Recreational Fishermen Thrown Under the Bus by ASA, CCA, IGFA, NMMA, TBF, others

[captadamnj]

Well, folks, you've seen some recent posts about which fishing groups are in the corner of recreational fishermen. The lines have now clearly been drawn.

A letter dated Oct. 22nd was sent to the Under Secretary of Commerce (Dr. Jane Lubchenco) that stated the following (bold added for emphasis) -

"The single most important element in generating this revenue is not the actual catching of fish, but the revenue from the fishing experience..."

"In short, much of the value of recreational fishing comes from the broader experience of "going fishing" rather than the actual catching of fish."

Here is the list of co-signatories -
American Sportfishing Association (ASA)
Center for Coastal Conservation (CCC)
Coastal Conservation Association (CCA)
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
International Game Fish Association (IGFA)
National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Ocean Conservancy
Oceana
Pew Environment Group
The Billfish Foundation (TBF)

TALK ABOUT THROWING FISHERMEN UNDER THE BUS!!!!

ASA, CCA, IGFA, NMMA, TBF, all saying to government that THE VALUE OF FISHING IS NOT CATCHING FISH. Are these the groups representing you as a fisherman? Do you go fishing expecting to find value in not catching fish?

Lubchenco Letter (pdf)

[Capt. Jerry P]

Thanks For the info Capt Adam

Truly sad... nice too now where certain groups stand!

[PocketFisherman]

and you're surprised at this why?

[captmark]

Capt Adam, I dont know how to take this letter, I see and understand your highlites but in the next paragraph it sound more logical than the first, very confusing on which way they are trying to persuade the council

[Fin Reaper]

Oh Yea, Right...All I need is a 8 hour boat ride and be able to put my line over the rail with naught but a sinker tied to it and I will be happy! Honest to God, have any of these people ever gone fishing?

[captadamnj]

captmark, this is the game, this is how the other side plays. They want some concessions that are "good" for rec. anglers - improve the idea of MRIP. But while "standing up for rec. anglers", in the same breath, the suggestion that fishermen should fish for the experience not the fish is made. There was no purpose to the first part of the letter other than to put it out there, to continue to fuel the fire for further restricting recreational opportunities to catch fish. And so people overlook this "fine print" because of the rest of the letter.

The organizations get to make their press release about "standing up to NOAA" for "recreational anglers". And those that want to believe that, choose to "overlook" the first part of the letter. The entire letter could have been written without those couple of lines, but they are in there, and make no mistake, they are in there for a very specific purpose, in black and white. You ask for information, here it is. Choose to overlook it if you so desire, but do so at the risk of your and future generations ability to "catch fish".

[Taxman]

Why are you surprised, just read this board

The posts can be classified as epic or sentamental

Just read them to find the "Fishing stunk, but had a great time with friends"

"Took my son/daughter for first trip, only caught a short but the look on their face was priceless"

"Took my dad/grandad to repay him for all the times he took me, slow night on water but memories will last forever"

"Slow trip on the xxxxxxxx, better than a busy day at work"

"Had a great time, didn't bring anything home but that is why they call it fishing and not catching"

"Plenty of cold beers and B busting, made it a good day"

"If you want fish for dinner, go to the market"

We had a whole thread of people saying how the day on the water with family and friends was the important thing, I suggested that they go on the Staten Island Ferry for the same experience.

[Capt. Jerry P]

I put up some press releases from some of the very same groups last week in the regulation forum (Of Course it Got no reads).

I put the info up just as it was sent to me for so some could read and make their own determination...

All Groups letters clearly stated they were against zone closures and nothing should be rushed without public imput and etc

But that first paragraph in Capt Adams Post is just scary... we all know that everyone go fishing with the mindset of catching something... and being able to target species local to our area that are in good supply.

Then again

Look at how many other groups / clubs in NJ dont (or barely) Mention the seabass closure or push the rfs lawsuit with a link. Should be on the front of every groups front page / newsletter etc

[Leif]

I took the letter to mean that it is clear that more revenue is derived from "fishing" than actually catching the fish itself.

This has always been the case and is what businesses who rely on the fisheries expect. The goal should be to manage more effectively through better data(registry, science, ect) and to create and manage a sustainable fisheries so that income can be derived from a business and tax stand point.

Am I missing something?? Besides we should do it in a way that does not significantly disrupt our ability to catch fish and run existing businesses?

Leif

[Capt. Jerry P]

Originally Posted by Leif

The goal should be to manage more effectively through better data(registry, science, ect) and to create and manage a sustainable fisheries so that income can be derived from a business and tax stand point.
Leif

A few of the groups from above have made that very clear in other statements...

But to me the single most important thing is that people will be able to catch fish, have fair regs and access to water etc... which would generate the very revenue they are talking about especially for fish that are plentiful healthy stock in our waters...

They prob could have done without that first paragraph or it could have explained it better in my opinion

Nice Post Lief