Freedom to Fish Act Passes Congress, Awaits President's Signature

With bipartisan support, the Freedom to Fish Act has passed both houses of Congress and now awaits President Obama’s signature to become law.

Will he sign it? I can’t imagine that he wouldn’t. But with this administration, you never know what’s going to happen. It tends to like government regulations, lots of regulations. And it doesn't seem to care much for recreational fishing, as evidenced by the National Ocean Policy and the process used in creating it.

When/if the bill becomes law, it would remove access restrictions to recreational fishing along the Cumberland River in Tennessee and Kentucky.

The bill was drafted in response to a recent Army Corps of Engineers decision to restrict access downstream of 10 dams, citing safety concerns. Anglers didn’t like the proposal, saying they would lose some of their most productive waters. In addition, their respective legislative representatives criticized the Corps action, saying that it was overreaching.

“In this political climate it is refreshing to see a bill receive bipartisan support in the interest of recreational anglers and boaters alike,” said ASA Vice President Gordon Robertson, vice president of the American Sportfishing Association.

“While angling and boating access are important to the area’s economy, the proposed barriers along the Cumberland River were also unnecessary and counterproductive from a safety standpoint.

“Particularly concerning with these proposed closures was the lack of public input that went into the Army Corps’ decision,” noted Robertson. “If anglers had been provided an opportunity to weigh in on this proposal, Congressional action might not have been needed. It is critical that the public be allowed sufficient opportunities to provide input on any policy decision that might affect the public’s ability to access and enjoy public resources.”

The Freedom to Fish Act prohibits restrictive areas on the Cumberland River by the Army Corp for two years and also requires the Corps to remove any physical barriers that have been constructed since Aug. 1, 2012. Any future restrictions must be based on operational conditions that might create hazardous waters, and must follow an extensive opportunity for public input.

 More information on the Freedom to Fish Act and the Cumberland River issue can be found at Keep America Fishing.

Darden Restaurant Chain Disrespects Recreational Anglers

If you’re a recreational angler, you might want to reconsider that next family trip to Red Lobster or the Olive Garden. In spending your money at one of these Darden restaurants, you are supporting a restaurant chain that does not support you.

In fact, it’s not unreasonable to say that Darden is no friend to fishermen. As the recreational angling industry argues for a greater share of red snapper, the chain has come down squarely on the side of commercial fishing.

In fact, a recent article in the Orlando Sentinel says this:

“Even Darden Restaurants — which has seafood on the menu of all of its 1,900 restaurants — supports the quotas. In a letter last June to the Gulf Management Council, the company called for a continuation of the quota, though it said commercial fishers should be allotted more and recreational anglers less.”

Now before I told you about this situation, I wanted to make absolutely sure of the facts. To do that, I had to track down the letter. You’ll find it here.

After reading it, though, I still wasn’t certain of Darden’s position. That’s why I asked Mike Leonard, Ocean Resource Policy Director for the American Sportfishing Association, to take a look at it.

Here is what he said:

“I too am a little fuzzy on some of the specifics in that letter, but it is clear to me that they’re calling for a review of the red snapper allocation, and imply that more of the quota should be given to the commercial sector.

“Not surprising that a seafood company would want a greater supply of red snapper, just like it’s not surprising that anglers want more fish made available for them to catch!

“The difference is that we have an increasing body of data that demonstrate the significantly greater economic value (some showing an order of magnitude or more) that these fish hold when caught recreationally vs. commercially.”

In other words, more and more evidence reveals that recreational fishing for red snapper (and other “mixed fishery” species) is more beneficial to the economy than commercial fishing. Now add in the fact that recreational fishing for marine species accounts for only about 2 percent of harvest.

Check out Comparing NOAA’s Recreational and Commercial Fishing Economic Data to learn more.

And how about this from a background document on the grouper fishery provided me by Leonard:

“A recent presentation to the socioeconomic science and statistical committee (SESSC) of the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council by two NOAA Fisheries Service economists showed that recreational value for grouper far outstrips commercial value in the grouper fishery.

“These economists concluded that the current allocation is economically inefficient and to increase efficiency and maximize the value to the nation, the allocation should be moved towards the recreational sector.”

If you do decide to keep patronizing Darden restaurants, you might want have a chat with the local restaurant manager about this issue, or, even better, you might want to write a letter to the chain, expressing your displeasure with a policy that disrespects a significant portion of its customers and their families.

As Leonard pointed out, it’s not unreasonable that a seafood company wants more fish to sell in its restaurants. But if it drives away customers by antagonizing them, what’s the point?   

National Ocean Policy Improved, But Still Threatens Recreational Fishing

I haven’t posted about this administration’s National Ocean Policy in awhile. But it still poses a threat to the future of recreational fishing.

That’s because those driving its implementation  refuse to acknowledge public access to fishing and other outdoor recreation as a priority.

The American Sportfishing Association says this:

“The sportfishing industry supports the improvements in the administration’s final Implementation Plan for its National Ocean Policy but still has concerns that the social, economic, public health and conservation benefits of recreational uses of our nation’s public resources did not receive the priority consideration that it deserves.”

And this:

“In the ‘plus’ column, the industry is pleased to see the heightened emphasis on the role of state agencies in any kind of marine planning connected to the National Ocean Policy and the explicit statement that regions choosing to opt out of NOP-directed marine planning can do so,” said ASA President and CEO Mike Nussman.

“ASA is disappointed that the NOP failed to include a broader and more pronounced acknowledgment of the need to designate public access to fishing, boating and other recreational activities as priority uses, consistent with the administration’s ‘America’s Great Outdoors’ initiative.

“Nussman further said, ‘We welcome the plan’s emphasis on better science and data. ASA will continue to press for more pronounced prioritization of fishery data as well as socio-economic data that more clearly reflects who is tapping our ocean resources, their actual impacts on the resources and the economic engines they are fueling.’”

Read more here.

Recreational Fishing: Its Power and Popularity

Photo by Robert Montgomery

There are approximately 60 million anglers in the U.S. of which 46 million are estimated to fish in a given year.

One of every four anglers fishes in saltwater.

Fishing tackle sales grew more than 16 percent in the past five years.

Since 2006, angler numbers grew 11 percent

More Americans fish than play golf (21 million) and tennis (13 million) combined.

If fishing were a company, the amount spent by anglers to support fishing-related retail sales would rank number 51 on the Fortune 500 list.

Fishing generated more revenue ($48 billion) than Lockheed Martin ($47 billion), Intel ($44 billion), Chrysler ($42 billion) or Google ($38 billion).

The economic activity generated by sportfishing is greater than the economy, measured in Gross State Product, of 17 states.

At more than 46 million anglers, more than twice the number of people fished in 2011 than attended every NFL game combined.

These statistics come from Sportfishing in America: An Economic Force for Conservation. It is a report produced by Southwick Associates for the American Sportfishing Association.

Feds Set to Steal Fisheries Funding

As if we needed another reminder that our federal government is broken, the Office of Management and Budget came up with this:

Cut $34 million from the Sport Fish Restoration (SFR) and Boating Trust Fund to help reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion, as required by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

Now, I’m one who believes that virtually every program, including those related to conservation and natural resources, should be on the table to help us get the massive federal debt under control.

But the problem with this recommendation is that the SFR fund is not financed by taxpayers, as are all those other federal expenditures. Anglers pay for this one themselves with excise taxes paid on fishing tackle and motorboat fuel.

To deny any of that money to the states for fisheries management, as it was intended, is theft.

“The angling and boating community was shocked to learn that for the first time in its 62-year history, the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund – the backbone of fisheries conservation in the United States - is recommended for a cut under sequestration totaling $34 million,” said Gordon Robertson, vice president of the American Sportfishing Association (ASA).

 Established in 1950 with the support of industry, anglers, and state conservation agencies, SFR “is an outstanding example of what good government should be and is the backbone of the user-pay model of funding conservation in this nation. It is essential that it remain untouched,” Robertson added.

The Sport Fish Restoration Act of 1950 placed a federal excise tax on all recreational fishing equipment, which manufacturers pay and is then incorporated into the cost of the equipment that anglers purchase. In 1984 the Act was amended to include that part of the federal gasoline fuel tax attributable to motor boat use. The total annual value of the Trust Fund is approximately $650 million. The monies from the fund are apportioned to state conservation agencies for sport fish restoration, boating safety, angler and boater access and other fishing and boating programs.

“When anglers and boaters pay the equipment tax or the fuel tax they are doing so with the understanding that this money is going to a trust fund dedicated - by law - to the resources they enjoy,” said Robertson.

“Withholding funds from this essential program at a time when state fishery programs are already struggling to ensure the best quality service to anglers and resource management will only cause fishery resources to suffer even more and cause job losses associated with the loss of recreation fishing boating programs.

“The sportfishing and boating industries, as well as anglers and boaters themselves, fail to understand how cutting a user-pay trust fund helps the economy.”

Recreational fishing adds $125 billion each year to the nation’s economy and supports more than one million jobs. Since its inception, SFR has pumped $7 billion into habitat restoration, access and boating safety programs.

SFR’s hunting counterpart, the Wildlife Restoration Act of 1936, is slated for a $31 million freeze. That program is funded by hunters and men and women who engage in the shooting sports and archery, who pay a similar tax to support wildlife restoration.

“This level of cuts to conservation programs that pay their own way is unprecedented and all anglers, hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts must speak up to prevent these cuts,” Robertson concluded.

Along with these two cornerstone conservation acts, many other critical conservation funds are also listed for significant cuts. Congress, with the cooperation of the Administration, must address the sequestration schedule and this will not occur until after the elections and possibly not until early 2013 and with a new Congress.

Visit Keep America Fishing regularly to keep current about when Congress may act on the SFR recommendation and other fisheries programs and when you should speak up.

And keep this in mind: Many in Washington consider fisheries and conservation “easy marks” for budget cuts. Some don’t recognize their importance. Others believe that anglers simply are not a constituency to be feared or even respected, for that matter.

The only way that the latter will change is for us to show them otherwise.