# Caught up in Catch Shares



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 16, 2011)

Caught up in Catch Shares

Written by Ted Venker	 on 16 February 2011	

Much has been made about the catch share issue in recent months. Catch shares are a poorly understood issue that has been made more complicated by an absolute avalanche of mistruths, half-truths, and outright lies swirling about it in fishing chatrooms and blogs across the country.

Almost every facet of the past, present and future of catch shares has been grossly distorted.  A glance at the average chatroom would lead casual readers to believe that there is a vast, strange conspiracy linking all-powerful environmental groups with oil companies with “double-agents” posing as anglers to rid the world of fishermen. One recurring theme is that the goal is to empty the oceans of all people so the oil companies can pillage at will. Another, green theme says the goal is to empty the oceans of all people so that the fish and whales are left alone to prosper. There are long, fantastical charts linking this group to that group, to prove the conspiracy of anti-fishers exists. Everyone is on Pew’s payroll, or Environmental Defense’s or Exxon’s.

The only thing missing is a good 007 character to save the day.

None of it is true, but it makes good reading. And nothing spoils a good tale like a few cold facts, but in the interest of setting at least some of the record straight, this column attempts to splash a little reality on the catch share mystery.

Catch share programs have been used sporadically in commercial fisheries for decades. They were created to address a fundamental problem in some commercial fisheries – too many boats chasing too few fish, resulting in dangerous, wasteful derbies. If you have ever watched the early seasons of Deadliest Catch on The Discovery Channel, that was a derby fishery. The whistle blew, all the boats went to catch king crab no matter what the weather was, no one slept and they fished until someone, somewhere, calculated the quota had been caught and then the season ended. Some made a fortune, some went broke, and everyone fished in a manner to catch as much as possible as fast as possible regardless of the danger or bycatch involved. The fact that no one sleeps for 4 or 5 days at a time is the reason it’s called Deadliest Catch.
Staying with the Deadliest Catch theme, catch shares took the whole quota for king crab and divided it up among boats based on their past catch history. Each boat’s percentage effectively became “theirs” to harvest, however and whenever they liked during the season. The Northwestern, the Cornelia Marie, the Wizard, the Time Bandit and others all now “own” shares of the king crab fishery.
The goal of catch shares in that scenario is to eliminate the derbies and reduce bycatch. A by-product of catch shares is that inevitably, some boats will sell out or lease their share to other boats. The overall number of boats drops, until a relatively few big boats are left fishing. Ideally, the dangerous derbies are eliminated, bycatch is reduced and the economics improve. That is the goal of a catch share system in a purely commercial fishery.
Some environmental groups, Environmental Defense Fund foremost among them, became enamored, somewhat naively, with the prospects of applying catch shares to all fisheries, including recreational ones, based on their use, implementation and success in purely commercial fisheries. The critical disconnect is that no one at EDF understood or appreciated the vast differences between recreational fisheries and commercial fisheries. In EDF’s mind, catch shares were a solution to all fisheries problems.
Now, in order to set the stage for what comes next, you have to understand a separate but connected issue, and that is how allocations are set in mixed-use fisheries – fisheries that have both commercial and recreational participation. Allocations between recreational and commercial sectors have historically been based on catch history, often using time frames as short as selected three-year segments. Given federal managers’ history of promoting commercial fisheries, the time frames were often not favorable to the recreational sector.

Those allocations are essentially frozen, despite the growth of recreational angling and the growing economic contribution of the recreational sector. They are frozen because the reallocation process is a political nightmare for a Fishery Management Council. It is long, convoluted and tortuous, with lots of emotion thrown in for good measure. No Council member or staffer willingly endures it if he or she can possibly avoid it.

As a result, allocations that were set 20 or 30 years ago are completely out of whack with the demographics, population and public demand that exists today. When a stagnant recreational allocation combines with the constant migration to the nation’s coasts, the end result is that more and more recreational anglers are trapped chasing a fixed allotment of fish, resulting in shorter seasons and greater restrictions for everyone. The red snapper fishery in the Gulf of Mexico is a prime example. About 300 commercial boats currently chase 51 percent of the entire harvest of red snapper in the Gulf under a catch share system. Hundreds of thousands of recreational anglers get the other 49 percent.

And no one in NOAA Fisheries has been interested in cracking the egg on reallocation.

Jumping back to catch shares, Dr. Jane Lubchenco was appointed to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2008. Dr. Lubchenco is a marine scientist with deep ties to EDF, including a stint on its board.
Not long after that appointment, the Obama Administration created the Catch Share Policy Task Force, signaling a new focus to broadly impose catch share systems on federal fisheries, including those enjoyed by recreational anglers. Compounding the complexity of this issue is the fact that the Obama Administration is filled with people from places like San Francisco and Chicago who do not exactly understand or appreciate saltwater recreational angling.
Promoted by a former board member of EDF – which doesn’t understand or appreciate recreational angling – in an Administration that doesn’t understand or appreciate recreational angling, the danger of a Catch Shares Policy Task Force was immediately clear. There was NOTHING to prevent catch shares from proceeding as a one-size-fits-all solution for the commercial and recreational sectors in every fishery.
A coalition of marine industry and fishery conservation groups, recognizing the need to become involved in the process of shaping the new policy, engaged the Administration on the issue of catch shares. At the same time, the coalition engaged with environmental groups that were heavily promoting catch share systems, including Environmental Defense Fund. The goal of that engagement was to educate them on the problems catch shares present for recreational anglers and shape the policy so that at the very least it was not detrimental to recreational angling.
That engagement is the source of a lot of confusion on the Internet. In the eyes of some conspiracy-theorist bloggers, by engaging the Administration and the environmental community on catch shares, the angling groups involved (CCA, CCC, TBF, IGFA, ASA, NMMA) were somehow “negotiating with the Devil,” “selling anglers out,” “getting on the EDF payroll,” etc. That line of thinking completely ignores the consequences of non-engagement.  An outcome driven by an EDF-driven Catch Share Policy Task Force, in an Administration that has no interest in recreational angling, could only be bad for sport fishermen. The belief that anyone can achieve a favorable outcome merely by turning their back on this issue and “just saying No” is pure political fantasy.
The coalition created a list of points to pursue in discussions with the administration, most of which are now included in the NOAA Catch Share Policy released in late 2010, such as:
- The coalition is and always has been firmly against catch shares for recreational anglers. The coalition does not believe they are an appropriate tool to manage recreational anglers under any circumstances.

- The coalition is firmly against separating the recreational sector into for-hire/charter and private boat designations.

- In mixed-use fisheries, those that have a quota for both recreational and commercial fishers, it may be determined that catch shares are an appropriate tool for the commercial sector. However, before implementing a commercial catch share system, the allocation must be redefined and updated using economic, social and conservation criteria.

- Once set, the new allocation must be reviewed periodically using those same criteria.

- In mixed-use fisheries that employ a catch share system for the commercial sector, the commercial shares must be made available for transfer to the recreational sector to allow for the growth of the recreational sector. The mechanism for transferring commercial shares could include state agencies, but is as yet undefined.

The coalition’s engagement effectively changed the Catch Share Policy from one that was initially poised to work against recreational anglers, to a tool that may be used to address the persistent allocation problems that have short-changed anglers for decades. Would this be the case if the coalition had not engaged? Absolutely not. We would certainly have a catch share policy, but there would be very little in it that might work FOR anglers.
Ideally, applying the current catch share policy in the Gulf of Mexico for red snapper, for example, could result in a 70% or 80% recreational share, with the potential to shift more commercial quota to the recreational side if economic, conservation and social factors determine it is warranted. Unfortunately, the policy does not apply to Gulf red snapper since a catch share system was implemented for that fishery in 2006. The outdated allocation for Gulf red snapper remains a stubborn problem seeking a solution. However, CCA is currently pursuing reallocation and transferability of commercial red snapper shares at the Gulf Council.
The coalition of groups that engaged with the Administration and the environmental community on catch shares stepped in to prevent a disaster for recreational anglers. Perhaps that is not as interesting as a good spy novel, full of intrigue, deception and betrayal, but this is not some daytime soap opera. This is a real-life fisheries debate, with real political consequences that must be confronted and dealt with.

When it comes to the Internet, it is good to remember that often the simplest explanation is correct. If it starts to sound like something Ian Fleming wrote, then maybe it has been written for entertainment purposes only. In fact, you should be suspicious of everything you read in chatrooms and online forums, which means you should even take this article with a grain of salt. At the very least, go see the complete text of CCA’s documents and testimony before Congress and letters to the Administration, and check out information about our lawsuit against the federal government and Environmental Defense Fund over the Gulf grouper catch share program. It’s all on the Catch Shares page in the Newsroom section of www.JoinCCA.org. Do some research and, by all means, decide for yourself.


----------



## jonkayak (Feb 16, 2011)

I see you have woken from your winter slumber. I was really hoping that the fishing forum's annual political flooding season would hold off a little longer, but it has begun. Lord help us all. 

To me it's as simple as catch shares are wrong. The government has no Constitutional business in regulating the sales of catch shares. Set a yearly quota and that's it. Let the commercial guys catch what they can. Some will go broke others will make a fortune and some will die trying. Thats just the nature of all 
business.


----------



## brailediver (Feb 17, 2011)

Complacency & ignorance is exactly what brought us here in the first place.No-one wants to hear this stuff because "that won't ever happen". Guess what? It has happened & the political engine will continue to diminish our right to fish. 
 Persons that post these reports are just trying to preserve their sport & make anglers aware of the effort to drive recreational fishermen to extinction. 
 Thanks,Mechanicaldawg, for the info. 
 Maybe some people here will be glad to read this.
 Redfish & Trout are now on the agenda because of increased fishing pressure. Oh, wait. That will never happen.
Dolphin,Wahoo,Cobia?
 Never happen!
 Mackeral? Never happen!
 Catch Shares?
Never Happen!
 Perhaps  people would be interested to know that Sheepshead are in the Federal Snapper/Grouper management complex. The new NOAA & SAFMC regulations & proposals do not say Red Snapper or Grouper will be affected. It clearly states " species that are managed under the Snapper/Grouper Management Complex!
 Pretty broad terms in my opinion!
 Thanks,
 Gene


----------



## Parker Phoenix (Feb 17, 2011)

I still believe this administartion, and NOAA are the enemy, not my friend. Neither are they friends of anglers, hunters, trappers, shooters, and citizens who are in pursuit of liberty. Obama has already called those who oppose his policies and administration the enemy. The line is drawn, we know where he stands.

Thanks for the info MD, and it's almost time for the cobia run. Better enjoy it while you still can.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 17, 2011)

Spring is right around the corner! Hopefully we can catch a cobia or two before the 'fish feel pain' fanatics at NOAA shut it down.


----------



## jonkayak (Feb 17, 2011)

Let me state that I'm about the last person who will turn a blind to eye politics. I understand that both the state and fed political organizations will destroy our our way of recreational fishing if we allow them to. My post was not intended to ignore the situation. I simply have grown overly tired of  certain orgizantions, namely CCA professing to be looking out for our best intrsest when in the past they have sold us down the river. Maybe CCA as a whole is not like that, but from my limited involvement with them and from what I have seen they are not to be trusted nor will they ever get any money from me. Maybe things have changed with them over the last year but that will have to wait to be seen.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 17, 2011)

Jon, you live in Athens. Your opinion does not count.


----------



## d-a (Feb 17, 2011)

jonkayak said:


> Let me state that I'm about the last person who will turn a blind to eye politics. I understand that both the state and fed political organizations will destroy our our way of recreational fishing if we allow them to. My post was not intended to ignore the situation. I simply have grown overly tired of  certain orgizantions, namely CCA professing to be looking out for our best intrsest when in the past they have sold us down the river. Maybe CCA as a whole is not like that, but from my limited involvement with them and from what I have seen they are not to be trusted nor will they ever get any money from me. Maybe things have changed with them over the last year but that will have to wait to be seen.



John

I agree with you 110%. I lost intrest in CCA after they supported Amendments, 16,17A and 17B.

One of the past top two guys(George Geiger) from CCA florida is on the gulf council and has Voted for the above Amendments. Now the new thing to look out for is FCTA. The FCTA has been labeled Wellfare for the comercial fishermen, paying them to not fish instead of managing there activities apropiately. CCA will tell you that it will end the closures but its only temporary fix to them and the main Culprit is still the wording in the MS 2007 Act.

http://www.coastalconservation.us/files/FCTA_Fact_Sheet.pdf

d-a


----------



## pottydoc (Feb 17, 2011)

d-a said:


> John
> 
> I agree with you 110%. I lost intrest in CCA after they supported Amendments, 16,17A and 17B.
> 
> ...



Dang d-a, looks like you and I can agree on something. 

Your post is dead on.


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 17, 2011)

It looks like someone should read the OP.

Silly claims abound in cyberworld.

CcA has no vote on any council-anywhere.


----------



## d-a (Feb 17, 2011)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> It looks like someone should read the OP.
> 
> Silly claims abound in cyberworld.
> 
> CcA has no vote on any council-anywhere.



Your correct and if you would have read what i wrote, you would realize that i said the CCA has supported Amendments 16, 17a and 17b. 

I also stated the George Geiger who Is on the gulf Council and who was the Chairman of CCA Fla, put on the gulf council as a recrationol voice has voted against amendments 16,17a and 17b. Its hard to imagine that some one that started out at the local level of CCA, progressed thru the rankings of the CCA to get to where he was at; wouldnt be voting with the CCA's interest in mind especially when the CCA supported the Amendments and George Geiger voted for them

d-a


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 17, 2011)

You are simply incorrect about CCA's support.


----------



## d-a (Feb 17, 2011)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> You are simply incorrect about CCA's support.



I seriously Doubt it...

Richen Brame spoke publicly at several SAFMC meetings supporting the closeures that are in effect now. George Gieger of the Gulf Council voted for them. He wouldnt have been apointed to the Gulf Council if it wasnt for his Involvement in CCA

And for Catch shares, look at the letter signed by the CCA, EDF, and PEW (the latter two want all fishing stoped)sent to the head of NOAA Dr. Jane Lubchenco supporting catch shares here is a quote of the synopsis of the letter 


> We would be happy to work with the catch shares task force to discuss these important issues further
> and believe that addressing these matters directly in the final policy is your best opportunity for gaining
> broader private angler support for catch shares



And the link to the letter
http://www.joincca.org/media room/F...n Reallocation in the Catch Shares Policy.pdf

d-a


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 18, 2011)

Dear Dr. Lubchenco: 
Recently a group of recreational angler and environmental conservation organizations came together to 
discuss a variety of issues of common interest and concern, including the draft NOAA catch share 
policy. While the groups could not come to a universal position on the draft catch share policy as a 
whole, there was general agreement on the need for the policy to be comprehensive, providing guidance 
to the Fishery Management Councils on key issues that should be considered during the design and 
approval of new catch share plans.  Two important issues that NOAA should evaluate as part of this 
process concern inter-sector allocations and inter-sector trading. 
Catch share plans are adopted as major amendments to Fishery Management Plans, and like all major 
amendments, they should be based on the best biological and economic information available.  Major 
amendments of this sort also provide an opportunity to review and update as necessary the key 
underlying management assumptions and past management decisions concerning the affected fishery, 
thereby insuring that the next generation of Management Plans will not be premised upon outdated 
management strategies or stale statistics and analyses.   
When the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) was originally passed in 
1976, its primary focus was phasing out foreign commercial fishing nations and developing a sustainable 
domestic commercial fishing industry. There was little or no thought given to the impact of recreational 
fishing on marine fisheries and almost no regulation of it at the time. Since the passage of the MSA, 
however, marine recreational fishing has grown tremendously, becoming the immensely popular activity 
that it is today.  According to NOAA’s own reports, recreational fishing encompasses an estimated 
16,000,000 marine anglers and contributes more than $80 billion annually to the nation’s economy. 
Unfortunately, past Federal management and recognition of this sector has been somewhat of an 
afterthought and sorely inadequate. Both you and Eric Schwaab have signaled your intention to make a 
break from this past history on recreational fishing and for that you are to be congratulated.  Taking a 
long overdue fresh look at an allocation system that has rusted shut would be a major step in fulfilling 
that commitment. 
The signatories to this letter acknowledge that sector allocations are determined in an administrative 
process led by the regional councils that is separate and distinct from the administrative process for 
approving proposed catch share plans that is led by NOAA.  Nevertheless, significant concerns have 
been expressed by the recreational fishing community that as a practical matter, the approval of a catch 
share plan will make future reallocations much more difficult to achieve.  Having said that, what we all Dr. Jane Lubchenco 
April 9, 2010 
Page 2 
are in agreement on is that the failure of the allocation process to remain dynamic, allowing some 
allocations to remain frozen in time for decades, has become a legitimate marine fisheries public policy 
issue that should be addressed since it has become an impediment to broader private angler support for 
catch shares.   
The final catch share policy should provide for reallocations and inter-sector trading that would, 
consistent with the requirements of the MSA, promote conservation and accountability.  As proposed, 
the draft catch share policy was silent as to whether the Councils should consider out-of-date underlying 
allocations between sectors during the development phase of a new catch share plan.  It also did not 
require a reappraisal of this key parameter during the statutorily required periodic reviews of catch share 
plans once they were approved and in operation.  And finally, there was no guidance in the draft policy 
on inter-sector trading which could facilitate useful free market adjustments of allocations. In short, the 
policy as proposed ignored the elephant in the room on inter-sector adjustments and left private anglers 
with little enthusiasm for supporting the implementation of new catch share plans. The final catch share 
policy should avoid these omissions and address the questions of inter-sector allocation reviews and 
inter-sector trading. 
We would be happy to work with the catch shares task force to discuss these important issues further 
and believe that addressing these matters directly in the final policy is your best opportunity for gaining 
broader private angler support for catch shares. 
Sincerely, 
Mike Nussman 
President and CEO 
American Sportfishing Association 
Jeff Angers 
President 
Center for Coastal Conservation 
Patrick Murray 
President 
Coastal Conservation Association 
Don Barry 
Managing Director for Oceans Program 
Environmental Defense Fund 
Rob Kramer 
President 
International Game Fish Association 
Thomas J. Dammrich 
President 
National Marine Manufacturers Association 
Sarah Chasis 
Director, Ocean Initiative 
Natural Resources Defense Council 
Chris Dorsett 
Director, Fish Conservation and Management 
Ocean Conservancy 
Michael F. Hirshfield, Ph.D. 
Senior Vice President, North America, and Chief 
Scientist 
Oceana 
Lee Crockett 
Director, Federal Fisheries Policy 
Pew Environment Group 
Ellen Peel 
President 
The Billfish Foundation 
Jim Martin  
Chairman 
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
cc: Eric Schwaab, Assistant Administrator or Fisheries 
 Dr. Mark Holliday, Director, Office of Policy, Office of the Assistant Administrator


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 18, 2011)

I posted the letter in its entirety so that no part could be taken out of context. I understand that some people believe that CCA, nor anyone else, should engage and involve themselves in the process.

I disagree. There is a system in place and it is one that we have to deal with rather attempt to isolate ourselves from. 

In response to a post under the "Caught up" post on CCA's site Mr. Venker posted the following:

Ted Venker says:
February 17, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Thanks for your message. It was not my goal to defend or explain EDF’s fascination with catch shares. And I do not intend to defend or explain Dr. Lubchenco’s focus on catch shares. And I certainly do not intend to debate whether or not they actually work for commercial fisheries. The point of that article was simply to explain how and why Coastal Conservation Association and other groups found it necessary to engage this Administration and EDF to prevent catch shares from being a disaster for recreational fisheries. There have been many rumors circulating online trying to skew our position on catch shares as a result of that engagement.

CCA is opposed to catch shares and is currently engaged in the only lawsuit in the entire country over catch shares, in which we are taking on the federal government and the Environmental Defense Fund over the Gulf of Mexico grouper catch share program.However, we are living with an Administration that is trying to impose them broadly and so we engaged to prevent that from impacting the recreational sector.


----------



## mesocollins (Feb 18, 2011)

Mechanical Dawg, you're starting to sway me back in favor of CCA. Some very interesting points made by both sides.


----------



## d-a (Feb 18, 2011)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> I posted the letter in its entirety so that no part could be taken out of context. I understand that some people believe that CCA, nor anyone else, should engage and involve themselves in the process.
> 
> I disagree. There is a system in place and it is one that we have to deal with rather attempt to isolate ourselves from.
> 
> ...




Im glad to see CCA is in a lawsuit over something thats not been implemented and is only in the discussion stages, But What are they doing about the amendments that are PASSED effecting every Recreational fisherman? I know that lawsuits have been filed against NOAA, but not by the CCA.


d-a


----------



## d-a (Feb 18, 2011)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> Dear Dr. Lubchenco:
> Recently a group of recreational angler and environmental conservation organizations came together to
> discuss a variety of issues of common interest and concern, including the draft NOAA catch share
> policy. While the groups could not come to a universal position on the draft catch share policy as a
> ...



I highlited what was already posted, and like i Said it was a synopsis of the letter. If this doesnt make your blood boil that the CCA is in Conjunction with the EDF and PEW trying to work together to find the 





> best opportunity for gaining
> broader private angler support for catch shares


 then i done  here.

d-a


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 18, 2011)

No problem with the effort at all. in fact, I am a proud member of 2 of the other organizations signed onto the letter that you did not highlight in red.

Cute new sigline. Not true, but I'm sure it makes you feel good.


----------



## d-a (Feb 18, 2011)

Mechanicaldawg said:


> No problem with the effort at all. in fact, I am a proud member of 2 of the other organizations signed onto the letter that you did not highlight in red.
> 
> Cute new sigline. Not true, but I'm sure it makes you feel good.



So your saying Richard Brame reginal biologist of the CCA who spoke out publicly supporting catch shares doesnt Speak with the CCA's Intrests? What about George Geiger? He was the chairman of CCA florida and IS on the gulf council and DID vote for the Amendment 16,17A, and 17B, but yet he doesnt have the CCA's intrests in mind? So how does that make my Signature line "Not True" as you say? 

You avoided this the first time I brought it up in this thread but yet you still say its " not true" but without any evidence of it.

 You Havent answered any of the previous questions, Im done here for the second and final time.

d-a


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 18, 2011)

da,

Again, I will answer you:

CCA has no vote on any council. 

Mr. Geiger is a member of many organizations and his vote, I'd dare say, is not on behalf of any of those either.

CCA makes written position statements. 

People say lots of stuff about what they "heard" and "know". Those kookfeast ideas were addressed, for the record, in Mr. Venker's writing above.


----------



## Bryannecker (Feb 20, 2011)

In the latest issue of "Saltwater Sportsman" magazine, editor John Blownlee has an editorial entitled, " Is Overfishing Over?"

In it he states that according to a recently retired scientist for NMFS, Dr. Steve Murawski: " He claimed that for the first time in over a century, overfishing has ended for virtually every fish species managed by NMFS!"

Mr. Brownlee then elaborates on the impact of that statement. Read it in the March 2011 issue.

So, folks, there you have it. But some or most of us have known that fact for a long, long time. 

Will his pronouncement have any impact on the prospects for us as recreational fishermen? Only time will tell,  but I am not holding my breath!

Capt. Jimmy 

P/S: How about the latest statement by a former advisor to the NMFS!  Did he have a muzzle on when he was with them, but does not now.  Read the [supra] article and learn more about the people in positions of power over us all as fishermen.


----------



## Bryannecker (Feb 20, 2011)

All of the letter goes hand in glove with the "progressive agenda" for not only fishing,  but America as a whole.  Catch shares assumes that the biomas of fish is a collective whole owned by the government,  and to be doled out to the various sectors of the fishing public.  It is not, but it is an individual right of the individual fishermen.  Catch shares and annual catch limits is nothing more than another method of "Social Engineering" by our ruling class.  

We must resist it.  We must stop it or we will loose all of the freedoms that we have left.  Our government is just too intrusive in our daily lives,  and these clubs/organizations are part and parcel of that effort to gain even greater control.  

That is why I do not support them and never will.  You can join me by doing likewise and acting as rugged individualists,  who made this country great.  The basic premise of all of the management of fish is flawed from the outset.  It is tyranny pure and simple.  
This may sound radical but our forefathers have already said it.

Capt. Jimmy Newman


----------



## Mechanicaldawg (Feb 21, 2011)

Capt. Newman,

I appreciate and applaud your activism! It is imperative that we do stand up as individuals and assist and guide our government in making the right decisions in all aspects of their oversight in our lives, whether we deem that oversight to be Constitutionally warranted or not.

I do my best to stay involved myself. However, unlike Wisconsin school teachers, I cannot just lay out of work and head to the Capitol or to a Council meeting or hearing on the coast during a weekday. (Although I do use about 1/2 of my allotted vacation time each year to such causes.)

That is why organizations such as RFA, CCA and others are important. Though you may not agree with every stance any particular organization presents, a citizen should be able to look at mission statements and past actions to determine whether or not a particular .org fits their bill and being active with that org should be more productive than reading about someone else's effort.

I've studied the positions and history of CCA and have found that they have opposed many decisions by NOAA and the various fishery councils, including catch shares, held true to their mission statement and made difference in protecting and restoring our resources on a large front.

They have done far more to protect the fishing future of my grandchildren than any one individual could ever hope to do going alone.

That is why I support them.


----------



## jonkayak (Feb 21, 2011)

Bryannecker said:


> All of the letter goes hand in glove with the "progressive agenda" for not only fishing,  but America as a whole.  Catch shares assumes that the biomas of fish is a collective whole owned by the government,  and to be doled out to the various sectors of the fishing public.  It is not, but it is an individual right of the individual fishermen.  Catch shares and annual catch limits is nothing more than another method of "Social Engineering" by our ruling class.
> 
> We must resist it.  We must stop it or we will loose all of the freedoms that we have left.  Our government is just too intrusive in our daily lives,  and these clubs/organizations are part and parcel of that effort to gain even greater control.
> 
> ...



  

Well said.


----------

