Better late than never - but this would have done much more good several years ago.
<><><><><><><><><><>
Asbury Park Press By John Geiser - May 2, 2008 - The radical environmentalist dream of building summer flounder stocks to primeval levels is creating a deep rift in the angling community.
The Jersey Coast Anglers Association, an organization formed years ago to counterbalance the excesses of the state fisheries management bureauracy, has found itself in the center of the controversy.
Recreational fluke anglers are facing the harshest regulations in the history of the fishery this season. The future is even more grim.
The now retired director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, William T. Hogarth, last year described summer flounder management as an impending train wreck. In other words, poorly written laws and utopian goals to be reached at a specific date will destroy the fishery and ruin the recreation and industry dependent upon it.
The public is asking how this could happen? How could the sacrifices of 20 years, the frustration of releasing countless edible fish to build stock levels to record levels, bring even more pain and denial?
The shopper at the fish counter asks why flatfish fillets are $20 a pound, if they are available at all. The angler asks why his conservation efforts bring only more restrictions and a probable fishery closure in the face of stocks at an historic high.
The answer is so fraught with the complexity of ideology, politics, rivalries, dubious science and diverse stakeholders that an outsider might liken it more to a debate on the floor of the United Nations than a discussion on fisheries management in Congress.
Congress is where it all began. The lawmakers were sold a rebuilding dream by radical environmentalists supported by angling elitists. The vision of an ocean teeming with marine life untouched by the needs of humanity floated before them like a romantic novel.
The enormous funds of the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group made this dream seem possible. This mighty river of cash flowed into the coffers of numerous environmental organizations that hired an army of lawyers, lobbyists, adminstrators and organizers to lay the groundwork.
These employees mapped out a strategy that affected the writing of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, a good law overall, but with certain provisions that enabled the radical environmental agenda to prosper.
Concurrently, these advocates put enormous pressure on the bureaucracy politically and economically. The scientific community obliged by creating terms like 'overfishing,' which can occur when a fish stock is not following a scientific script regardless of the extent of the harvest.
Once the law was in place, the descriptive terms created, and the scenarios were written, the rest was easy. The fishing community is suffering because of it.
The environmental lawyers and spokespeople and their elitist supporters, who wield enormous power in Washington, can now sit back and conduct the symphony. They counter dispute with 'It's the law' (their law, of course).
Raymond D. Bogan, lawyer for the United Boatmen, saw the crisis coming in the Magnuson legislation 11 years ago.
He warned about it and fought it in countless fisheries management meetings, hearings, and the courts. He predicted what would happen in the summer flounder fishery.
He and James A. Donofrio, executive director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, collectively made over 100 trips to Washington to talk to congressmen in an attempt to persuade them not to include language in the most recent Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act reauthorization that would not only ruin the summer flounder fishery but other fisheries as well.
Bogan is a lawyer, and he knows how lawyers and bureaucrats work their wiles. He knew how the radicals, given an unending supply of money, would fashion their campaign. They followed his predictions exactly.
Bogan and Donofrio fought the antis doggedly in 2006, trying to get wording in the legislation that would provide flexibility, give fisheries management officials enough room to keep a growing fishery open when artificial timetables would demand its closure.
Opposed to them was the most vocal recipient of liberal giving from the Pew Foundation, the National Coalition for Marine Conservation, an organization with over 200 environmental member groups.
The coalition expanded its impact in 1992 when it joined with the Ocean Conservancy, Greenpeace, National Audubon Society, and the World Wildlife Fund to form the Marine Fish Conservation Network.
Everywhere Bogan and Donofrio turned in Washington they had to explain to mostly innocent legislators and their aides that all fisheries were not overfished in real numbers and did not have to be built to a given level by a fixed time. Further, that the coalition and the Network were not the voice of the millions of recreational and commercial fishermen involved in the fishery.
The response was typically: 'But the Network is made up of hundreds of environmental groups. Even your own fishermen ? the Jersey Coast Anglers Association ? are members of the Network.'
'It was frustrating,' Bogan admitted. 'We were trying to save the summer flounder fishery in particular, and they were using our own people against us.'
Greg Hueth, president of the Shark River Surf Anglers, said his club members were so upset and frustrated that their club was actually being counted as supporting the Network's position through its membership in the JCAA that they quit the organization.
Thomas P. Fote, legislative chairman of the Jersey Coast Anglers Association, defended that organization's participation in the Marine Fish Conservation Network in its newsletters.
'JCAA decided to participate (in 1994) to ensure that the recreational interests and our point of view were represented in the Network,' he said. 'Some major recreational groups approached JCAA and asked us to serve on the board in 2001 to represent all of our interests including keeping the marine protected areas off the Marine Fish Conservation Network agenda.'
Fote mentioned other issues such as endocrine disruptors, water quality, protecting menhaden and increased funding for marine science that the Network pushes for.
'The general consensus of the JCAA membership maintains that there is still value in being represented in the Network,' Fote emphasized. 'We worked hard to get the Network to refrain from sending a letter on the summer flounder issue that would argue for a much reduced quota.
'Fishing groups that do not belong to the Network cannot influence its decisions,' he added. 'The JCAA will try to steer it to also represent the best interests of the angling community.' Bogan responded to Fote by e-mail after reading the explanation in the JCAA's newsletter.
'The damage has been done,' he pointed out. 'In that same regard, the Network not sending a letter on the total allowable landings doesn't feel much like a victory. The Network already won.
'Should recreational fishermen be grateful that it didn't ask for a more restrictive total allowable landing when we're looking at more pain and suffering in '08, and a possible closure in '09 because of the Network's 'successes' with the Magnuson-Stevens Act?
'I wish JCAA hadn't been part of the Network's successful campaign to impose the unprecedented restrictions contained in the MSA which effectively drained the MSA of any flexibility, but it was,' he continued.
'We were successful in beating back the one-year 'end to overfishing' championed by the Network, although not successful enough,' he added. 'As you know, that provision is one of the main reasons the three-year extension to the rebuilding schedule was negated.'
Fote replied that fishermen do not know that he spent 26 days in Washington in 2006 and 21 days in 2007 trying to educate congressmen and their staffs about the problems New Jersey anglers have with fisheries management, and hundreds of hours in meetings and on the phone trying to persuade environmental organizations not to destroy participation in the summer flounder fishery.
'You probably know that when you and John Toth (president of the JCAA) argue that you are working from the inside to sway the enviro industry, it hasn't been selling very well on the docks and in the tackle shops,' Bogan replied. 'People know the harm done already by the Network,' he continued. 'No matter how you slice it or rationalize it, as a member of the Network, JCAA supported legislation that is helping to destroy a way of life.
'I appreciate JCAA getting up at meetings and saying how bad things are for fishermen, and that there won't be any fishermen or infrastructure left to enjoy recovered stocks,' he stressed.
'The problem is that the policy of the Network and others successfully advocated is largely responsible for this outcome,' he added. 'That policy became the law of the land and people's livelihoods and access to the resource are being taken away because of it.
'Unless you agree with the outcome, I don't quite understand how the JCAA's inside connections helped its constituents,' he emphasized. 'I wasn't the only one who was told by congressmen and staff that the support of the Network and its members helped convince them to support some of the most onerous provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments.
'JCAA was part of the 'winning team,' and the recreational fisherman has lost,' Bogan concluded.
This post edited by NilsS 03:13 PM 05/07/2008
<><><><><><><><><><>
Asbury Park Press By John Geiser - May 2, 2008 - The radical environmentalist dream of building summer flounder stocks to primeval levels is creating a deep rift in the angling community.
The Jersey Coast Anglers Association, an organization formed years ago to counterbalance the excesses of the state fisheries management bureauracy, has found itself in the center of the controversy.
Recreational fluke anglers are facing the harshest regulations in the history of the fishery this season. The future is even more grim.
The now retired director of the National Marine Fisheries Service, William T. Hogarth, last year described summer flounder management as an impending train wreck. In other words, poorly written laws and utopian goals to be reached at a specific date will destroy the fishery and ruin the recreation and industry dependent upon it.
The public is asking how this could happen? How could the sacrifices of 20 years, the frustration of releasing countless edible fish to build stock levels to record levels, bring even more pain and denial?
The shopper at the fish counter asks why flatfish fillets are $20 a pound, if they are available at all. The angler asks why his conservation efforts bring only more restrictions and a probable fishery closure in the face of stocks at an historic high.
The answer is so fraught with the complexity of ideology, politics, rivalries, dubious science and diverse stakeholders that an outsider might liken it more to a debate on the floor of the United Nations than a discussion on fisheries management in Congress.
Congress is where it all began. The lawmakers were sold a rebuilding dream by radical environmentalists supported by angling elitists. The vision of an ocean teeming with marine life untouched by the needs of humanity floated before them like a romantic novel.
The enormous funds of the Pew Charitable Trusts' Environment Group made this dream seem possible. This mighty river of cash flowed into the coffers of numerous environmental organizations that hired an army of lawyers, lobbyists, adminstrators and organizers to lay the groundwork.
These employees mapped out a strategy that affected the writing of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, a good law overall, but with certain provisions that enabled the radical environmental agenda to prosper.
Concurrently, these advocates put enormous pressure on the bureaucracy politically and economically. The scientific community obliged by creating terms like 'overfishing,' which can occur when a fish stock is not following a scientific script regardless of the extent of the harvest.
Once the law was in place, the descriptive terms created, and the scenarios were written, the rest was easy. The fishing community is suffering because of it.
The environmental lawyers and spokespeople and their elitist supporters, who wield enormous power in Washington, can now sit back and conduct the symphony. They counter dispute with 'It's the law' (their law, of course).
Raymond D. Bogan, lawyer for the United Boatmen, saw the crisis coming in the Magnuson legislation 11 years ago.
He warned about it and fought it in countless fisheries management meetings, hearings, and the courts. He predicted what would happen in the summer flounder fishery.
He and James A. Donofrio, executive director of the Recreational Fishing Alliance, collectively made over 100 trips to Washington to talk to congressmen in an attempt to persuade them not to include language in the most recent Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act reauthorization that would not only ruin the summer flounder fishery but other fisheries as well.
Bogan is a lawyer, and he knows how lawyers and bureaucrats work their wiles. He knew how the radicals, given an unending supply of money, would fashion their campaign. They followed his predictions exactly.
Bogan and Donofrio fought the antis doggedly in 2006, trying to get wording in the legislation that would provide flexibility, give fisheries management officials enough room to keep a growing fishery open when artificial timetables would demand its closure.
Opposed to them was the most vocal recipient of liberal giving from the Pew Foundation, the National Coalition for Marine Conservation, an organization with over 200 environmental member groups.
The coalition expanded its impact in 1992 when it joined with the Ocean Conservancy, Greenpeace, National Audubon Society, and the World Wildlife Fund to form the Marine Fish Conservation Network.
Everywhere Bogan and Donofrio turned in Washington they had to explain to mostly innocent legislators and their aides that all fisheries were not overfished in real numbers and did not have to be built to a given level by a fixed time. Further, that the coalition and the Network were not the voice of the millions of recreational and commercial fishermen involved in the fishery.
The response was typically: 'But the Network is made up of hundreds of environmental groups. Even your own fishermen ? the Jersey Coast Anglers Association ? are members of the Network.'
'It was frustrating,' Bogan admitted. 'We were trying to save the summer flounder fishery in particular, and they were using our own people against us.'
Greg Hueth, president of the Shark River Surf Anglers, said his club members were so upset and frustrated that their club was actually being counted as supporting the Network's position through its membership in the JCAA that they quit the organization.
Thomas P. Fote, legislative chairman of the Jersey Coast Anglers Association, defended that organization's participation in the Marine Fish Conservation Network in its newsletters.
'JCAA decided to participate (in 1994) to ensure that the recreational interests and our point of view were represented in the Network,' he said. 'Some major recreational groups approached JCAA and asked us to serve on the board in 2001 to represent all of our interests including keeping the marine protected areas off the Marine Fish Conservation Network agenda.'
Fote mentioned other issues such as endocrine disruptors, water quality, protecting menhaden and increased funding for marine science that the Network pushes for.
'The general consensus of the JCAA membership maintains that there is still value in being represented in the Network,' Fote emphasized. 'We worked hard to get the Network to refrain from sending a letter on the summer flounder issue that would argue for a much reduced quota.
'Fishing groups that do not belong to the Network cannot influence its decisions,' he added. 'The JCAA will try to steer it to also represent the best interests of the angling community.' Bogan responded to Fote by e-mail after reading the explanation in the JCAA's newsletter.
'The damage has been done,' he pointed out. 'In that same regard, the Network not sending a letter on the total allowable landings doesn't feel much like a victory. The Network already won.
'Should recreational fishermen be grateful that it didn't ask for a more restrictive total allowable landing when we're looking at more pain and suffering in '08, and a possible closure in '09 because of the Network's 'successes' with the Magnuson-Stevens Act?
'I wish JCAA hadn't been part of the Network's successful campaign to impose the unprecedented restrictions contained in the MSA which effectively drained the MSA of any flexibility, but it was,' he continued.
'We were successful in beating back the one-year 'end to overfishing' championed by the Network, although not successful enough,' he added. 'As you know, that provision is one of the main reasons the three-year extension to the rebuilding schedule was negated.'
Fote replied that fishermen do not know that he spent 26 days in Washington in 2006 and 21 days in 2007 trying to educate congressmen and their staffs about the problems New Jersey anglers have with fisheries management, and hundreds of hours in meetings and on the phone trying to persuade environmental organizations not to destroy participation in the summer flounder fishery.
'You probably know that when you and John Toth (president of the JCAA) argue that you are working from the inside to sway the enviro industry, it hasn't been selling very well on the docks and in the tackle shops,' Bogan replied. 'People know the harm done already by the Network,' he continued. 'No matter how you slice it or rationalize it, as a member of the Network, JCAA supported legislation that is helping to destroy a way of life.
'I appreciate JCAA getting up at meetings and saying how bad things are for fishermen, and that there won't be any fishermen or infrastructure left to enjoy recovered stocks,' he stressed.
'The problem is that the policy of the Network and others successfully advocated is largely responsible for this outcome,' he added. 'That policy became the law of the land and people's livelihoods and access to the resource are being taken away because of it.
'Unless you agree with the outcome, I don't quite understand how the JCAA's inside connections helped its constituents,' he emphasized. 'I wasn't the only one who was told by congressmen and staff that the support of the Network and its members helped convince them to support some of the most onerous provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act amendments.
'JCAA was part of the 'winning team,' and the recreational fisherman has lost,' Bogan concluded.
This post edited by NilsS 03:13 PM 05/07/2008
