C’mon RFA. Get off your “More Dead Fish for Me” Mantra. The red snapper stock is a train wreck.
Submitted by Ted Williams on Wed, 03/04/2009 - 13:54.
New Study Confirms RFA's Claims on Red Snapper Abundance
"The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) and our
It is thought that red snapper, particularly age 2 fish, are limited to available habitat and prior to 1950 very little natural hard bottom features were available in the Gulf. Man-made hard bottom deployed since that time has created thousands of square miles of new habitat, allowing the population to expand beyond the traditional red snapper range and making the stock more productive. Much of this new habitat is not sampled by NMFS, which the new study says creates a chronic underestimation of stock size.
"Pure and simple, this illustrates the need for flexibility in rebuilding and fisheries management, something the RFA has been saying all along," Donofrio said. "Recreational anglers are being denied access to this important fishery based on outdated abundance estimates."
When testifying before Congress in 2007, Donofrio noted that rebuilding provisions and rigid overfishing language hardcoded into the federal fishing law would have a significant impact on the red snapper fishery in the
Because of the inflexible requirements set forth by the Magnuson Stevens Act, anglers' total allowable catch (TAC) of red snapper has been cut by more than half in the past two years, resulting in a significantly shorter snapper season and drastically reduced bag limit. "This new regime is causing both unnecessary regulatory discards and severe negative social and economic impacts to local fishing communities throughout the Gulf," Donofrio testified in 2007.
The latest report by Dr. Shipp and Dr. Bortone helps bolster the on-water observations from Gulf fishermen and continued lobbying efforts by RFA. Fishermen often see changes on the water two to three years before they are even picked up in NMFS assessment, and in the case of red snapper around the reefs and rigs, NMFS does not include these fish as part of their sampling protocol which means there's no way for federal fisheries researchers to count these fish as part of the total stock.
"It is clear to the RFA that the red snapper stock and many others are in better shape," Donofrio said. "Fisheries managers must be afforded some type of limited flexibility when rebuilding healthy fish stocks such as red snapper to allow science to keep pace with management." Donofrio explained that it was the RFA which had recommended that Dr. Shipp be invited to the same Congressional hearing in 2007 to testify on behalf these "observable facts" within the
"The mission of the RFA forces us to challenge NMFS science when it does not reflect what we see on the water. When other organizations were willing to accept bad science while dismissing the claims of the anglers themselves who were out on the water, RFA was willing to fight for the recreational fishing community."
"We challenged what we knew was wrong and we hope other groups will join us in the future, not just in being critical, but by being analytical," Donofrio added.
#####
The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is a national, 501(c)(4) non-profit grassroots political action organization that has been representing individual sport fishermen and the sport fishing industry since 1996. The RFA Mission is to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs and ensure the long-term sustainability of
Ted, you are always so
Ted, you are always so critical of the RFA. You have to realize that they fill an empty space, and serve a purpose.
We already had plenty of conservation groups. The Billfish Foundation, National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Coastal Conservation Association, the Bonefish and Tarpon Foundation (I think that's their new name) and Trout Unlimited (for salmon issues) do a good job of filling up that space. They are filled with bright, thoughful, altruistic people who want to see fisheries restored, fully-functional ecosystems reestablished and the restoration of healthy fish populations that can provide food and sport for people centuries hence. They all do good work, and attract a lot of good and concerned anglers.
But what are the selfish louts to do? The loud, ill-mannered thugs of the angling community? What to do with self-absorbed fishermen who were weaned off the breast too soon, those who forever since have been travelling through the world, taking more than their share and always wanting more to make up for what they were deprived of as infants. The kind of people who would never be welcomed in a respectable, middle-of-the-road anging or conservation organization?
For them, we have the RFA, where no attack on the environmental community is too outrageous, no demand to fish down depleted fisheries too out of line. Where fishing the all-but-gone western-stock Atlantic bluefin to the brink of extinction is viewed as an inalienable right, where the concept of anglers stepping up in the manner of all other sportsmen and actually contributing a few dollars toward the health of their resource is anathema and where the threatening and bullying any magazine editor who dares to print a piece critical of RFA policy is considered the proper way to do business.
Give them credit--they are remarkably consistent in their policy decisions, probably more so than any other advocacy groups. Simply, if it swims, kill it. Whether we are discussing the aforementioned bluefin tuna, kill tournaments for white marlin, suing to kill tiny sharks and salable quantities of yellowfin tuna, opposing red snapper management or restrictions on the harvest of Pacific rockfish, the RFA is there. Never once in their history have they ever broken character and petitioned for the reduction of angling harvest or the restoration of an important recreational species (note that they have argued for commercial restrictions, but that is wholly consistent with the philosophy that you so accurately characterize as "more dead fish FOR US" ("US" of course, meaning RFA and their fellow travellers, not the broader and generally more respectable and responsible angling community.)
They are also such reliable losers. What other fishing organization has such an unmatched record? Bragging about raising $100,000 for California Congressman Pombo, just a day or two before voters threw him out of office. Attacking the conservation provisions of the Magnuson Act, immediately before they were strengthened at the end of 2006. Filing lawsuits challenging various fisheries management plans, and consistently being given the judicial bum's rush by responsible magistrates. They have a losing record that makes the Chicago Cubs' postseason look good. But they keep bungling on, finding enough idiots to sign up to keep the fools' parade marching forward.
They don't attract as many as they claim, of course. Depending on the context and the purpose, you'll hear them claim a national membership ranging anywhere from 40,000 to close to 100K. Of course, if you look up their IRS Form 990 on line, and divide membership revenues by a basic $35 annual fee, you get a somewhat different number. I won't ruin the surprise by telling you what it is, but rest assured that it doesn't break into five figures. Of course, that's probably a good thing, since despite all of their talk of having "executive boards" and the like, further review of the "Officers and Directors" on that Form 990 will only reveal two people, and that is probably too thin a staff to handle a sizeable membership.
So try to be a little kinder to the RFA. Sure, they are often vile and ill-mannered, greedy, selfish and likely to play a little fast and loose with the truth. But we all have our flaws. RFA just has a few more than the rest of us. But everyone knows who they are, and the people who really matter, the decisionmakers in the fisheries world, probably know them better than most. And they don't speak so harshly of RFA which, whatever its flaws, is always good for a few laughs.
Post new comment