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."

WHAT ORGANIZATION SHOULD I JOIN? CHOOSING BETWEEN MISSIONS & METHODS

On July 16, 2012, Dr. Stephen R. Covey, author of The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, died from complications stemming from a bicycle accident. Seven Habits sold more than 20 million copies in roughly 40 different languages, but Covey’s work was far more than just literary, as his personal clients included three-quarters of Fortune 500 companies and scores of schools and government entities. Covey trained three dozen heads of state, including the presidents of Colombia and South Korea and their cabinets, and both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were among his ardent fans.

As the Economist put it in 1986, "Coveyism is total quality management for the character, re-engineering for the soul — a tempting product in an age when the organizational versions of these disciplines have often pushed employee morale to rock bottom."

In the second of his seven habits, Covey spelled out how a mission statement – personal or corporate – functions as your constitution, the solid expression of personal or corporate vision and values. The mission becomes the very basis by which you measure everything else in your life in terms of making the daily decisions “in the midst of the circumstances and emotions that affect our lives.”

For a private company which functions to make money, the mission is clearly to earn profit. A publicly held corporation on the New York Stock Exchange for example is actually bound by law to pursue maximum profit on behalf of their shareholders (which is essentially why the Recreational Fishing Alliance takes an antagonistic view of Omega Protein Corporation, a publicly held company whose sole mission is to vacuum as much menhaden from the ecosystem as humanly possible in order to turn a profit for its corporate shareholders). In a true capitalist sense, a typical corporate mission statement is written to guide a company towards the ultimate goal of earning income and maximizing profit.

For a non-profit organization on the other hand, Covey’s mission statement is even more important. For an organization which is recognized as non-profit in the eyes of the government, profit is not the goal; instead, it is up the mission statement to provide a clear statement of the purpose of an organization so as to guide the actions of the organization, spell out its overall goal, provide a path, and lead overall decision-making.

When a non-profit organization's purpose is to serve some part of the community as a whole, it is essential that the mission statement clearly defines the services to be performed and the compassion driving the people who provide those services. Developing the mission statement therefore becomes a critical first step in defining what a non-profit organization plans to do; it also defines how that organization is different from any other in the same field.

In other words, the non-profit mission statement is an iron-bound constitution from which no one involved in the organization may ever deviate. No egos, no personal or individual goals, but instead a strict constitution for which all strategies are formulated and carried out on behalf of the entire organization and its membership.

HOW DOES A MISSION STATEMENT IMPACT YOU?

Before signing up to support a non-profit organization as individual member or sustaining supporter, it’s important to first consider the mission statement. Does the mission truly represent your own personal goals? Is the reason why you are looking to join or support an organization substantiated by that organization’s own constitution? Does the organizational mission statement protect you and your rights?

In the world of recreational fisheries today, there has been plenty of talk about an angler’s personal right to fish, yet there’s only ever been one organization charted specifically with that mission in mind and that’s the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). Founded in 1996 as a non-profit political action organization and modeled after the National Rifle Association (NRA), RFA’s personal mission is 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.”

When you break down the key words in the RFA’s mission, you’ll see “safeguard,” “rights,” “saltwater anglers”, “protect” and “saltwater fisheries, in addition to “marine, boat and tackle industry jobs.”

These are constitutional staples, missing from the mission statements of other organizations in the same field which claim to do the same thing. However, you need to consider for a moment the following “mission statements” offered up by other groups in the sportfishing field.

(Keep in mind that this is in no way meant to criticize those groups listed below, but instead to point out a very clear contrast between RFA and any other organization in America whose members have sometimes been led to believe that their right to fish is being protected through active membership.)

Take for example the Coastal Conservation Association or CCA whose stated mission is “to advise and educate the public on conservation of marine resources. The objective of CCA is to conserve, promote, and enhance the present and future availability of those coastal resources for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public.”

While CCA has often been referenced as an angler’s organization, the actual non-profit mission does not show any indication of being such. While saltwater anglers in Florida have flocked to CCA over the years because of their efforts to destroy the commercial fishing industry, there is nothing in the CCA mission to indicate that the “rights” of “saltwater anglers” will be either “safeguarded” or “protected” should the organization ever be successful in their stated mission to “advise and educate the public on conservation of marine resources.”

Another organization often described as the voice of anglers is the International Game Fish Association or IGFA. According to their longstanding mission statement, “the International Game Fish Association is a not-for-profit organization committed to the conservation of game fish and the promotion of responsible, ethical angling practices through science, education, rule making and record keeping.”

Again, while IGFA may have been founded on the premise of “record keeping,” the “conservation of game fish,” and promoting “responsible, ethical angling practices,” there is nothing in the IGFA mission that shows it is concerned with America’s right to fish.

Similarly, the Billfish Foundation (TBF) is another non-profit organization with a very clear mission which is “dedicated to the conservation and enhancement of billfish populations worldwide through research, education and advocacy.” TBF has taken a truly admirable path to protect the world’s billfish stocks, dedicated to protecting marlin, sailfish and swordfish specifically, and their work is to be respected. But arguably, if you’re concerned about the closure of red snapper, how is TBF structured to help you?

Of course, if as an angler you’re most interested in snook or tarpon, you might prefer to be a member of the Snook Foundation or Save the Tarpon. In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, anglers rallied behind the summer flounder in recent years by supporting the Save the Summer Flounder Fishery Fund, while a handful of striper aficionados pressing for gamefish protection of linesides have focused efforts in that fight through Stripers Forever.

All these individual species are terrific and the missions of the organizations themselves are truly admirable; in meshing with that common theme of sustainability, RFA specifically dedicated itself through development of its mission in 1996 to “ensure the long-term sustainability of our Nation’s saltwater fisheries”- in meeting our own mission to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers and protect recreational industry jobs, RFA must tread carefully in making our decisions best on the overall “long-term sustainability of our Nation’s saltwater fisheries.”

By adhering to a more angler-specific perspective, RFA does not put itself in a situation of compromise…in order to get gamefish protection for striped bass for example, we would not have to compromise on someone else’s efforts to protect billfish stocks. Or if legislators had a choice of legislation to protect snook or tarpon, which effort would succeed and which would fail? This is one of the perfect examples of why combination hunting and fishing organizations or broad caucuses of ‘like-minded’ sportsmen are rarely effective. Imagine an opportunity to allow sport hunters the opportunity to take game on Sunday hinging upon whether or not an added tax will be inflicted on saltwater anglers or a freshwater hatchery is allowed to continue.

Politics, regrettably, is wrought with compromise. While a coalition of ‘like-minded’ groups or individuals has a pleasant, unifying sound to it, there will always be someone in the union who is forced to compromise, typically the one whose own personal mission is the most challenging to attain.

POLITICAL POWER OVER IMPOTENCE

Many folks assume that all non-profit organizations are essentially alike in their ability to operate legally under U.S. tax law. However, there are key differences between a federally recognized 501(c)(3) ‘non-profit’ and a 501(c)(4) ‘non-profit’ organization, specifically as it relates to an organization’s ability to work the political system on behalf of its mission.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) defines both the 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) as being non-profit organizations exempt from paying federal income tax, however, a 501(c)(3) organization is legally defined more as a public charity while a 501(c)(4) organization is more politically active. Specifically, a 501(c)(3) is limited by law in the amount of time/money they can put into lobbying for particular cause, whereas the 501(c)(4) can do an unlimited amount of lobbying.

A significant tradeoff here is that the 501(c)(4) is therefore ineligible to receive federal monies like grants.

Under federal law, a 501(c)(3) cannot in any way support or oppose anyone running for public office. A 501(c)(4) on the other hand can engage in political campaign activity, so long as this is consistent with the organization’s mission and is not the organization’s primary activity. Because of these political and campaigning activities, any donation made to a 501(c)(4) which is not a public entity like a local fire department is not deductible.

While corporations, environmental non-government organizations and philanthropic trusts groups can freely give to a 501(c)(3) and enjoy the benefits of an IRS tax deduction, those donating money directly to a 501(c)(4) must believe wholeheartedly in the group’s mission statement, given that no IRS ‘charitable’ donation will be recognized.

In terms of achieving political gains in support of an organization’s mission, the 501(c)(4) has power to lobby, whereas the 501(c)(3) has been all but rendered politically impotent under federal tax law. Recognizing this fact in the mid 90’s, the institutional founders of the RFA chose to register their organization with the government as a 501(c)(4) in order to meet its 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.”

Where other groups like IGFA, TBF and CCA were already established as 501(c)(3) organizations with their exclusive mission, RFA was founded specifically to be the political watchdog for individual anglers and recreational business owners, as well as the resource itself. Like ‘em or hate ‘em, RFA modeled itself on the National Rifle Association (NRA) to specifically function as a lobbying force for anglers.

Over the years, RFA has taken heat from some of the other 501(c)(3) organizations because of our unwillingness to go along for the good of any broad-based coalition. Regrettably, what many of these groups simply can’t understand is that as a 501(c)(4) with a very specific, three-pronged mission (fish, fishermen and fishing industry), simply going along to get along would be flagrant violation of our mission and of grave disservice to our members. Coalition members are typically asked to compromise mission for the good of the group, something which RFA is incapable and unwilling to do.

Having proven extremely effective in its first few years, RFA’s ongoing effort to protect our membership’s right to fish has earned many friends, a few enemies, and a couple of copycats (imitation of course being the highest form of flattery.) In March of 2004 for example, a new organization sprang up in Saint Petersburg, FL called the Fishing Rights Alliance (FRA) which is registered in the state of Florida as a “domestic non-profit corporation.” Flattering to say the least, there has been plenty of confusion ever since with regard to the ‘alphabet soup’ effect. In fact, many times people will call the RFA office to complain about their FRA membership status, where still others have been led to believe that both organizations are the same.

After years of sportfishing industry backlash for failing to fight as actively as the RFA, the American Sportfishing Association (ASA) in 2008 helped form a brand new 501(c)(4) organization by bringing in various 501(c)(3) groups including CCA, TBF and IGFA. In the very first press release announcing the formation of the new Center for Coastal Conservation (CCC), it was explained how this non-partisan national organization would be dedicated to enacting sensible marine conservation laws through education and political action. While many industry professionals believed they were getting a new industry-supported political advocate operating exclusively on behalf of America’s right to fish, the organization’s mission statement would tell a completely different story - “Our mission is to promote good stewardship of America’s marine resources.”

TURNING POLITICS INTO A BRAND

The ineffectiveness of the CCC to promote policy or legislation in support of America’s right to fish should’ve been forecast by all who had read the organizational mission statement when it was created back in 2008. “Good stewardship of America’s marine resources,” is a completely imperceptible concept, it cannot be measured nor can it be quantified. As far as mission statements go, it is an aimless and anemic statement which does nothing to show support for the recreational fishing community, but instead leaves political process and strategy open to personal interpretation by the institutional sustainers who sit on its board of directors.

In other words, it’s simply another senseless coalition of compromise.

The rather directionless efforts of their own 501(c)(4) led to the ASA’s rebranding efforts in 2009 when a U.S. federal trademark registration was officially approved by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for Keep America Fishing™. According to USPTO, “the Keep America Fishing trademark is filed in the category of Advertising, Business & Retail Services, Education and Entertainment Services. The description provided to the USPTO for Keep America Fishing is Public advocacy to promote angler access, fish conservation and fishery management, provided in person and via an on-line website.”

As anglers and business owners began logging in and signing up for Keep America Fishing™ (or KAF as they’re now known) news alerts, bulletins and political action letters, what many failed to understand was that there was no real backend to the effort, no resource or staff. KAF it would appear is just a simple ‘trademark’ issued by the USPTO, where Keep America Fishing™ itself has been described inside the Beltway as little more than a “rebranding effort” by the industry trade association, ASA.

One thing’s for sure, having apparently had 750,000 individuals go through the site and provide personal contact information (email address), the national sportfishing industry now has one amazing marketing database from which to solicit new customers and a super platform for advertisers themselves!

Consider for a moment Wal-Mart, which RFA has heavily criticized in recent years for providing corporate funding to environmental organizations to promote catch shares and marine reserves; in response to a national angler boycott of Wal-Mart nationwide, the retail chain used the Keep America Fishing™ by partnering with ASA to provide a retail incentive on Plano tackle boxes. By emailing their database of contacts with the offer, ASA ultimately gave Wal-Mart cover within the angling community, and in turn KAF was the recipient of additional funding through the sale of every Plano tackle box sold inside Wal-Mart during the course of the campaign.

RFA was never founded to be nice; it wasn’t incorporated to get along, to along, or to sit quietly in the back of the room while others compromised away individual rights on behalf of ego and personal agenda. RFA is the only political organization in America today which was chartered specifically to defend the rights of our nation’s saltwater anglers and business owners, while protecting the future of our saltwater fisheries.

As “grotesque and incomprehensible” as the political process may seem, it is a fact of American life which requires careful and considerate navigation. These are often treacherous waters, and one fatal act of indecision or indiscretion can surely put an entire crew at imminent risk. Before you set a course, you need to know where you’re going and how you’re going to get there.

It all starts with the mission statement.

 

“…deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way…”

FASTER THAN A SPEEDING TELETYPE

James Bruggers is not just a journalist, he's a warrior in the movement to protect our planet from the scourge of man.

He’s one of a number of virtual superheroes from the left, armed with their magic blogs and Tweeting I-Phones with which to help beat back the demons and demigods who attempting to destroy our planet.

He’s more powerful because he’s got ‘local motive.’

“I cover a beat – the environment – that has taken huge hits at newspapers across the United States,” Bruggers said about himself in formal letter to the University of Louisville which hosted a symposium in early October. “As far as I know, I am the last one of my kind working at a newspaper in Kentucky.”

Bruggers said that “everything is different now” in the print industry where he’s been writing for the Kentucky-based Courier-Journal, there in the heart of black coal country, since studying journalism, forestry and environmental studies at the University of Montana over 10 years ago. “Newspapers are no longer just newspapers,” Bruggers wrote in his letter, explaining how his newspaper is “increasingly focusing our news delivery online, through smart phones and through social networking, including Facebook and Twitter.”

And able to leap tall buildings in a single bound too!

Bruggers’ is a fairly standard response from many reporters today, particularly those in the freelance game. Many newsroom journalists are losing their jobs to attrition, cutbacks and corporate merger, while some of the ancillary op-ed writers, sports personalities and ‘bloggers’ have been kept around to keep a local slant on things – inexpensively at that - while newsrooms are being thoroughly decimated. In response, many longtime columnists have seen a burgeoning opportunity – in years past, their articles were significantly scrutinized, regularly cut, sliced, diced and edited down by experienced copy editors, managing editors and even fully engaged publishers who understood the difference between opinion pieces and balanced reports.

Today’s ‘beat’ freelancers have little editorial scrutiny in what they provide, as most copy ‘chiefs’ are too focused on keeping Section One copy flowing through rapidly shrinking paper real estate to worry about the Section Three sport reporters and Section Five environmental ‘beat’ reporters. Since this new breed of reporter has been given carte blanche ability to post their stories directly to personal blogs and Twitter accounts without submitting through the proper chain of command, “fair and balanced” has been effectively replaced in the 21st Century by “quick and cheap.” It’s ‘fast food nation’ for the rip and read set, as print professionals, once born, bred and trained in newsroom nerve centers have been removed from their post, while pure subject matter experts – the anointed ones – have been given the front door key to the newspaper by being allowed uber access to blog site, Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Clark Kent sadly was laid off from the downtown office. But don’t despair, James Brugger is still blogging to the world from his home office in Kentucky (“he’s everywhere, he’s everywhere!”)

“Science is only part of what I do. Environmental journalism often involves a variety of disciplines – for example, politics, religion, economics and science,” Bruggers explained to the Kentucky academia in his recent blog titled, appropriately enough, Covering Science and the Environment Between the Tweets.

“Journalism professors I know are producing a whole new generation of specialized science and environmental journalists who are taking an entrepreneurial approach to their careers,” Bruggers wrote in his Jerry McGuireish treatise to the symposium, adding “And membership numbers in the Society of Environmental Journalists, which I helped lead for 13 years, remain strong.”

The Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) met this week in Miami, where Bruggers and other anointed bloggers and Tweeters kept active by reporting in 140-charcter blips from the SEJ panel events. One blogger Imelda Albano, President of Phil Network of Environmental Journalists, Inc. said of the event via the SEJ Twitter feed, “an excellent venue for env't journalists from West and South to learn from each other in making our society a sustainable one.”

Meanwhile Emilia Askari of the Detroit Free Press Tweets “want $ fr knight fndtn to fund your news venutre? talk to knight biz consultant ben wirz @ entrepreneurs pitchfest sat 9 a.m.” That’s Tweet speak for “hey folks, if you need some venture capital to fund your news reporting you can meet with representatives who helped fund this event, the James L. Knight Foundation, and they’ll explain how to get you some money to report to the masses.”

Earlier, Askari posted how “the Internet gives back power given that was taken away by the mass media, just by its massiveness.”

Or perhaps it’s a need for balance that has held the movement back.

Nicole Lampe, Senior Program Director for a non-profit communications group called U.S. Resource Media shared one of the more popular Tweets of the day from University of Washington scientist and Pew Fellowship award winner Dr. P. Dee Boersma who said “I don't want balanced reporting when it comes to science.”

Welcome to the environmental movement, where journalists meet to discuss ways of funding their cause, leading the charge to ensuring a more sustainable world through reliance on political, religious, economic and scientific reporting, free from the confines of traditional media scrutiny.

It should be noted that the Miami conference of environmental journalists was hosted by the University of Miami with financial assistance from groups including John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. Other SEJ financial supporters include the Everglades Foundation, Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation, Turner Family Foundation, Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment and Environmental Defense Fund.

Not every Tweeting member of the SEJ was strictly a journalist mind you. One blogger named Clint Wilder of the research and advisory firm Clean Edge, Inc. noted the striking similarities between Occupy Wall Street and environmental movements, Tweeting they “share fighting ‘the imposition of large risks by the very few on the very many.’" At its website, Wilder’s Clean Edge, Inc. describes itself as a company which “companies, investors, and governments understand and profit from clean technologies.”

Freelance journalist Cristina Santiestevan of Virginia is one of the first Tweeters to announce the opening comments of NOAA Fisheries Chief Dr. Lubchenco in a panel discussion on October 21, noting "Catch shares work. They end overfishing.” Posting under the online handle of Redbugmedia, Santiestevan describes how she is “Listening to Jane Lubchenco describe her job, ‘I fight for fishermen, and for fish.’”

Caroline Behringer, Media Specialist at World Wildlife Fund adds “Lubchenco uses Slurpies to explain catch shares to science reporters,” to which Jaime Jennings, Publicity Manager at Island Press responded “awesome!”

Behringer adds “Now contraceptives enter the Slurpy analogy to explain catch shares.”

"Who knew that birth control and 7-11 would come up in a fisheries panel," noted Juliet Eilperin, moderator of the SEJ panel called Opening Plenary — Fish Fight, which featured Dr. Lubchenco, her brother-in-law Dr. Steve Gaines, Pew Fellowship recipient Dr. Daniel Pauly, along with commercial fishing representative Nils Stolpe and the Recreational Fishing Alliance’s (RFA) Jim Donofrio representing the voice of the angling community.

“Here we go…” Wilder posts after Donofrio steps up and calls NOAA a 'job killer' explaining how the recreational fishing industry is 'getting regulated out of existence.'

“We're tripping over red snapper in Florida, but it's very restricted. Why? Lack of good science,” Tweeted Forbes clean tech blogger and freelance writer/editor Amy Westervelt of Donofrio’s comments.

“We have plenty of fish, so says one panelists,” a blogger called the Apocadocs Tweets sarcastically of Donofrio’s comments, asking wryly, “really?”

Freelancer Allie Wilkinson posts a quote from Lubchenco that seems to back Donofrio’s scientific analysis, noting “We simply do not have the resources to do stock assessments for every single fishery, every single year.”

Behringer then posts the theoretical question for Twitter followers to view, “Are marine protected areas good for commercial fisheries,” promptly answering herself in the affirmative in a Tweet directed at the fishermen in the front of the room, “Hey, panelists, the answer's ‘yes!’"

Lampe Tweets Gaines as saying “we've protected less than 1% of ocean, 10 to 15% of land,” noting how “MPA’s harbor fish as they breed and grow, helping nearby fisheries.”

The fishing representatives on the panel try to point out how notable scientific gaps in reporting through NOAA have left fishermen suffering not from science but by lack of science; they then explain to SEJ attendees that fish don’t exist upon every square inch of the ocean, and the 5% to 15% of oceans that some environmental groups would like to make off-limits to fishermen through creation of no access, no take marine reserves are actually the prime areas of oceans where fish congregate around productive structure and habitat.

Look, up in the sky….

“Fisheries lobbyist demonstrating he's completing unreasonable, opposes any restrictions on commercial fishing,” Tweets Brad Johnson, ThinkProgress Green Editor at the Center for American Progress.

“Big science crush on Daniel Pauly,” Westervelt Tweets.

“Me too,” gushes Jamie Jennings of Island Press.

Westervelt reports that Dr. Pauly is “Keeping it real with NOAA and fishermen on fish fight panel.”

Word to your mother.

Pew Environment Group’s Dave Bard says “fixing overfishing benefits everyone.” His former coworker from Pew now employed as Dr. Lubchenco handler and media spokesperson through NOAA Fisheries said of the Fish Fight panel, “a whole lot of agreeing going on. When it comes to catch shares, MPAs, science, etc, design matters most.”

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Cassandra Profita of Oregon Public Broadcasting posed the Tweeted question, “Catch shares: Best economic, ecological fish mgmt or xposing fish to 'corporate greed', 'speculation' like subprime mortgages?”

Blogger Michael Casey of Dubai, a sports and environmental reporter who writes mainly about water shortages and the sport of cricket in the Middle East quoted Donofrio as saying of catch shares "is huge political issue, not as simple as drinking from one Slurpy cup."

DC-based Matt Farrauto, a self-professed “political hack who’s gone full panda,” said “All this fish talk makes me want a slurpee.”

“Don't assume, just because I'm yawning, that I'm disinterested,” Farrauto said later.

Pittsburgh’s Jeanne Clark describes herself as “Doing my best to piss off the right wing for over 60 years,” but was unable to attend this year’s event in Miami but Tweeted a “Big shout out to my peeps at #SEJMiami. Raise lotsa $$$!”

It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s a trial balloon!

“Which I were there,” Clark adds, Tweeting “Too cold & not enough drinking here.”

David E. Guggenheim, himself a marine scientist and Senior Fellow at the Ocean Foundation Tweeted from the conference a quote from Daniel Pauly that “Many fisheries in the world are afloat only because of subsidies."

Guggenheim went on to quote Pauly as saying how “fishers” (that’s politically correct 21st Century green speak for fisherman or fishermen) are fishing for jelly fish, and monk fish.

The Courier-Journal’s Bruggers Tweets back, “Jellyfish? Really? Ick.”

Hmm, kryptonite and crystal jellies do seem a lot alike.

Following the fisheries panel, Farrauto Tweets “Heading to the Balmoral Room where he will fight the Balrog,” a fictional middle-earth demonic being created by JRR Tolkien in his science fiction epic, Lord of the Rings.

Even superheroes have to break for lunch.

Hey James, watch out for those peanut butter and jelly sandwiches!

“Ick!”

RFA TO US SENATE - TEAR DOWN THE PEDESTAL

Going fishing too often usually puts me on the hot seat with the folks at home, especially during the fall run.

Paradoxically, a woman named Jane Lubchenco is on the hot seat with those of us in the fishing community; has been since the day she was chosen by President Barack Obama to take the position of NOAA Administrator back in March of 2009.

From day one when recreational and commercial fishing community became aware that this Pew Fellowship award winner, Director/ Trustee of SeaWeb and Environmental Defense, Trustee Emerita of the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and 8th Annual Heinz Award in the Environment award winner would be in charge of future angling access, we’ve been able to fish a whole less than we did 10 years ago.

Now after 2-1/2 years of Administrative hostility and disdain, it appears as if the proverbial chickens may have come home to roost.

On Monday, October 3, 2011, a Senate Subcommittee Field Hearing was held in a packed Massachusetts State House. The highly-charged hearing was chaired by Senator Kerry (D-MA) and focused primarily on NOAA’s controversial catch share program, the embattled NOAA Administrator Dr Lubchenco, and NOAA’s troubled Office of Law Enforcement which officials claim misused fines and legal fees paid by members of the commercial fishing sector.

Other coastal legislators who participated in the hearing included Senator Mark Begich (D-AK), Senator Scott Brown (R-MA), Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA), Congressman John Tierney (D-MA), Congressman Bill Keating (D-MA), and Massachusetts State Senate President, Therese Murray (D-Plymouth).

As elected legislators attempted to take the top government appointee to task for failing to work with coastal stakeholders, the chief bureaucrat turned the tables on those elected officials, prompting one stark headline from an organization called Americans for Forfeiture Reform, NOAA Blames Congress

According to policy analyst Scott Alexander Meiner, Dr. Lubchenco gave “a series of meandering evasions” which prompted a rather sharp response by Rep. Frank. “Why can’t you give me a straight answer. Just give a straight answer. It could be yes. It could be no. You don’t have to hire someone to take the SAT for you,” Rep. Frank said.

“Most agencies are at least somewhat advocates of the industry they regulate… I can think of only two that hold their industry guilty until proven innocent- the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) and NMFS,” Frank continued.

“We will commit to clarifying what we can and cannot do,” Lubchenco answered.

“Will you commit to expediting the return of legal fees?” asked Rep. Tierney.

“I will commit to looking into that,” Dr. Lubchenco responded.

In another volley, Sen. Brown shot back “what does it take to get fired at NOAA?”

The NOAA Administrator coolly and calmly explained that NOAA cannot discuss personnel matters due to federal regulations governing the treatment and privacy of federal employees. It would be nice to know just what kind of action would get someone fired within the government, but thanks to Congress there’s no way for the American people to really know how such a process would be enacted or followed.

Federal laws enacted by our own legislature to protect federal employees; when a recent top enforcement officer committed the inappropriate and illegal act leading to many of these New England Subcommittee hearings, nothing was really done in terms of punishing the staffer, nor can any subsequent actions even be made public.

In other words, these New England Members of Congress were searching for answers but getting none, mainly because of rules and regulations which they helped pass that protects the government itself from most types of regulatory oversight and control, keeping appointed bureaucrats insulated from charges brought against them by members of the public.

The same thing as with catch shares and burdensome regulation stemming from the 2007 reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act that was passed by Congressman Frank and Congressman Tierney in 2006, the legislators set a restrictive speed limit and now they’re grilling the top trooper for ticketing so many of their constituents during the past 4-1/2 years that the speed traps have been in place.

However, while Frank, Tierney and Brown have become more vocal about the possibility of seeing Dr. Lubchenco removed from her position as NOAA Chief, Sen. Kerry has remained more general, perhaps vanilla, in his criticism.

As reported by Meiner, “Senator Kerry crafted a more inclusive approach, asking for Dr Lubchenco to treat the most harmed fishing areas as disaster zones. Lubchenco indicated a willingness provided the regional fishing councils would provide her the data which she noted had not been done. Senator Kerry then initiated a plan to convene a private meeting with Dr Jane Lubchenco, NMFS officials, concerned legislators, and fishing industry stake holders in a closed session presumably to flesh out steps forward and to air grievances. Kerry was able to elicit Dr Lubchenco’s acceptance of an invitation.”

Sen. Kerry of course was a member of the Senate in 2006 who willingly accepted a vote of unanimous consent of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, the very same law which has given NOAA so much authority in denying fishermen access to rebuilding fish stocks while ramrodding a program of catch shares through upon the angling public. In other words, it was Kerry who helped hand deliver the congressional edict for the top cop in charge of writing traffic summonses along the intercoastal highway!

“This clearly threatens the future of small boat fishing in Massachusetts, which has been a way of life for generations of our families,” Sen. Kerry warned the good Doctor about the rapid spread of catch shares implemented by NOAA throughout the fishing community. “I want you to know that their way of life will not end on my watch,” Kerry said.

Arguably, catch shares and no take areas of ocean through a network of marine reserves would in fact negatively impact life as we know it along the coastal United States, particularly for those who make their living on the water – which is that makes Sen. Kerry’s comments so unique.

Consider for a moment that on March 12, 2002, Dr. Jane Lubchenco officially received a Heinz Award for the Environment. In her acceptance speech, the NOAA chief to be told the world “The reality is that we are not just using oceans - we are using them up. If we truly want to be able to use them tomorrow, we have to do a better job of protecting them today. A powerful new tool that is emerging and that is being talked about much more seriously is that of a network of marine reserves - not unlike national parks or wilderness areas on land. A marine reserve is an area of the sea that is completely protected from extractive activities. They are also called "no take areas" - no fishing, no mining, no drilling, no dumping. These fully protected marine reserves have been shown quite definitely to be extremely powerful in protecting habitat in protecting biodiversity and protecting the essential services provided by marine ecosystems. And in some cases, they are also helping to replenishing depleted fisheries. At present, far less than one percent of U.S. water is fully protected. So we have some real opportunities to make a real difference with this new solution.”

The chairman of the Heinz Family Foundation and the Heinz Endowments which helped promote Dr. Lubchenco’s lifelong efforts to restrict the rights of coastal fishermen is Teresa Heinz, the wife of Sen. John Kerry.

When U.S. Congress put forth the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, it was passed through the Senate by unanimous consent, meaning there was no debate on the floor as to the laws vices or virtues. Pushed by primary sponsor Ted Stevens (R-AK), the bill had seven Democratic sponsors including Sen. Kerry, and six Republican sponsors including the law’s namesake, Sen. Stevens. By clearing the legislation through Senate by an up-and-down vote with no discussion, it memorialized very restrictive definitions, deadlines, and requirements which have since been used by NMFS to beat down the recreational and commercial fishing industry.

Efforts to amend the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act to incorporate some management flexibility allowing fisheries management discretion to keep fisheries open to fishing access in situations where the stocks are showing improved stock biomass have been introduced by both the House and Senate, however, Sen. Kerry has refused to support the bill, neither has his wife’s friend Jane.

“Would you support a law that would allow more flexibility rather than rely on the most recent study,” asked Rep. Keating of the NOAA Chief at the October 3 Senate Subcommittee Field Hearing.

“No,” replied Dr. Lubchenco.

So much for evasive answers.

On September 23, 2011, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) along with Rep. Barney Frank co-sponsored a piece of legislation designed to amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to extend the authorized time period for rebuilding of certain overfished fisheries while providing fisheries managers with limited flexibility to keep fishermen fishing when stocks are healthy enough to support it.

The appointed head of NOAA doesn’t support it; but that’s no reason why the senior Senator from Massachusetts shouldn’t. After all, it’s not up to a federally appointed, anti-business, agenda-driven environmental zealot to decide upon the will of the people.

U.S. legislators are quickly realizing that their constituents are angry about the direction of the country, the burdensome regulatory process, overly restrictive bureaucracy and wide scale contempt of those appointed to serve towards the people who elect legislators to serve their interests.

The singularly most important issue to the American voter right now is jobs, and if government continues to cut private sector jobs because of bureaucratic defiance, then someone in the public sector will have to pay.

Dr. Jane Lubchenco and her eco-warrior cohorts must be removed from the Department of Commerce immediately. If our elected officials aren’t able to remove the anointed ones, then it’s time for the electorate to find newly elected officials who can.

It’s time for Sen. Kerry to risk a few days on the couch at home in support of our fishermen – stand up to the administration, in standing against the job killing efforts of the NOAA Administrator. Take a stand for reasonable access to rebuilding fisheries by supporting bipartisan coastal legislation to fix the proverbial speed limits, thereby getting unreasonable enforcement off the backs of coastal businesses.

And once and for fall Mr. Kerry, stand up to your wife on this one – Ms. Heinz may have helped put Dr. Lubchenco upon a pedestal for the president to admire, but you can help bring her down and put Americans back to work again.

Tell your wife you’re going fishing Sen. Kerry!

HIS LIPS MOVE BUT I CAN'T HEAR WHAT HE'S SAYING

This week, President Obama will address the nation about what he is doing to spur economic growth and create jobs. While the head talks, let’s take a look at how the rest walks.

The U.S. Department of Commerce promotes job creation, economic growth, sustainable development and improved standards of living for all Americans by working in partnership with businesses, universities, communities and our nation’s workers. Its wide range of responsibilities includes the areas of trade, economic development, technology, entrepreneurship and business development, environmental stewardship, and statistical research and analysis.

To drive U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace, the Commerce Department works to strengthen the international economic position of the United States and facilitates global trade by opening up new markets for U.S. goods and services. Here at home, the Commerce Department promotes progressive business policies that help America’s businesses and entrepreneurs and their communities grow and succeed.

The Commerce Department also provides effective management and monitoring of our nation’s resources and assets to support both environmental and economic health. Through critical weather monitoring, weather forecasts and resource preservation, the department protects not only public safety and security but also our oceans, coasts and marine life while assisting their economic development.

The Secretary of Commerce leads this department’s efforts, overseeing a $7.5 billion budget and nearly 47,000 employees worldwide. On August 1, 2011, Rebecca Blank took over as Acting Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, having spent approximately 8 months as Acting Deputy Secretary. Blank, a Missouri native, is filling a temporary position left by the departure of former Commerce Secretary Gary Locke of Washington State to the position of U.S. Ambassador to China. Recently, President Obama announced that John Bryson of California was being tabbed to be the next Commerce Secretary, a nomination which has since been stalled in Congress.

According to published reports, Republicans have vowed to block Bryson’s nomination until President Obama submits free-trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama to Congress. Obama has refused to do that unless Congress agrees to expand upon an assistance program for U.S. workers who lose their jobs due to international trade.

More troubling to many private sector business owners is that Bryson is probably best known as co-founder of the radical activist group Natural Resources Defense Council, and as CEO of Edison International, parent company of giant electric utility Southern California Edison.

Bryson is also trustee of the California Institute of Technology, a director of the California Endowment and the W. M. Keck Foundation, and serves on the advisory board of Deutsche Bank Americas. Previously Mr. Bryson served on educational, energy and environmental boards, including as a trustee of Stanford University, a member of a United Nations advisory group on energy and climate change, and head of California’s Public Utilities Commission and its State Water Resources Control Board.

“In the years ahead, a key to achieving our export goal will be promoting clean energy in America. It’s how we’ll reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” President Obama said of the appointment. “And that’s how we’ll encourage new businesses and jobs to take root on our shores. John understands this better than virtually anybody.”

The President believes that going green is gold, and while many Americans support cleaner and more sustainable energy options, banking on environmental business to sustain a collapsing national economy has proven to be a treacherous course.

Case in point, the recent bankruptcy declaration by solar-panel maker Solyndra, a politically connected California-based manufacturer. In 2009, Solyndra was able to secure a $535 million loan guarantee from the U.S. government to expand its operations, and just one year later got a visit from President Obama who hailed it as a symbol of the U.S. commitment to the expanded use of renewable energy.

In August of this year, having borrowed almost all the guaranteed loan money, Solyndra said it was bankrupt, and was immediately shutting its operations and laying off 1,100 workers. At about the same time, two other U.S. solar firms, SpectraWatt and Evergreen Solar, also declared they are bankrupt, with taxpayers undoubtedly left to foot the bill for unpaid federal loans already received.

Bloomberg Financial reported in August that SpectraWatt owes creditors $38.7 million and is planning to auction almost all of its assets, which the Hopewell Junction, New York-based company valued at $33.9 million in a filing with U.S. Bankruptcy Court. In their August 19th filing, the company said it was forced to seek protection from creditors because of increasing competition from Chinese rivals and deteriorating prices in the solar industry. Evergreen Solar, which owes creditors upwards of $486.5 million, cited similar reasons for its August 15 bankruptcy filing soon after the state of Massachusetts had committed $23 million in grants in support of high tech manufacturing and job creation.

“United States-based manufacturers are under a great deal of stress because of the emergence of manufacturers in China, who receive considerable government and financial support,” SpectraWatt’s Chief Restructuring Officer and Chief Executive Officer Brad Walker said in the filing. “This support, coupled with China’s inexpensive production costs, have created a competitive advantage for Chinese manufacturers and allowed them to become price leaders within the industry.”

After Evergreen laid off their 800 U.S. workers in Massachusetts, the Chinese government effectively swooped in with a multi-million dollar loan to assist in the relocation and construction of a new overseas manufacturing facility. Born in America, raised overseas, it’s the story about the promise of 21st Century green jobs in the global market, whereby green jobs developed in the U.S. are ultimately outsourced to China to be produced by less costly labor.

The Washington Examiner reported recently that Commerce Secretary delegate appointee John Bryson began his career by creating an environmental litigation group, the Natural Resources Defense Council. He parlayed this gig of suing governments and businesses into top appointments in the late 1970s by California Governor Jerry Brown. After a three-year stint as president of California's Public Utility Commission, Bryson cashed out in 1984 to California's largest public utility, Edison International, parent company of Southern California Edison.

Bryson is also chairman of the board of directors for BrightSource Energy, a California-based green corporation which designs, develops and sells solar thermal power systems that deliver reliable clean energy to utilities and industrial companies.

Jump ahead to February of 2010, when BrightSource announced that it had received a commitment from the Department of Energy for a $1.37 billion loan guarantee to build out BrightSource’s Ivanpah solar project, set to be the first new solar thermal power plant built in California’s deserts in 20 years. Over the next several months, BrightSource would another $176 million in equity and options according to filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, with new investors including the Russian government.

The project is said to be about 15% completed thus far, and expected to go online in 2013.

In the early summer of 2011, President Obama said “I am pleased to nominate John Bryson to be our nation’s Secretary of Commerce, as he understands what it takes for America to succeed in a 21st century global economy.” Of the BrightSource chairman of the board, the president would add “John will be an important part of my economic team, working with the business community, fostering growth, and helping open up new markets abroad to promote jobs and opportunities here at home.”

In an August 12, 2011 piece in the New American by Rebecca Terrell, David Bier of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said of the Commerce nominee, "Bryson helped create a regulatory structure that fixed utilities' profits at a percent of costs. As a result, the utilities make money not by bringing costs down and selling more electricity, but by raising costs with unnecessary, expensive and redundant projects." Bier charged Bryson for helping secure several government bailouts for Southern California Edison during his tenure there that saved the utility from bankruptcy and funded his $65 million retirement package in 2008.

Senator James Inhofe (R–Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, described Bryson as the "founder of the radical Natural Resources Defense Council, a left-wing environmentalist organization, which in the name of global warming, seeks to increase drastically the price of electricity and gasoline across America.”

While Bryson served as legal counsel for Natural Resources Defense Council during the early 70’s having founded that group with other Yale Law graduates, he has since spent much of his career managing public utilities, a service which consumers often have very little choice in terms of providers. The sad fact of the matter is that Bryson has no substantial experience in the private sector.

At a time in this country when commerce is stymied by a 9.1% unemployment rate and ever-tightening noose of regulatory controls, we need a Commerce Department leader who truly feels the plight of the nation’s private sector, and understands what’s needed to create jobs. Taking federal subsidies to start-up public utility operations, only to watch them fail while outsourcing jobs overseas may be a retirement plan for some, but it’s certainly no business plan for the health and well-being of the greatest nation on earth.

Think about that while the president’s lips are moving on Thursday night.

New York Metropolitan Legislators Vote To Cap & Trade Coastal Fisheries

Last week, President Obama unveiled his FY2012 budget request proposing a new National Catch Share Program calling for approximately $17.4 million in catch share funding to be moved out of Fisheries Research and Management Programs and Cooperative Research. The President's budget defines Catch Share as "a general term for several fishery management strategies that allocate a specific portion of the total allowable fishery catch to individuals, cooperatives, communities, or other entities."

Those entitled to receive Catch Shares are accountable to cease fishing when specific quota is reached, and the President's budget also cites other programs like limited access privilege (LAP), individual fishing quota (IFQ) programs, and exclusive allocative measures such as Territorial Use Rights Fisheries (TURFs) that grant an exclusive privilege to fish in a geographically designated fishing ground. The key word used in defining Catch Shares of course is “privilege” as the entire scheme is dependent on selecting a few “privileged” individuals or entities to control catch and harvest of our coastal fisheries, regardless of commercial or recreational designation.

One conservation group in particular outlined their plan for implementing Catch Shares across both the commercial and recreational sector through use of fish tags, whereby harvest privilege gets assigned to those who possess tags to affix to harvested fish. Regardless of whether or not one chooses to sell their fish or take it home for personal consumption, a fish tag would be required, and according to this particular plan, a capped number of tags would be offered for any particular species, available for purchase through state entities or via public auction.

Those unable to get access to individual tags or unable to afford the bid would be precluded from participating in any particular fishery. Currently as they work in the commercial sector, once a share of the fishery is owned, it’s theirs to keep unless traded or sold at the discretion of the share owner. The Catch Share program in place in some commercial only fisheries today ensures that no new participants may enter a fishery. Imagine the concept being grandfathered in to being allowed to fish!

Fishermen call the Catch Share scheme the privatization of a public resource, though it’s also being referred to as 'social engineering' and coastal sharecropping as well. By design, Catch Shares cap fishing participation and trade ownership of our fish stocks amongst the privileged few. At a time when vital coastal fisheries like fluke, black sea bass, porgy and red snapper are being closed down due to lack of science and data collection, it’s staggering to think that the President would again cut important fisheries research funding from the NOAA Fisheries budget to offload to this restrictive Catch Share program. This is the second FY budget in which President Obama has reallocated millions away from science towards science fiction created by preservationist agenda.

The worst part is that New York legislators are helping ramrod the Catch Share manifesto down the throats of the coastal fishing community. On February 19th in the early morning hours, North Carolina republican Congressman Walter Jones introduced an amendment to the President’s FY2012 budget to prevent funds from being expended by NOAA to enact new limited access fishing programs. The Jones amendment (#548) to H.R. 1 was cosponsored by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Frank Pallone (D-New Jersey), and limits NOAA from being able to spend important research and science funding on developing or approving new limited access privilege programs for any fishery under the jurisdiction of the South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, New England or Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Councils. This bipartisan amendment to the budget passed the United States House of Representatives on a recorded vote of 259-159 at 1:43 a.m.

In total, 51 Democrats joined 208 Republicans voting in favor of the Amendment, in support of coastal fishermen. Catch Shares will only cost more American jobs and lead to the outsourcing of our seafood industry to those foreign nations with no concern for quotas or conservation principles as held by American fishermen. This privatization scheme is being sold as a method to end overfishing when all it really does is end open access fishing by placing our nation's marine fisheries into the hands of a select and privileged few. The public does not want catch shares, recreational charter boats do not want catch shares, the majority of commercial fishermen do not want catch shares, and both republicans and democrats within our coastal communities have united in bipartisan form to help stave off this coastal sharecropping scheme to sell off our public resources to the highest bidder.

However, the following New York legislators voted against their coastal constituents, siding with the minority of Congressional representatives who believe that cap and trade is a good policy for coastal fisheries management. Our local fisheries in New York like black sea bass, fluke and porgy are healthy and rebuilding, and no overfishing is taking place on any of these species. Individual anglers and coastal owners of coastal businesses like tackle shops, marinas, party and charter boats and even seashore restaurants which rely on healthy coastal fisheries should take note that the following coastal democrats in New York voted against the Jones Amendment – and a vote against the Jones Amendment is clearly a vote against the fishermen of New York!

If you fish in the Port Washington area along the North Shore of Long Island, Rep. Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-5th Congressional District) voted in favor of privatizing your public resource on Long Island Sound.

If you depend on the party boat industry on City Island in the Bronx, Rep. Joseph Crowley (D-7th Congressional District) wants to cap the number of anglers able to fish the Sound.

Those of you who like to drift for fluke off Coney Island in the summer can thank Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-8th Congressional District) for voting against efforts to protect your right to fish!

Sheepshead Bay fishermen who’ve been in contact with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-9th Congressional District) for help on fishing limits should know their Congressman supports limited access privilege.

In Manhattan, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-14th Congressional District) and Rep. Charles Rangel (D-15th Congressional District) both agree that fishing should be restricted to those with privilege.

The fishermen of Port Morris in the Bronx might want to ask Rep. Jose Serrano (D-16th Congressional District) how a public auction of fish tags will be made available in the future.

Hudson River anglers should know that Rep. Eliot Engel (D-17th Congressional District) also believes that access to our fisheries should be capped.

Finally, for charter boat captains out of Port Chester, and Mamaroneck, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-18th Congressional District) believes it’s okay to trade away ownership of fish stocks to the highest bidder.

My Member of Congress, Rep. Weiner, will be receiving his letter in the coming days - I hope it's not the only one!