By Tom Fote
(from Jersey Coast Anglers Association June 1995 Newsletter)
Clinton signs Executive Order on Recreational Fisheries
AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION - Annual Spring Meeting
ASA/NMMA ALLIANCE POSITION ON PROPOSED RULE CHANGES FOR BLUEFIN AND YELLOWFIN TUNA
President Clinton signed the following executive order during National Fishing Week. This was presented to us on Thursday morning at a symposium organized by American Sportfishing Association. Let’s hope that this executive order has some impact on the actions of the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release June 8, 1995
EXECUTIVE ORDER: RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in furtherance of the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-d, and e-j), the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-666c), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1801-1882), and other pertinent statutes, and in order to conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems to provide for increased recreational fishing opportunities nationwide, it is ordered as follows:
Section 1. Federal Agency Duties. Federal agencies shall, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, and in cooperation with States and Tribes, improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities by: (a) developing and encouraging partnerships between governments and the private sector to advance aquatic resource conservation and enhance recreational fishing opportunities;
(b) identifying recreational fishing opportunities that are limited by water quality and habitat degradation and promoting restoration to support viable, healthy, and where feasible, self sustaining recreational fisheries;
(c) fostering sound aquatic conservation and restoration endeavors to benefit recreational fisheries;
(d) providing access to and promoting awareness of opportunities for public participation and enjoyment of U.S. recreational fishery resources;
(e) supporting outreach programs designed to stimulate angler participation in the conservation and restoration of aquatic systems;
(f) implementing laws under their purview in a manner that will conserve, restore, and enhance aquatic systems that support recreational fisheries;
(g) establishing cost-share programs, under existing authorities, that match or exceed Federal funds with nonfederal contributions;
(h) evaluating the effects of Federally funded, permitted, or authorized actions on aquatic systems and recreational fisheries and document those effects relative to the purpose of this order; and
(i) assisting private landowners to conserve and enhance aquatic resources on their lands.
Sec. 2. National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council. A National Recreational Fisheries Coordination Council ("Coordination Council") is hereby established. The Coordination Council shall consist of seven members, one member designated by each of the following Secretaries -- Interior, Commerce, Agriculture, Energy, Transportation, and Defense -- and one by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Coordination Council shall: (a) ensure that the social and economic values of healthy aquatic systems that support recreational fisheries are considered by Federal agencies in the course of their actions;
b) reduce duplicative and cost-inefficient programs among Federal agencies involved in conserving or managing recreational fisheries;
(c) share the latest resource information and management technologies to assist in the conservation and management of recreational fisheries;
(d) assess the implementation of the Conservation Plan required under section 3 of this order; and
(e) develop a biennial report of accomplishments of the Conservation Plan.
The representatives designated by the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior shall co-chair the Coordination Council.
Sec. 3. Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan.
(A) Within 12 months of the date of this order, the Coordination Council, in cooperation with Federal agencies, States, and Tribes, and after consulting with the Federally chartered Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council, shall develop a comprehensive Recreational Fishery Resources Conservation Plan ("Conservation Plan").
(B) The Conservation Plan will set forth a 5-year agenda for Federal agencies identified by the Coordination Council. In so doing, the Conservation Plan will establish, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable; (1) measurable objectives to conserve and restore aquatic systems that support viable and healthy recreational fishery resources, (2) actions to be taken by the identified Federal agencies, (3) a method of ensuring the accountability of such Federal agencies, and (4) a comprehensive mechanism to evaluate achievements. The Conservation Plan will, to the extent practicable, be integrated with existing plans and programs, reduce duplication, and will include recommended actions for cooperation with States, Tribes, conservation groups, and the recreational fisheries community.
Sec. 4. Joint Policy for Administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973. All Federal agencies will aggressively work to identify and minimize conflicts between recreational fisheries and their respective responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("ESA") (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Within 6 months of the date of this order, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service will promote compatibility and reduce conflicts between the administration of the ESA and recreational fisheries by developing a joint agency policy that will; (1) ensure consistency in the administration of the ESA between and within the two agencies, (2) promote collaboration with other Federal, State and Tribal fisheries managers, and (3) improve and increase efforts to inform nonfederal entities of the requirements of the ESA.
Sec. 5. Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council. To assist in the implementation of this order, the Secretary of the Interior shall expand the role of the Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership Council to: (a) monitor specific Federal activities affecting aquatic systems and the recreational fisheries they support;
(b) review and evaluate the relation of Federal policies and activities to the status and conditions of recreational fishery resources; and
(c) prepare an annual report of its activities, findings, and recommendations for submission to the Coordination Council.
Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and it is not intended to create any right, benefit or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any other person.
WILLIAM J. CLINTON
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 7, 1995
There are many good ideas in this executive order. It seems to recognize the importance of recreational fishing in the United States. We will watch to see if the actions required by this order are completed. ASA pushed for this executive order and a special vote of thanks goes to Tom Bedell, CEO of Berkley, Inc. He was one of the prime movers behind this executive order.
AMERICAN SPORTFISHING ASSOCIATION - Annual Spring Meeting
ASA’s four day meeting was held in Washington June 6 - 9. This was ASA’s fourth meeting and it is exciting to watch the growth in this organization. Due to ASA’s work, a year’s moratorium has been established to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from closing 11 hatcheries without any consultation with the effected states and the sportfishing community. ASA understands the politics of Washington and is able to call upon many influential people to get the job done. With ASA’s help we can hope for some much needed change in Washington’s attitude toward marine issues.
On June 15th, I represented JCAA at a press conference calling for the re-authorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Also attending were Megan Mcquarrie, Clean Ocean Action, Sandy Condit, from Congressman James Saxton’s office, Seaside Park Mayor John Petersen, Roy Childers of Childers Realty, and Scottie Franklin of Main One Marina. Copies of "State of the Coasts" by the Coast Alliance were distributed. This report shows that U.S. coasts support 34% of the national employment providing more than 28 million jobs.
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT AND COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM
THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT: A STATE-FEDERAL PARTNERSHIP
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) was signed into law by President Nixon in 1972 in response to growing national concern over coastal and ocean pollution. The message behind the CZMA is clear. Increasing and competing demands caused by population growth and economic development are destroying sensitive, irreplaceable coastal resources, and it is in the nation’s interest to do something about it.
A state and federal partnership is established through the CZMA. States develop comprehensive coastal management programs meeting federal standards in exchange for federal funding and a say over federal actions affecting their coastal zones.
The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) administers the CZMA program. To qualify for federal funding, states must include in their programs protection of natural resources including wetlands, estuaries, beaches, dunes and barrier islands. And the public is to be provided access to the coasts for recreation.
Along with federal funding, the CZMA also gives states a tool to ensure that activities that affect a state’s coast are consistent with the state’s own plans for its coast. The consistency provision requires the federal government, and private parties using federal licenses or permits, to abide by state laws, regulations and policies that are part of a state’s coastal management program. The consistency provision ensures state input over dredging and dumping activities, offshore oil and gas development, and other activities that affect the lands and waters of a coastal state.
The following states have federally approved coastal zone management plans: Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Caroline, Northern Marianas, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Caroline, Virginia, Virgin Islands, Washington, and Wisconsin.
THE COASTAL NONPOINT POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM: STATE SOLUTIONS TO NONPOINT POLLUTION
Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Re-authorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) created the Coastal Non-point Pollution Control Program. This program is an important step toward restoring coastal lands and water.
Section 6217 is an incentive-based program that regards collaboration among responsible federal and state agencies, and relies upon the actions of individual citizens and businesses who benefit from the coast rather than upon massive federal civil works projects or inflexible standards. In essence, Section 6217 builds upon past voluntary efforts but recognizes their limitations.
There is a pressing need to control runoff into coastal waters Residential, agricultural and industrial development has dramatically changed the nation’s coasts. The concentration of people and economic activity in this narrow band also has led to disposal of all sorts of waste. The increased flow of pollutants has overwhelmed the ability of coastal waters to assimilate wastes. Runoff pollution from farm fields, city streets, parking lots, and developed areas has caused a wide range of ecologically and economically costly damages.
Federal and state government investments in sewage treatment plants and the actions of private industry has reduced the flow of sewage and chemicals into the nation’s waters. But in the last 20 years, little investment has been made in reducing the flow of pollutants from non-point sources.
Section 6217 established a timeline within which states with coastal zone management plans are to develop non-point pollution programs addressing five major sources of runoff; agriculture, forestry, urban, marinas and recreational boating and hydromodification.
Instead of relying on cleanup of pollution once it is generated, Section 6217 depends upon preventing pollution. Incorporating pollution reduction in the design of farms, manufacturing processes, logging and other practices rather than trying to deal with pollution afterwards is more cost effective.
Section 6217 is jointly administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA has prepared a document identifying economically feasible measures that states can take to curb runoff pollution. These are demonstrated techniques that have been tested in the real world. States are not required to adopt specific practices. Rather, a state may select from the menu of EPA-identified practices or it can adopt alternative methods if it can demonstrate that they achieve the same goal.
Working with NOAA, states have identified the geographical area in which the non-point control plan applies, the types of non-point pollution that will be subject to controls, the enforceable policies and laws that will insure implementation, and mechanisms to provide for public participation.
Based on input from the states, NOAA and EPA have been flexible in deadlines and in the steps that must be followed to craft state non-point control plans. Buy July 1995, it is anticipated that at least 20 of the 29 states with coastal zone management plans will submit for NOAA and EPA review state proposals for controlling non-point runoff into coastal waters.
The Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program is on the brink of implementation. States have spent five years crafting plans, and are not nearly ready to go.
CONGRESS MUST CONTINUE THE CZMA AND NONPOINT PROGRAM
Congress must act by October 1995 to continue both the CZMA and coastal nonpoint program, or they will expire. Without the funding and leadership for these programs, states will be hard pressed to protect their coastal resources for today and for the future.
For more information contact: COAST ALLIANCE, 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E., Third Floor, Washington, D.C., 20003 Phone 202-546-9554.
Fax: 202-546-9609.
ASA/NMMA ALLIANCE POSITION ON PROPOSED RULE CHANGES FOR BLUEFIN AND YELLOWFIN TUNA
On June 14, ASA sponsored a meeting of recreational fishing advocacy groups in conjunction with the National Marine Mfg. Association to discuss and arrive at a consensus opinion concerning the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed rules for bluefin and yellowfin tunas.
The meeting turned into a long day, but was a bellwether showing just what can be accomplished when groups get together to work on a common cause. Not all groups got everything they wanted, but by meeting’s end, a consensus document covering all facets of the proposed rules was reached and signed by all attending groups. I fully support all the positions covered in this document and wish to thank ASA/NMMA, the strong leadership shown by Mike Nussman (VP of ASA), Andy Loftus and their staff.
LETS MAKE THIS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT ALLIANCE WORK! The sportfishing community has never had a greater opportunity to impact fisheries management plans. There is an alliance that has been formed that many of us have been dreaming about for years. It brought together the manufacturers of fishing tackle, boats and marine products companies and the Marine Trades Association members, people who own and operate marinas and retail marine stores,
plus regional and national advocacy groups into a powerhouse organization to assure our marine resources and the recreational fishing industry are protected.
This group has the strength to forcefully represent the 17 million marine sport fishermen and the power of the group will be enhanced if we, as fishermen and advocacy groups can get our act together. This group is not only ready to help, but willing to take the fight to all levels of the process, both at the legislative and agency levels, but we must be able to formulate well thought out, defensible positions for them to rally their significant resources behind. There might be times when it becomes necessary for us as a regional advocacy group to fall back from specific positions of interest to us for the benefit of a stronger alliance. Not all advocacy groups have the same ideas or represent different constituencies, but if we can reach consensus opinions on the majority of issues, this alliance can be the most powerful and beneficial thing to happen to us since we formed JCAA.
I realize that this is a formidable task. Over the years, it has been hard enough to get just the clubs in JCAA to agree on some positions, but we have also come to realize how important our unity as an association is to our ability to attain our common goals. This same spirit of cooperation must be transferred to the new alliance if it is to succeed. We can not afford to allow this opportunity to slip by. Too many of us have worked too hard for too long to bring this alliance together, an alliance that has the ability to make real changes in fisheries management, to allow it to fail just because we can’t get our act together. The time has come to put aside our differences, stop striking out in disorganized ways without unity as the base for our positions, and work toward common goals.
Previously in this newsletter, I’ve discussed what ASA is capable of doing regarding the closing of fish hatcheries funded by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which was being done without consulting the states or industry that depends upon their continued operation. For the simple reason that all interested groups spoke with a single, unified voice, they were able to put a moratorium on the closings into affect so the states, industry and the federal government could work out a compromise on the issue. Over the years, I’ve heard the call that what we need is an "NRA for sport fishing." The NRA’s goals and issues were simple, mostly centered around a single constitutional amendment, the right to bear arms. Fisheries problems are extremely diverse and require a more comprehensive approach, but we have the beginnings of an organization capable of addressing them and achieving the representation that sport fishing as a sport and business has desperately needed.
As a result of the May 14 meeting on the proposed tuna rules, the following consensus opinions were developed and sent to Dick Stone at NMFS in letter form.
Dear Dick,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide commends on the proposed rules for the recreational and commercial fisheries for bluefin and yellowfin tuna. Estimates from NMFS indicate that over 17 million of this nation’s anglers participate in saltwater recreational fishing. While this activity provides an enjoyable and healthy form of recreation, it contributes significantly to the economic structure of the nation by generating over $15 billion in economic activity and providing over 200,000 full time jobs.
The recreational fishing community is committed to strengthening the conservation and management programs for these species. A healthy and sustainable fishery resource is necessary to sustain a successful recreational fishery. The nature of the gear utilized by recreational anglers (rod & reel) in fact necessitates a high stock abundance in order to provide a reasonable opportunity for success.
Unfortunately, we find the measures proposed by NMFS do little to promote strong conservation of yellowfin and bluefin tuna stocks. Management of fisheries requires a knowledge of the status of the stocks and a status of all aspects of the fisheries. By the admission of NMFS in the Federal Register notice, NMFS does not have adequate statistics on recreational yellowfin catch or effort. As such, we can not support the NMFS proposals which prematurely impose unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the recreational anglers.
The specific measures outlined below represent the consensus of the twelve organizations who are signatories to this letter. Each group may have additional individual concerns about the proposed rules which they may have registered with you.
Specifically regarding the proposed yellowfin regulations, we off the following comments:
1) Proposed Bag limit of 10 fish/day. By NMFS’ own admission, a bag limit of 10 fish per day will not result in a significant limitation on harvest. This is further reinforced through anecdotal information from the recreational community that at current stock abundance, the opportunity for anglers to reach this harvest level is not available. Therefore, there is no justification for imposing a recreational bag limit. A bag limit such as this would not meet the NMFS objective of reducing mortality, and, given the current state of the stocks, would do absolutely nothing to "restrict the potential escalation of fishing effort directed at yellowfin tuna." Furthermore, we strongly object to the arbitrary imposition of an artificial bag limit of any kind until further information is obtained and appropriate restricts are imposed on the commercial fishery. Do not interpret this as an unwillingness on the part of the recreational community to accept limitations to conserve marine fisheries. Be assured that the recreational community is ready to accept reasonable limitations (including bag limits) when adequate data is accompanied by a sound and credible stock rebuilding schedule is developed. Until that time, imposition of ineffective government regulations simply conveys the message of undue government bureaucracy which the American public has so loudly spoken out against in recent months.
2) Statistics: We strongly support measures to develop stronger and more accurate statistics for the recreational fishery to facilitate future management. As part of this, we urge the NMFS to follow through with the proposal, as part of a comprehensive recreational statistics program, to issue permits for recreational fishing at no charge to the angler. It is the consensus of the recreational fishing community that current statistical collection programs, including the MRFSS and the bluefin tuna permitting program, are not designed to capture the extent of the recreational yellowfin tuna fishery or harvest. Therefore, a more representative sampling protocol must be established and permits will provide one piece of this information. As you design this system, we encourage you to keep it as simple for anglers as possible, in order to foster better compliance and more accurate data. The American Sportfishing Association is more than willing to work with you in this endeavor.
3) Commercial Fishery: Statistics relating to the commercial yellowfin tuna fisheries are much more extensive and developed than those for recreational fisheries, thereby allowing for more comprehensive limits to control harvest and effort. For these reasons, we strongly encourage NMFS to take the following actions regarding the purse seine and longline fisheries: It is imperative to cap the level of effort by purse seine fisheries in the western North Atlantic and the entire Atlantic longline fishery based on a 10 year average from 1981-90. This time period is reflective of the recent "historical fishery" and would satisfy the ICCAT requirement to cap the effective level of fishing effort no higher than 1992 levels. Evidence presented by NMFS strongly suggests that these fisheries, particularly the purse seine, have expanded since 1991 and it is imperative that additional harvest not be imposed on stable or declining stocks of yellowfin.
Given that the yellowfin stocks may be approaching maximum exploitation, we strongly oppose the continuation of the "experimental fisheries" such as pair trawling. This experimental fishery was originally intended for 3 years and was arbitrarily and capriciously extended by NMFS for 5 years without holding public hearings on this significant action. These experimental fisheries directly contradict the intent of the ICCAT recommendations, which are designed to control growth in fisheries and not increase exploitation. It is unconscionable to the international community and to U.S. fishermen to even consider any expansion in the capability to exploit this stock.
4) The recreational fishing community does not consider the issue of the sale of fish to be a conservation issue, but rather a social issue. The disposition of the catch once it is harvested by a specific gear type (such as rod and reel) does not in itself impact the biological conservation of fisheries although it may have tremendous ramifications on management techniques. This issue is one which the recreational fishing community needs to explore in greater detail than is possible during this short comment period and therefore we cannot support it as proposed at this time.
In regard to the proposed bluefin regulations:
1) We support the consolidation of the incidental permit (allowing recreational anglers the opportunity to catch large bluefin) and angling permit only under the following conditions: any giant or large medium tuna caught under the consolidated angling permit shall be charged against the "general" category. This is necessary to maintain the current level of opportunity in the angling category. Shifting the category of recording this harvest without a corresponding shift in the allocation of the ICCAT quota would be completely inappropriate and would be considered an assault on the recreational fisheries quota by NMFS. This solution provides the NMFS with the ability to reduce the burden of duplicative permits while maintaining the integrity of the recreational bluefin tuna fishery.
2) Time/Area Closures: To the knowledge of the recreational fishing community, this proposal was not discussed in all of the scoping meetings along the coast. While time/area closures (i.e. the proposed Wednesday and Sunday closures) may be pertinent for some areas, it is not appropriate, necessary or agreeable in all areas. Therefore, we suggest that these closure be limited only to areas 1 and 2.
3) Equal access to permits. Access to a public resource should be equally provided to all Americans. Providing a certain small segment of the public with access while denying others the same opportunity for access is not acceptable. Therefore, we strongly oppose the provision which does not allow anglers to also hold a permit for general category. As stated previously, the disposition of the catch once it is harvested is a social issue. Whether a fish which is ultimately sold is harvested by rod and reel or some other gear is not a conservation issue. Therefore, we support the ability of the rod and reel angler to purchase a permit for this category.
4) Changes in bag limit. The recreational community supports the measures proposed by NMFS to simplify the current regulations on bag limits. The current regulations lead to a great deal of confusion, and simplifying these to allow the retention of 2 fish in any of the school, large school or small medium sizes would be justified.
5) Reserved category. There are several issues regarding the NMFS proposal to place the increased ICCAT quota of 76 mt in the Reserve Category. Under ICCAT provisions, 8% of the allowable U.S. harvest can be composed of small fish. These fish have provided the mainstay of the recreational fishery. The recreational fishing community considers it a high priority to maintain fidelity to this by assigning 8 percent of any increases in the ICCAT quota (in this case 6.08 mt) to the angling category. The recreational fishing community agrees with NMFS that the remaining 69.92 mt be assigned to the Reserve category. Furthermore, NMFS should make every effort to see that an equal division of the total Reserve is made between the recreational and commercial fisheries.
6) In recent years, NMFS has provided a 50 mt "set aside" of the tuna allocation for the area roughly encompassed by Moriches Inlet south to Cape May, NJ. This was done to protect the availability of a late fall fishery in this area. Although not explicitly stated in the Federal Register notice, the recreational community would continue to be supportive of such measures.
7) We are opposed to the provision which does not allow the transfer of permits from vessel to vessel. We must allow the transfer of permits between new owners of vessels with notice.
As a matter of record for all Atlantic tuna fisheries, we support the proposed measure to prohibit close approaches by purse seine vessels to other vessels (commercial or recreational) engaged in fishing for Atlantic tunas. However, we feel that this measure could be greatly strengthened to prohibit the close approach by purse seine vessels to any vessel, regardless of what species the other vessel is fishing for.
Finally, Dick, the recreational community must continue its strong objections to providing nearly one quarter of the total ICCAT allowable quota to three individuals fishing the purse seine category. The ICCAT quota was established, and continues to be used, for the purposes of scientific monitoring information. Yet, according to scientists, the information gained from purse seine gears does not contribute significantly to the body of knowledge used for the management of tuna. Therefore, the purse seine quota for bluefin is unjustified and should be reallocated to those gears in the existing fishery which provide the best management data.
Dick, we strongly urge the NMFS to give careful and due consideration to these concerns and avoid making rash and hasty decisions which could severely damage the relationship between the NMFS and the recreational community. The recreational fishing community is eager to work with NMFS towards an improved management situation for all marine fisheries, including those for highly migratory pelagics, so that the mistakes which have been made in the past are not repeated.
Sincerely,
J. Michael Nussman (VP, American
Sportfishing Association)
Mick Blackistone (VP National Marine Mfg. Association)
Thomas Fote (Jersey Coast Anglers Association)
Charles Johnson (NY Sportfishing Federation)
John T. Koegler (Thousand Fathoms Club-South)
David Arbeitman (Recreational Fishing Association Thousand
Fathoms Club-North)
Capt. Frank Ravenna (Greater Pt. Pleasant Charter Boat
Association)
Stephen Sloan (Confederation of the Associations of Atlantic
Charterboats & Captains/Fisheries Defense Fund)
Phil Kozak National Fishing Association)
Dusty Rhodes (The Fisherman Magazines)
Matt Muzley (Penn Fishing Tackle Mfg. Company)
In closing, I’ve always been against fisheries management by lawsuit, because I feel that good fisheries science and fair and equitable decisions made by using that science should be used as the primary management tools. With regard to the latest round of proposed rules concerning bluefin and yellowfin tuna coming out of NMFS, it is no longer science, but allocation based on NMFS personnel’s decisions.
The decision concerning who should and should not be allowed to sell fish is purely a social issue. These decisions can be used to allow certain groups to reap economic benefits at the cost of other user groups, and NMFS is deciding who the few privileged few will be. When was the Constitution of the United States changed to allow government agencies to decide who should be permitted to benefit from public resources and who should not. When I last looked at the Constitution, it still allowed for free enterprise in this great country. I have no problem with any person selling fish and calling themselves commercial fishermen and abiding by the regulations necessary to do so. But NMFS should not be engaging in restraint of trade, by deciding who will make money and who will not. That’s when these issues overstep traditional fisheries management and move into the realm of litigation. NMFS track record at managing fisheries stocks has been such a dismal failure that almost every stock under their control is in terrible condition, just imagine if we permit then to get into social engineering.
If NMFS personnel were paid in direct proportion to their performance, they would never be able to take early retirement, because they would owe the people of this nation too much money for their botched plans.
If it becomes necessary to pursue a lawsuit, the JCAA will need funds and the help of legal experts to accomplish this goal. We will keep you posted.