermen’s Association, a group designed to look like a recreational fishing industry outfit made up solely of charter boat captains. However, upon closer look of its board of directors (Gary Jarvis, Mike Jennings, Michael Colby, Billy Archer, Chad Haggert and Steve Tomeny), one will find three of the six members hold commercial IFQ permits, another is president of a commercial marine association on the Gulf.

The fact that the original funding to create this faux charter association came from a group of commercial IFQ shareholders should send enough cautionary flags to scare off skeptical anglers.

With the commercial sector already being force-fed a cap and trade fisheries policy whereby entry into the fishery is limited and ownership of the resource is awarded to a select group of established fishermen, the recreational sector has survived via open access for everyone under the harvest management mechanism of season, size and bag limits. With continuing pressure by the EDF-funded members of Miglini’s new Charter Fishermen’s Association, many charter boat captains are being led to believe that by separating the recreational sector into two parts, the private angler and the business owner, a new set of rules and regulations can be adopted to improve access.

What Miglini and friends are not explaining is how this system will operate in the same exact way as it does with commercial fishermen; a mechanism will have to be put in place to cap the number of overall fishermen, offering access to individual fish stocks through public auction or government allocation whereby shares can be openly bought, sold and traded on the open market. The sector separation and catch share scheme which would effectively trade off ownership of our coastal public resources to a few well-connected investors would effectively shut the public out of the fishery; without shares, or ‘tags’ or personalized allocation of specific quota, the average, everyday angler will not be allowed to access a given fish stock like red snapper or gag grouper.

Just like he was in the late 90’s with his technology stocks, Michael Miglini on the ground floor of the sharecropping gold rush in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic, gobbling up as many individual shares of commercial quota as he can conceivably get through the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders Alliance and South Atlantic Fishermen’s Association. Simultaneously, Miglini and his fellow investors at the Charter Fishermen’s Association are hoping to divide the recreational sector into smaller pieces, divesting of private anglers to more readily invest on the commercial component of the recreational community.

Once the community is divided and recreational IFQs are finally allotted and made transferable between the sectors, Miglini is hoping to recoup that money he originally lost as a tech trader during that dismal week back in April of 2000. Then, when Miglini has cashed in his shares and the entire Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic reef fish complex is under a privatized cap and trade fisheries policy, those who had refused to fight in opposition to this corporate takeover of public resource will no doubt say the same thing as Miglini did 12 years ago.

"It's a painful lesson."

PROFESSOR MARVEL’S PERSONAL “TURMOIL” OVER EGO & ILLUSION

In a recent Ammoland column by conservationist Anthony Mauro, the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is clumsily referred to by the author as Satan, and it doesn’t take reading between the lines to get to the point. Clearly, Mr. Mauro has great disdain for RFA and our 16-year mission to defend the rights of saltwater anglers.

It’s certainly understandable; Mr. Mauro’s vitriolic attack of the RFA is tantamount to a temper tantrum thrown by a little boy who never gets his way. Fact is, Mr. Mauro is a political amateur lashing out against a system for which he has no functional understanding or ability.

Since emerging onto New Jersey’s political scene in 2007 as self-anointed messiah of his own spiritual doctrine self-titled as ''Blue-Collar Conservation'' movement, Mr. Mauro has demonstrated himself to be an extremely ineffectual advocate for New Jersey’s recreational sportsmen, and little more than a self-aggrandizing egoist with personal delusions of grandeur. The owner of CAMtec Industries, a machining firm which “specializes in serving the outsourcing needs of the manufacturing community,” Mauro formed the New Jersey Outdoor Alliance (NJOA) as a part-time hobby, enlisting the help of a retired New Jersey state conservation officer Ed Markowski and fellow North Jersey metal worker Pete Grimbilas, to take over respectively as vice-president and secretary.

Selling themselves to legislators as the “NJEA of New Jersey’s outdoor community” (a reference to the New Jersey Education Association, one of the largest public sector unions in the state), NJOA has spent significant time and membership money on providing cover for New Jersey’s Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), particularly for Mr. Markowski’s former employers at the NJDEP’s Division of Fish & Wildlife.

As each of these gentlemen have learned first-hand through their new hobby, putting all one’s efforts towards functioning as the public sector union for the NJDEP is not all it’s cracked up to be. Their venom is catharsis; it’s realization by its very founders that NJOA has proven to be a complete failure in attaining any coastal fisheries action or legislation in the state of New Jersey.

SOMETHING FISHY ABOUT POT

Take for example the Pots Off the Reef legislation introduced by the New Jersey legislature in 2007 to effectively prohibit use of fixed commercial gear within 100 feet of artificial reefs created by the NJDEP and their Division of Fish and Wildlife. An established and effective political action organization which solely represents the interests of saltwater anglers, business owners and the marine resource, RFA has continually supported efforts to clear New Jersey’s artificial reefs of fixed gear, including the legislative attempts within the state capital of Trenton. Regrettably, unreasonable lobbying efforts on the part of the New Jersey commercial fishing industry has led to hostile reaction by the NJOA and its allies, creating a monumental political divide in the efforts to move legislation forward.

The real issue here as the RFA has continually pointed out is that the NJDEP has never had to wait for legislation to get this issue rectified; it was a DEP regulation which originally allowed commercial potters to be on the reef sites to begin with, a simple regulation from the DEP to get the pots off is essentially all that is required now; NJOA on the other hand decided instead to put the pressure squarely on the New Jersey Senate and Assembly in hoping to drive a legislative victory for themselves.

While RFA supports a 100% removal of fixed gear from New Jersey reefs - either through legislative or regulatory means - we have also warned the DEP of a bigger conservation issue that also needs to be addressed with regard to the sheer number of commercial fish pots in inshore waters. Since 2006, RFA has been pressing NJDEP as to the unmanaged commercial pot/trap fishery, an issue that not only impacts reef access by individual anglers but has also led to a serious conservation problem with coastal fish stocks, most notably tautog.

As much as RFA has supported legislative efforts to resolve the conflict in state waters with fixed gear, RFA has also pressured the NJDEP to develop a comprehensive pot management plan for better accounting of the sheer number of pots in coastal waters. After all, if *10,000 commercial fish pots are removed from an artificial reef, where will they go?

(*The number 10,000 is purely a random figure; no one, not even the NJDEP itself which is responsible for such regulatory concerns, has no reasonable idea how many pieces of fixed commercial fishing gear are actually deployed at any given time in New Jersey coastal waters.)

WHEN YOU STRIKE AT THE KING…

Hunters and anglers know that when your truck gets stuck in soft sand, the last thing you want to do is press down harder on the accelerator; you’ll only spin your wheels and dig yourself a deeper hole. With 16 years of experience navigating the political arena, RFA knew enough to get out of the cab to better survey the opportunities in order to figure out a better way around the mess created by the two sides. By essentially letter some air out of the tires, RFA chose to discuss the issue with legislators, representatives of the DEP and members of the commercial sector.

NJOA on the other hand, with the support of his member associates at the Jersey Coast Anglers Association and New Jersey State Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, left the table and opted for a different approach by organizing hostile, sign-carrying protests in front of legislative offices, threatening key legislators that if they did not fully comply with the NJOA demands on the reef issue, they would be elected out of office.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.” Needless to say, Mr. Mauro and his band of merry man fell short of his threat, which has essentially rendered NJOA mostly obsolete in terms of legislative issues in the state of New Jersey.

RFA still supports efforts to remove fixed gear from the reefs, either by legislative or regulatory means. The “compromise bill” which NJOA opposes would not only clear approximately 90% of the surface area of New Jersey’s two inshore reefs of fixed gear, it would also require Mr. Markowski’s former employers in the NJDEP to implement a much-needed pot management plan to get a better handle on the number of fish traps deployed throughout New Jersey coastal waters. Furthermore, this legislation would also allow the state to apply for special management zone privilege in federal waters through the regional fisheries management council, paving the way for efforts to eliminate fixed gear from all of New Jersey artificial reef complex in federal waters outside 3 miles.

It should be noted that the main reason the truck got stuck in the sand in the first place is because a handful of lobstering families in Northern New Jersey have been fishing a particular stretch of bottom for a number of generations, before there was an artificial reef dropped down on top of them by the DEP. The lobstermen of New Jersey would like to have access to that natural bottom where they’ve been lobstering for decades; the “compromise bill” would give them their small corner of natural structure, and allow recreational anglers unimpeded access to the rest of New Jersey’s artificial reef complex.

Some compromise, huh?

IT’S ALL IN THE MISSION

The RFA was specifically charted as a political action organization in 1996 with a specific mission “to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs, and ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation’s saltwater fisheries.” Built on the doctrine of the NRA model, RFA was structured to be a first line of defense for the rights of our members to fish in coastal waters, for sportfishing businesses to thrive on that open access, while taking into account the sustainability of our fisheries.

In 2007, Mr. Mauro launched NJOA with a mission “to educate opinion leaders and policy makers about the principles of conservation; the foundation for healthy ecosystems, fish and wildlife.” His own non-profit tax records show the NJOA foundation has a primary purpose “to improve the health of both land and sea by means of conservation and habitat stewardship.” Sounds more like the stance of your typical ‘feel good’ environmental organization, doesn’t it?

That’s why it wasn’t too much of a surprise when NJOA supported Paul Eidman in his bid to take a seat at the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC) as representative of New Jersey’s recreational fishing community. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Eidman has been a lobbyist of record for the Marine Fish Conservation Network, a creation of the Pew Environment Group, which has lobbied extensively in opposition to angler advocacy efforts to reform the federal fisheries law to provide anglers with improved access to coastal fish stocks.

As an advocate working with the Marine Fish Conservation Network, Mr. Eidman has himself been a vocal opponent of efforts to allow fisheries managers greater flexibility to keep the summer flounder fishery open. Somehow in his latest rant, Mr. Mauro believes anglers would’ve been better suited to having a larger size limit (18 inches) on summer flounder, which arguably would’ve made it harder than it is currently (17-1/2 inches) to get a couple of keepers for dinner; it would’ve also statistically created increased bycatch mortality rates on released fish, but that’s a public debate on coastal fisheries in which both Mr. Eidman and Mr. Mauro have declined to participate publicly through both email and phoned invitations, as well as on-air request by way of local outdoors radio broadcast (Rack & Fin Radio, 97.3FM in Atlantic City, NJ).

So while Mr. Eidman has been quite vocal in his opposition to relaxing size and bag limits on ‘fluke’ for anglers through his political stances via the Marine Fish Conservation Network, it’s still hard to believe that Mr. Mauro would also join this anti-access chorus.

The fact is, Mr. Eidman and the Marine Fish Conservation Network oppose efforts to reform our federal fisheries law as so many New Jersey anglers have requested, they have openly opposed efforts to provide saltwater anglers with improved access to the stock, and the organization itself has also been tabbed by their institutional funder as a primary proponent of catch share policies which would effectively cap the number of coastal fishermen by trading away ownership of the stock. Furthermore, Mr. Eidman himself has openly supported President Obama’s controversial National Oceans Policy, an executive order which would create over-arching and restrictive new bureaucracy which could further restrict America’s right to open access of our public resource.

The fact that Mr. Eidman’s name was introduced to the appointment debate originally at the behest of the NJDEP itself is evidence enough of this support for more bureaucracy and less rights for individual anglers throughout the entire Mid Atlantic region.

A WIN FOR REGIONAL ANGLERS

What NJOA fails to understand is that commercial fishing interests have, until this point, held a stranglehold on the vote at the regional fisheries council of late, especially the MAFMC. Due in large part to RFA’s national lobbying efforts, the overall makeup of the MAFMC has just taken a radical shift in favor of recreational fishermen with the latest round of appointments. New York’s commercial sector, which had held that particular ‘at large’ seat for over 10 years, actually lost the appointment to a recreational charter captain, a respected angler advocate named Capt. Tony DiLernia (who replaced commercial representative and fish wholesaler, Stephen Schafer.) Furthermore, a Virginia environmental advocate named Peter de Fur was also replaced at the federal level by a longtime recreational advocate named Jeff Deem.

While Mr. Mauro selfishly blasts RFA because his NJDEP favored candidate did not get the federal nod, the fact is that the latest federal decision on appointments gives the recreational community the majority vote at the MAFMC with five (5) seats, as opposed to four (4) for the environmentalists and just three (3) for the commercial sector. Had Mr. Eidman been selected as NJOA had hoped, the federal fisheries service would’ve no doubt recognized his work with the Marine Fish Conservation Network, giving environmentalists a 5-4 majority over recreational anglers.

(For the record, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo picked a fine candidate in Capt. Tony DiLernia, and the Mid-Atlantic recreational fishing community should feel a sense of optimism for the next few years with the newly appointed representatives seeing things from a stronger angler perspective as opposed to commercial and strictly environmental angles.)

Essentially, the recreational community in the Mid Atlantic region scored a big win this spring with the council appointments, yet Mr. Mauro appears too much the fisheries management amateur to really understand or comprehend the process. It should be noted of course that the RFA-NJ openly supported its own chairman, Capt. Adam Nowalsky, as a far better candidate to take the ‘at large’ seat for New Jersey to better represent the interests of New Jersey anglers. Had all the fishermen in New Jersey rallied around the most experienced and knowledgeable candidate on the slate, Capt. Nowalsky, it’s extremely unlikely that the ‘at large’ seat would’ve been awarded to New Jersey anyway after all these years in New York, especially given state-by-state balance of power.

Ammoland readers should understand that appointment to the $450 a day MAFMC is not a popularity contest, but mostly a matter of partisan politics. Think for a moment that our Democratic President and his Democratic administration, together decides how to appoint varied candidates to various MAFMC positions. If a Republican governor puts one name up and a Democratic governor puts another name up, which selection would you think that the Democratic administration is going to select? Precisely, it’s politics, and that’s the process which continues to confuse and bewilder Mr. Mauro and his unelected bureaucratic sympathizers at the NJOA.

MISTRUTHS FROM A PUBLIC SECTOR LOBBYIST

If you truly look at the details, it must certainly appear as if Mr. Mauro is far more interested in supporting Mr. Markowski’s friends in the NJDEP than worrying about the rights of saltwater anglers. During the saltwater registry vs. license debate in 2010/2011 for example, Mr. Mauro erroneously spread mistruths about the cost of a free angler registry in an effort to rally support for a new fee to fish. While claiming that registry costs would exceed $600,000 a year and warning how fishing moratoriums would soon be in place if anglers didn’t pony up to pay a new tax to fund the DEP, RFA recently reported how the true cost by the state DEP to implement an annual angler registry would actually amount to about $73,600 a year.

And the number of saltwater anglers?

About 250,000 in year one, half the amount which Mr. Mauro has continually used to make the NJOA case for increased government spending in the state of New Jersey.

Yes, RFA had a significant role in this victory for the recreational anglers of New Jersey. What Mr. Mauro doesn’t really want readers to know is that his own organization lost nearly all of their credibility with legislators and coastal fishermen alike during the free registry debate; even today faced with real numbers, Mr. Mauro still refuses to claim ownership of the spread of fictitious facts and figures during the 2-year debate. While RFA fought on behalf of their membership, NJOA was lobbying legislators to oppose the angler registry in hopes of creating a new tax mechanism. With a pledge to not create new taxes, Governor Christie happily signed the free registry legislation into law by saying “Fishing from our shores has been and should remain free to our residents. Some simple pleasures in life should be not be subject to a new unfunded federal mandate.”

Therein lies the big rub, the most devilish of details if you will. Mr. Mauro’s positions on conservation in the state of New Jersey consistently favor the best interest of the public sector, the NJDEP, and not the sportsmen themselves. Supporting a fee to fish, intensifying legislative battles over an NJDEP regulatory issue at the state managed reef sites, endorsing a candidate favored by bureaucrats and radical conservation interests – if sportsmen were to truly look at the details of this debate, they would see clearly the devil is little more than a false idol looking for followers through use of his poison pen.

Like the snakeoil salesman of yore peddling his magic elixir through made-up statistics and Satanic allusion, Mr. Mauro is trying to create a diversion from the obvious - that he is not some messiah of the Blue-Collar Conservation movement but a rank political amateur hopelessly punching keys from behind a dark curtain at his CAMtec industrial outsourcing office in tony Colts Neck, NJ a la the “great and powerful” Professor Marvel.

If sportsmen are going to follow the path of the Blue-Collar Conservation movement and its leaders, my advice, as Emerson warned, is to keep an eye on your spoons!