It's Time For Tackle Manufacturers To Step Up For Their Customers - Support HR3061

The American Sportfishing Association (ASA) is the national trade organization of the tackle manufacturers of the U.S. According to their website, “ASA’s members include sportfishing and boating manufacturers and their representatives, independent and chain outdoor retail stores, state fish and wildlife agencies, conservation organizations, federal land and water management agencies, angler advocacy groups, outdoor media groups and journalists.”

A freshwater and saltwater trade association, ASA also claims it “represents the interests of America’s 60 million anglers,” even though the organization has historically taken a mostly ‘hands off’ approach to working with individual anglers and their most pressing concerns. Granted, this is not the ‘association’ itself which has opted to neglect its own consumer base, but a handful of appointed knuckleheads who have no experience with the coastal community.

Take for example that on April 30, 2008, after getting pressed by the New York and New Jersey recreational fishing industry to take a public position with regard to the ‘Flexibility Bill’ (HR5425) sponsored by Rep. Frank Pallone, American Sportfishing Association (ASA) vice president Gordon Robertson sent the following letter to industry representatives, stating “ASA neither supports nor opposes H.R. 5425. This is because the bill does not solve the problems facing summer flounder.”

Rather than opposing or supporting a bill they felt wouldn’t address the situation (ASA cited no examples of how deadline flexibility wouldn’t help provide solutions to angler access issues with rebuilding species like summer flounder, only stating that the bill “does not solve the problems”), ASA offered their own 6-point plan of attack outlined below.

Keep in mind that this plan was introduced by ASA in the spring of 2008 – of the six points outlined below, four of the “requests” and “measures” below have gone nowhere through noticeable lack of effort on behalf of ASA and their lobbyists, though are now covered specifically under directives contained within HR3061, the Flexibility and Access in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2011 which ASA opposes.

1- Encourage the states, through their management measures of season length, creel limits and size limits, to stay within the recreational allocation, allowing the summer flounder fishing to continue.

2- Request that the federal government conduct an economic impact study of the recreational and commercial sectors of the summer flounder fishery and reallocate the fishery more equitably between the recreational and commercial sectors. The current allocation is 60 percent commercial and 40 percent recreational.

3- Request that the National Marine Fisheries Service improve its recreational angler participation data. Congress has recognized that dependable angler participation data is a key factor in fishery management decisions and needs to be improved. In addition, every effort should be taken by state authorities to improve their marine recreational angler participation data.

4- Take measures to accurately determine the target biomass for summer flounder and improve the science review of the summer flounder stock assessment scheduled for summer 2008.

5- Request that the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council follow the advice provided by its Science and Statistical Committee.

6- After an economic impact study of the recreational and commercial sectors, begin discussions among fishery groups for Congressional action seeking a buy-out of available summer flounder commercial fisheries.

In addition to providing the Secretary of Commerce with limited authority to extend rebuilding timelines for fish stocks on a positive rebuilding trend and where environmental or socioeconomic concerns warrant an extension, HR3061 specifically requires regional councils to calculate the socioeconomic impact of their management decisions on an annual basis and project what those decisions will have on the socioeconomic value of the fishery once management objectives are met. It also charges the National Research Council (NRC) with performing a comprehensive review of the current recreational data collection systems to determine what changes, if any, were made since the last NRC report in 2006 and subsequent congressional mandate to replace by January 1, 2009.

The Flexibility and Access in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act of 2011 also requires that the Science and Statistical Committees (SSC) provide reports justifying any management recommendations while also identifying areas where precautionary management approach was applied.

If the tackle industry action items 2-4 above and how it relates to numbers 1 & 5, how then could their trade association justifiably oppose HR3061?

In terms of reallocating fluke quota in a more equitable fashion, in a management decision made on October 6, 2004, ASA friend and ally Charles Witek of the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) cast the deciding vote in opposition to a motion brought about by a petition by the Recreational Fishing Alliance and the United Boatmen seeking to change the present 60/40 split of summer flounder that favors the commercial sector to a more equitable 50/50 split. Since Witek and CCA put that nail in the allocation coffin nearly 8 years ago, no new petitions for summer flounder equity have been brought before the Mid Atlantic Fishery Management Council.

As for “discussions among fishery groups for Congressional action seeking a buy-out of available summer flounder commercial fisheries,” outlined above in ASA’s sixth and final point, the only such discussion about ‘buy-outs’ has been through CCA’s catch share plan for red snapper which would essentially privatize the entire annual harvest of that fish in the form of ‘individual fish tags’ which would be placed for sale at public auction, whereby owners of the particular shares could fish for the table, for the market, or give away tags as Christmas presents.

Regrettably, ASA and CCA refuse to acknowledge that HR3061 addresses all of their personal rhetoric with regard to summer flounder dating back to 2008 in the form of legislative requirements for NOAA and councils to follow, yet these very same organizations have since taken an apparent position in opposition. But that’s where things get very confusing for anglers and members of the coastal angling community.

Consider again that in April of 2008, ASA’s 24-member Government Affairs Committee couldn’t come up with a consensus position with regard to support for the ‘Flexibility Vote’ and voted specifically to take NO position. With NO position on extending deadlines in rebuilding fisheries, that means no opposition, and no support. However, just three months after publicly taking no position on support for deadline flexibility, the tackle and boating trade associations (ASA and the National Marine Manufacturers Association which had already public supported deadline flexibility and has since sent support letters to both Sen. Schumer and Rep. Pallone) together introduced former CCA Louisiana staffer Jefferson Anglers as their federal fisheries lobbyist of record at their newly created Center for Coastal Conservation, a political action organization launched with the expressed support of “ending overfishing by a time certain” and “rebuilding plans for fisheries with time constraints.”

I was there in Vegas at the time that CCC was launched in 2008, and many of the industry leaders in the room thought they were getting a political bulldog that would fight for their customers’ access rights, but if you read CCC’s stated tenants and mission and then look at Mr. Angers’ own letter above, I wonder who it is that’s actually ‘polarizing’ the industry with a confusing message?

Keep in mind that National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) had already sent along official letters of support to Rep. Pallone and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York supporting “Flexibility Bills” in Congress, which raises the obvious question of how one group with ZERO position, and another group with a position of YES, suddenly creates a political organization with the position of NO, and at the same time expects to be taken seriously by legislators, constituents and their own members?

CCC has spent a significant amount of time and money in opposing efforts to reform our federal fisheries law. It’s no secret to anyone on the ground at this point that RFA and a handful of dedicated saltwater organizations has been pressuring Congress for Magnuson reform going back to 2007, just after the unanimous consent vote in the Senate that helped memorialize a broken federal fisheries law. It resulted in a major rally next to the steps of the Capitol on February 24, 2010 at which over 5,000 fishermen from around the country protested for congressional response, while the industry’s own leaders attempted to marginalize the effort with support for both the law and the government agency responsible for the oppression.

While RFA sounded the alarm on the encroaching management deadlines and what they would mean for the recreational fishing community, hardline conservation groups and lobbyists working with the CCC worked overtime to distract members of Congress from the problems experienced within coastal communities, where local business owners were being tormented by restrictive statutory definitions and inadequate science.

Recently, CCC’s Jeff Angers has blasted RFA for heaping criticism on the industry lobbyists at CCC, CCA, ASA and NMMA. Regrettably, his martyrdom excuses circulating throughout the industry ring pretty hollow with those who have tried asking Angers and his organization direct questions about his own legislative efforts to fix the federal fisheries law, particularly the local tackle shops and the for-hire sector.

In their tepid response to the widespread criticism, CCC has begun hyping a Magnuson reform bill in the House and Senate called the Fishery Science Improvement Act of 2011, which as written in the House version (HR2304) suspend annual catch limits or ACLs for any stock of fish not currently experiencing overfishing for which a peer reviewed stock survey and stock assessment have not been performed in the last 5 years.

The Senate version of the bill supported by CCC (S1916) states that Annual Catch Limits shall not apply to a stock for which a stock assessment has not been performed during the previous 6-year period, if the Secretary has determined that the fishery is not subject to overfishing and the stock is not overfished.

In response, Angers has been asked a very specific question; “what fisheries will be provided relief from ACLs and accountability measures under HR2304/S1916, and in terms of actual ‘fisheries science improvement’ where is that written into the bill?” Thus far, I’ve gotten no response from any of the CCC groups.

After extensive and ongoing research, we compiled a list of fisheries which have been recently assessed or are considered overfished or subject to overfishing which would NOT qualify for relief under this bill, and I have to say that it’s shocking to watch an industry lobbyist speaking out of both side of his mouth and his arse, simultaneously, while our coastal fishing community is decimated by over burdensome regulation.

I spent a long time working at a weekly fishing publication covering coastal angler issues from Southern Maine to the Outer Banks of North Carolina, so I watched our local industry erode due to this broken federal fisheries law which has denied anglers access to vitally important regional fisheries like cod, haddock, pollock, summer flounder (fluke), black sea bass and scup. In the past several years, I’ve heard from more anglers and business owners along the Southern and Gulf Coast who are now beginning to understand what it was that the RFA was talking about in 2007 with regard to the problems with the Magnuson Stevens Act, as black sea bass, red snapper, vermillion snapper, gag grouper, amberjack and King mackerel have been deemed mostly off-limits to anglers there. The same problem is taking its toll on the west coast as well with vital species of flounder, sole and rockfish.

Strangely, Mr. Angers and his CCC are supporting legislation which would not have any impact on the angling community’s ability to access these coastal fisheries mentioned above, while at the same time denouncing the RFA efforts to see a more comprehensive and holistic piece of fisheries reform in an effort to more responsibly balance commerce and conservation.

Don’t take my word for it; you can click here to see the list of fish species designated by NOAA Fisheries as either (A) overfished, (B) subject to overfishing or (C) having had an assessment since 2006; these are all the fisheries not subject to relief under Mr. Angers’ bill as per the wording of this particular legislation.

Many of my good ol’ friends from the publishing side of the industry aren’t allowed to fraternize with me anymore because I’m managing the ‘big, bad, RFA’ which so openly criticizes the vaunted leaders of the trade associations. Are the tackle manufacturers and retailers so enamored by their own DC delegates that they don’t openly question their tactics and strategies in an open forum?

I can’t help but laugh to think about the primary reason why I made the switch from outdoor publishing to activism, specifically an industry parade I once attended. You see, the king had come to Vegas to tell us all about the good things he was doing while showing off his beautiful new duds…everyone was cheering, and toasting and patting each other on the back, but what perplexed me the whole time was the fact that the emperor was bare-ass naked there at that cocktail party reception at the Vegas Convention Center.

Call me the proverbial skunk at the picnic, but I simply can’t figure out why the tackle and boating industry is allowing a handful of Beltway lobbyists to rush a Band-Aid strip onto a gaping wound when there’s clearly a more comprehensive measure currently in Committee which promises to assist in ALL coastal fisheries, demands socioeconomic data from NOAA for any closures, and also forces the National Academy of Sciences to review the data collection programs used by NOAA.

For now, Congress is most concerned with trying to avert a government shutdown before going on a holiday break; that gives us a bit more time to rally support for real Magnuson reform in the form of HR3061. Hopefully members of the recreational fishing and boating industry will start asking a few questions of their own high society lobbyists on Capitol Hill in the coming weeks.

Nothing personal here guys, but don't you think you owe as much to the tackle buying public?