Monica Medina
Special Advisor to the Under Secretary
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
1401 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20230

Dear Ms. Medina:

The Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA) is a national, 501(c)(4) non-profit grassroots political action organization that has been representing individual sport fishermen and the sport fishing industry since 1996. The RFA Mission is to safeguard the rights of saltwater anglers, protect marine, boat and tackle industry jobs and ensure the long-term sustainability of U.S. saltwater fisheries. RFA members include individual anglers, boat builders, fishing tackle manufacturers, party and charter boat businesses, bait and tackle retailers, marinas, and many other businesses in fishing communities across the country.

RFA has reviewed the most recent report by NOAA describing the status of the US marine fisheries. Overall, significant rebuilding progress has been made and there are ample successes to hang our hats. With this success, many of the problems we now face in the recreational fishing community are not due to depletion of stocks or a lack of availability of fish to recreational anglers, but access to rebuilding stocks. RFA views this lack of access as the most pressing issue that will shape the future of our industry. RFA is supporting legislation that if passed, would provide reasonable access for recreational anglers while continuing to achieve long term conservation goals. RFA hopes NOAA, Dr. Lubchenco and the Obama Administration recognize that anglers need more access to healthy, rebuilding fish stocks.

RFA would like to submit the following comments specific to catch shares, limited access privilege programs (LAPP) or any other program that assign limited fishing rights to recreational anglers. RFA understands that the current Administration is considering limited access programs for the recreational fishing sector. Articulated in some of the documents released, it appears the Administration is moving with unnecessary urgency to have the regional councils establish limited access programs that would grant exclusive fishing rights to certain individuals. RFA shares a similar level of frustration with the current management of some of the nation’s most important recreational fisheries. However, RFA has a philosophical objection with catch shares and LAPPS in the recreational sector. There are undeniable and potentially catastrophic impacts that would be felt in the traditional recreational fishing community and its related businesses if catch shares or LAPPs programs are advanced. RFA believes the Administration is moving much too quickly to give these concerns adequate attention.

RFA recognizes there may be some advantages to managing the commercial fisheries through IFQ’s and catch share programs, but believes it is inappropriate to make broad comparisons between the commercial and recreational sectors with regard to this management approach. There are motivations that drive recreational fishing that cannot be assigned a dollar value and that simply do not exist in the commercial fishing sector. Limiting access or reducing capacity is often one of the main objectives of a commercial IFQ program. When access is limited and capacity is reduced, commercial landing and discards tend to decline. For recreational IFQ/catch share program to be successful, the Administration must assume that one of the key results would an overall reduction of anglers. RFA is adamantly opposed to this type of management approach as it is contrary to the traditional open access policy used to manage recreational fisheries.

Some groups have suggested selling fishing rights to the highest bidder, thereby assigning a dollar value for every pound of recreationally landed fish. RFA believes this approach would set a profound precedence forcing anglers to pay for fishing access. As market factors drive the cost for each fish, the recreational fishery would become cost prohibitive for many anglers to engage the fishery. The result would be a fishery reserved exclusively for the wealthy and those financially privileged enough to afford to fish. This approach is in complete violation of the Public Trust Doctrine which is the legal doctrine that protects the interests and rights of the public to free access to the nation’s marine resources.

RFA believes such an approach would also violate the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Sec. 301 (a)(4) and (5) that state "If it becomes necessary to allocate or assign fishing privileges among various United States fishermen, such allocation shall be (A) fair and equitable to all such fishermen." . Section (5) continues to state that "no such measure shall have economic allocation as its sole purpose." RFA contends that catch shares and LAPPs programs based on market value would not be fair and equitable to all fishermen and that by reserving fish for those who can pay the most, violates Magnuson. RFA believes everyone should have the right to fish, not just those with the financial standing to buy their right.

RFA believes it to be bad public policy to select who can access the marine resources based on their economic situation. It is clear that under such an approach, certain demographics and communities would be disadvantaged and adversely affected. This approach would make it burdensome for new entrants into the fishery. Without new fishermen coming into the fishery, the very progression of new participants that tackle shops and other fishing related businesses depend upon would collapse. This also goes against the multimillion dollar marketing campaigns funded by federal excise taxes on fishing products to attract new fishermen. Furthermore, as illustrated in the commercial red snapper fishery where price per pound increased 15% in the first year of the IFQ system, market demands in a recreational IFQ/catch share program would accelerate attrition as costs rise. Such a proposal would quickly lead to a small scale, boutique recreational fishery only accessible by elite fishermen. RFA envisions and hopes the future of recreational fishing is far different from this potential view.

In closing, several key legislators have recognized that fisheries management is failing on many levels. In response, they have introduced legislation that would address these problems and provide a long term solution while securing open access for recreational anglers. It would base rebuilding on science based principles and allow recreational fishing communities to benefit from rebuilding success. Specific to many of the nation’s most important fisheries, pending closures and other excessively restrictive measures are a direct result of arbitrary provisions in the federal law. IFQs, catch shares or any other measures that aim to reduce recreational participation will not stop the closures or give anglers a better season. Only amending the law will. RFA is convinced that catch shares, LAPPS, or IFQ’s would not foster a viable and long term future for our nation’s recreational fishing community.

RFA recommends that the Administration discontinue pursuing this type of management approach for the recreational sector. There compelling questions that the Administration has not apparently fully weighed.

1. Conversion from pounds to numbers of fish would not be straight forward. Mean weights will need to be assigned for each species based on the theoretical preferred or most frequently landed length frequency. Would this be based on traditional landings (preferred size) or current landings based on regulations and MRFSS sampling?

2. How would fish be allocated to individual anglers? Would every angler receive the same amount or would avid fishermen receive a greater share based on their activity? Would there be reserve shares for anglers that decide to fish on impulse or that miss the initial allocation?

3. In some fisheries such as summer flounder and red snapper, there are more anglers engaged in the fishery than individual fish that can be allocated. The number of fish allocated per angler would be less than 1. How can this fact be rectified in the recreational sector?

4. If shares are allocated, how could this be done without excluding the public and complying with MSA requirements?

5. What is the goal or objective of a catch share program? Limited access is a means of reducing the number of anglers so it must be assumed that one objective is to reduce the number of recreational fishermen. How would this improve the management of our nation’s recreational fisheries primarily focused on quota management?

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. As we mentioned, RFA is very concerned about angler access and views this as the greatest problem facing our industry. We hope any fisheries policy advanced by the Administration recognizes this most pressing problem but affirms that catch shares and LAPPs are not the solution for the recreational sector.

Sincerely,

Jim Donofrio

Executive Director