Blueline Regs Worst Than First Thought

[tautog]

The RFA does not have 1% of the resources of the NRA. You have to pay to play.

[TomKaye]

Originally Posted by tautog

The RFA does not have 1% of the resources of the NRA. You have to pay to play.

Maybe we all need to put up or............you all know the rest.
Apparently our phone calls and occasional e-mails to legislators need more ooomph.
I'm an NRA member. Thinking about joining RFA as well. Am I wasting my money ??
Maybe our heirs will get some benefit. http://joinrfa.org/

Tight lines all.
Tom K.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by tautog

The RFA does not have 1% of the resources of the NRA. You have to pay to play.

Kirk, you are an avid angler and I know from reading your posts you respect the sport. I also get your intention. Having said that the NRA has ONE and ONLY one Agenda. Anything that has the word Gun in it gets support whereas with Fishing regulation, some are on board with fighting (donation wise) ONLY Stripers while others favor ONLY Fluke while others favor ONLY Seabass
or some favor 2 out of the 3 While still others believe because the RFA is NOT NRA that nothing can be done so they do NOTHING at all. Then factor in that there are other fishing rights groups that some support rather than support ALL fishing groups which creates more separation and less "pay to play" so comparing NRA to RFA is not really a true comparison. Anyway you get my point. There really is NO reason given the amount of fisherman nation wide that the RFA couldn't compete lobbywise with the NRA except for the fishermen themselves while constantly informed stay on the sidelines

Other tidbits:

NRA spends approx 3 to 3.5 million in lobbying wheras the RFA spends between 70 to 250 thousand lobbying depending on issue and year so its more like RFA has between 2% to 7% of NRA spending not less than 1% but still a significant number. RFA has the lobby capability just NOT the support of its fishing community like NRA has from gun community. Just wish fishermen would realize that and give us a fight we could win

[TomKaye]

Thanks for that input Dale. I will join RFA tonite.

[dales529]

Originally Posted by TomKaye

Thanks for that input Dale. I will join RFA tonite.

Thanks Tom it all helps! starts with one becomes a few then can become a movement

[tautog]

Originally Posted by dales529

Other tidbits:

NRA spends approx 3 to 3.5 million in lobbying wheras the RFA spends between 70 to 250 thousand lobbying depending on issue and year so its more like RFA has between 2% to 7% of NRA spending not less than 1% but still a significant number. RFA has the lobby capability just NOT the support of its fishing community like NRA has from gun community. Just wish fishermen would realize that and give us a fight we could win

NRA has more resources than just lobbying money. Their 501C spends more than $25 million per election cycle supporting 60-80 candidates. They spend $1 million a year in direct campaign contributions. The individual members spend several million per year in campaign contributions. They have a TV show and a magazine. Practically everyone knows them and very few people outside fishing have heard of the RFA. So very conservatively they are spending $19 million per year to push their agenda.

[bunker dunker]

what ever happened to "by the people,for the people".we openly admit that we have to "pay" to have fair laws.is it me or dose something sound wrong here?.we have to pay to have our political leaders go out and get the fisheries
people{who we pay thru taxes}to go out and do there job so that they can come back with data that is 10 years old.we vote,we march,we make phone calls and we send emails and nothing works but money that always works.
very sad,very very sad

[Capt Sal]

If anyone thinks the Recreational Fishing Alliance is in the same league as the National Rifle Association you are sadly mistaken. We have no Charlton Heston's behind us although I wish we did. As far as the money spent in comparison I would strongly suggest you have the facts and figures before posting. The fact is people that do not live in a coastal state could give two cents about recreational salt water fishing. People in every state care about the right to bear arms!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[reason162]

It's not at all analogous, even beyond the money spent. The NRA is about perceived rights vs. perceived safety, as mentioned it's pretty simple and straight forward + the politics line up, ie pro gun-anti government vs. anti gun-pro regulations. On top of that you have a very active gun industry sponsorship. They can frame the debate in a very simplified format: keep guns, take guns away. It's only zero-sum for the gun owners, not the anti-gun people.

What we're dealing with is a public/natural resource problem with various factions (comm, rec, rec-for-profit, conservationists) with the government smack in the middle. Almost all can agree on one thing: the science is lacking. But for more and better science, that means more funding, more oversight, which means more money to the government...that doesn't necessarily line up with any preexisting political allegiances.

[Gerry Zagorski]

NOAA has a $5.5 Billion budget in 2015. You'd think with that sort of money they would be able to invest in some better science.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.... If someone in the government is getting paid to manage the fisheries, what do you thing they are going to do? Say nothing is wrong and leave a fishery alone?? No, they are going to over manage the fishery to justify their jobs and next year's budget.

The wheels of the bus go round and round, we get thrown under it and worse yet, we paid for the bus.