Ssfff To Challenge Mrfss Landings Data

[CaptTB]

Originally Posted by Kensdock

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA .

Capt.TB, When I mentioned the RFA I was referring to the law suit over the sea bass season.

And yet the RFA is not involved in any review of MRFSS at this time, so again you are completely wrong. You feel the need to try and bash RFA even when they are not part of the topic.
Pathetic.

Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board had unanimously directed the Board to take action prior to September 1. The Board was presented with recreational harvest projections for black sea bass that indicated the harvest target could be exceeded by 86% to 165%.

Obviously, some processionals think the sea bass are over fished!

My dear sir, do you even know what the term overfished means? Sorry, if you did you would know how ridiculous your statement is. The fact that a harvest target for the recerational sector or a quota for the commercial sector is exceeded does not mean a stock is overfished. In addition, while exceeding a harvest target COULD mean that "overfishing" is occurring, it does not have to mean that, as is the case with Sea Bass.

I would suggest you go look up the definitions of those two words (overfished and overfishing) before you try to use them in a sentence. To date, you have not used either of them correctly.

I see the MRFSS data and stock observations made by anglers is only good if it fits your argument

No, the difference is my use of angler observations comes from thousands of people from all walks of the fishery (land based, boat and partyboat) as well as professionals and industry people from states along the coast.

You, on the other hand, read some weblogs of cape may fishermen and consider yourself an expert and call that "research."
Plus, you do realize that the stock status information is not MRFSS data don't you? No, I suppose you don't know the difference.

This from the guy that does not even know the definition or proper use of the terms he is using.

Here, I'll help get you started: From the Magnuson Stevens Act: "The terms "overfishing" and “overfished" mean a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis."

From the National Marine Fisheries Service: "NMFS' definition of "overfishing" from the national standard 1 guidelines was the basis for this language, but Congress deleted the qualifier "long-term" before "capacity." The intent was to apply the "overfished" label to more fisheries by focusing on the current capacity to produce MSY. See the discussion of "optimum."
Issues:
Congress may have confused the situation by lumping an adjective (describing a fishery) and a verb (describing an activity) in the same definition. The activity of overfishing may occur in a fishery that is not in an overfished status; harvest in an overfished fishery may not be overfishing."

By the way, I noticed you still haven't answered my questions. C'mon Ken, these were YOUR NUMBERS according to YOUR RESEARCH as you called it. So, stand up and defend your statements, retract them, back them up, whatever.

here, I'll post them again in case you missed it the first three times:

Originally Posted by CaptTB

I notice you still have not commented on the numbers posted. So Ken, how realistic are your numbers? Not what you caught personally, but your "estimates" that were derived from your "research" as you put it?

Is it realistic to think that Fluke fishermen in NJ caught the equivalent of the entire Fluke biomass in one season? Is it realistic to assume, as you did, that NJ recreational fishermen landed more fish (your 10% at 250lbs) than the entire coastal quota for both recreational and commercial combined?
Is it realistic to think that NJ recreational fishermen caught more fish (cutting your numbers in HALF) than the entire recreational sector on the eastern seaboard?

[Kensdock]

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA . Once you made the decision you knew it would be necessary to pay for your own survey so the end result could be manipulated, I surmise. Short term economic gain is usually followed by a bust and this is just what you have ordered.You do this in complete disregard of the condition of flounder and sea bass stocks. Most of recreational anglers agree if there is to be a mistake with the quota/survey they would like it to fall on the conservation side. I would also like to have a longer flounder season,bigger bag limit and a shorter size limit.
I have learned from past mistakes that have been made by regulators pressured by commercial interest. Increasing the flounder quota based on surveys that have been paid for by those that stand to benefit financially is never going to be a good idea.

When I mentioned the RFA I was referring to the law suit over the sea bass season.


Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board had unanimously directed the Board to take action prior to September 1. The Board was presented with recreational harvest projections for black sea bass that indicated the harvest target could be exceeded by 86% to 165%.

Obviously, some processionals think the sea bass are over fished!


In the past you laughed at my when I started a thread calling for a moratorium on weakfish.
You also belittled my over a post about a NJ salt water license. If you take a look at the comments sent to the ASMFC calling for a moratorium and the active polls on the NJ salt water license topic, It should become glaringly apparent that I am not the only one that disagrees with you on some topics. Thankfully NJ anglers are big on forming their own opinions!

I see the MRFSS data and the observations of anglers is only good if it fits your argument.

At this point you are just using Semantics Captain!!

[CaptTB]

Originally Posted by Kensdock

At this point you are just using Semantics Captain!!

OK Ken. Next time I go to D.C. or Trenton for a Congressional hearing I'll expect to see you there.

When a Congressman or Senator talks about overfished or overfishing I want to hear you tell them "But Senator, those are just semantics!"

You accuse the RFA of doing something they aren't even involved in at this point, and that is just semantics?

You make these ridiculous statements about landings numbers that are so far from reality that when questioned even YOU can't defend, and you are as far from reality as anyone, and it's just semantics?

Nice try, but I doubt anyone with a brain buys it Ken. Strange how you still did not answer the questions, but at least now everyone knows that your numbers and motives are questionable to say the least. Your personal little crusade against the RFA and anyone else that has actually worked at improving fisheries and fishing is just that, a little crusade. You try to drag groups like the RFA into conversations on topics of which they have no involvement just to slander them. This is the second time you've done that in a thread with me, and I for one will call you out on it each and every time.

You have no facts or logic to support your statements. You say things that cannot be proven, then refuse to comment on them when questioned.

Here, a quote from your blog that is rife with flat out false statements. No wonder you got banned from that other site.

Originally Posted by Kensdock

The law suit reeks of greed and indifference to the future generation of sportfishermen. Do not be fooled by the name RFA they were started by the marine manufactures and party boat groups and that is where their allegiance lies.They have the audacity to ask sportfishermen to fund their law suit! They have been using half truths and innuendos in an attempt to exploit the sea bass stock for SHORT TERM economic benefit for party boat owners.

RFA was not started by Marine Manufacturers and Party boat groups genius. My favorite part is the exploitation ofsea bass for short term benefits. The friggin stock is completely rebuilt and yet we still have the smallest quota in the history of the stock.

Sorry chief, but you are no longer worth the bandwidth. After reading the ridiculous crap you have posted here and elsewhere I'm confident that 99% of the people see you for what you are. Perhaps one guy from this site wants to follow you around the internet, but after reading things like the BS and flat out lies I just posted from your blog, I doubt too many other people with a functioning brain will.

Go away, there are adults here trying to carry on conversations Ken.

[Kensdock]

Fishing alliance linked to yacht firm

Lawsuits say Viking controls nonprofit

BY ALEXANDER LANE
(Newark) STAR-LEDGER STAFF
February 6, 2005

Whether fighting no-fishing zones, keeping white marlin off the endangered-species list or elbowing commercial fishermen out of favored waters, the Recreational Fishing Alliance makes its voice heard.

The New Jersey-based RFA, which has chapters in all coastal states, bills itself as a “grassroots political action organization representing individual sport fishermen and the sport-fishing industry.” It frequently touts its tens of thousands of members in brochures and press releases.

But according to two recent lawsuits against its executive director, there’s only one member that really matters. The suits say that New Gretna-based Viking Yacht Co., one of the nation’s premier luxury yacht manufacturers, tightly controls the non-profit, tax-exempt RFA, and the two operate as a “single integrated enterprise.”

Fishing advocates and environmentalists said they have long believed as much, maintaining that the RFA cares more about Viking’s interests than those of the fishermen it claims to represent.

“There’s a big difference between what they do and what we do,” said Al Marantz, a founding member of the all-volunteer Jersey Coast Anglers Association, with a membership of about 30,000. “Decisions can be made by (Viking CEO) Bob Healey himself and not really correspond to the wishes of the fishermen.”

Both lawsuits were sexual harassment complaints against RFA Executive Director James Donofrio, and the plaintiffs, both RFA employees, had a clear financial motivation to involve the deep-pocketed yacht company. Raymond Bogan, who represents Donofrio in the lawsuits and the RFA in other matters, said it was “absolutely false” that Viking and RFA operate as a single enterprise.

“There is no question nor has there ever been a question that they are two very distinct entities,” Bogan said. “Viking is a contributor and a sponsor of the RFA, as are a number of other entities.”

Healey founded the RFA in 1996, and Viking remains its prime source of funds, an RFA official said. Until last February, its only three board members were Healry, Donofrio and Viking Chief Financial Officer Gerard Straub Senior., and the RFA operated out of Viking’s office complex in Burlington County. Until June 2001, RFA employees were paid with Viking checks, Straub said.

The RFA paid Viking $2,900 a month in rent for space at the Viking office complex and paid for the payroll services when it received them, Straub said. In February, Donofrio, Healey and Straub elected nine other board members, called “voluntary directors at large,” from other boating companies, publications and organizations.

Experts in nonprofit tax law said the arrangement between RFA and Viking would be illegal if their funds were commingled, or if the RFA did not have independent corporate governance.

“It’s when their governance or their finances get foggy that there is a possibility that the nonprofit status could be revoked,” said Andy Rothman, an assistant dean at Rutgers University School of Law. “That would have to be analyzed.”
James Harrison, a partner at the Atlanta law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan who specializes in tax-exempt organizations, said the RFA might be following a well-established tradition among non-profit groups of de-emphasizing their commercial ties and emphasizing their grassroots members “so it will have at least the appearance of being more important to legislators.”

RFA says its 37,000 members include individuals who have paid $35 to join, individual members of fishing clubs that have paid $100 as a club, and corporations that have paid anywhere from $100 to $100,000.

According to its tax filings, the group had revenues of about $1.6 million in 2003, with “direct public support” accounting for about $1.3 million and about $240,000 coming from membership dues. The filing did not say how much came from Viking, but Straub said it was about 41 percent.

Some environmentalists have long accused the RFGA of representing the interests of its boating industry members, and Viking in particular, above those of recreational fishermen.

Benson Chiles, director of the Coastal Ocean Coalition, said the RFA is the driving force behind efforts to pass Freedom to Fish acts – laws sharply limiting the creation of marine protected areas where fishing is banned – on the state and federal levels.

My theory is Viking is concerned about market share,” Chiles said. “If there are places that are protected in the ocean from fishing pressures, then there’s not as much need for a multimillion-dollar yacht to get out to that area.”

Bogan said federal no-fishing zones could hurt Viking’s business, but the RFA’s stance against them is no indication that Viking controls RFA. The zones would also hurt the business of the other manufacturers who belong to RFA, Bogan said. Furthermore, the RFA spends much of its time on issues that affect mom-and-pop charter operators, such as regulations on close-to-shore fish such as striped bass, winter flounder and red snapper, Bogan said.

RFA has put an extraordinary amount of effort into those issues, and those are completely unrelated to any of the big boat companies,” Bogan said.

Viking, founded about 40 years ago, is one of the nation’s largest yacht manufacturers, with more than 1,000 employees. It makes about 110 boats a year, which sell for an average of more than $1.5 million through dealers around the world.

One of the lawsuits against Donofrio, filed in March 2003 by former RFA Legislative Director Sharon McKenna, was settled amicably for terms that remain confidential. The other, filed by another RFA employee named Bonnie Adams, is in the discovery phase. Both were filed in Superior Court in Burlington County.

Alexande Lane covers the environment. He can be reached at alane@starledger.com or (973) 392-1790.

[Bates]

Kensdock, maybe you could bring us up to date with what the RFA has been doing since this article was written 4 1/2 years ago? How did the second employee suit end? Tried to call A. Lane but they do not seem to be available any longer? Hope you will be at the meeting tonight, I am sure a lot of people would like to discuss your views vs theirs? Maybe you could have some handouts answering the questions put to you earlier in this post?
See you there.

[CaptTB]

Wow Ken, I can't believe it took you so long to post this. Figured you would have just gone straight to SOL and copied and pasted it from that thread you were involved in.

So, let's get back to the topic at hand.
Remember, you need to learn to be accurate with your statements and have FACTS to back them up.

You post and article that, amongst other things, quotes two disgruntled employees filing lawsuits as to what Viking's involvement in RFA was. And we all know that people filing lawsuits are always 100% truthful in making their claims against the person or group whom they are suing right?

Anyway, you said, and I quote-

Originally Posted by Kensdock

Do not be fooled by the name RFA they were started by the marine manufactures and party boat groups

And, that statement is completely false. Had you bothered to do any research beyond a single newspaper article posted on the internet you would have known the facts.

Suffice to say Viking was approached to help fund a new recreational fishing organization, not the other way around. The logic was, they have a stake in healthy fisheries, so why not get some big money backing to help fight the enormous amounts of money at the "antis" disposal. Second, if you notice even in that newspaper article there is no mention of any party boat groups.

Wanna know why?

Because there were no party boat groups involved in starting the RFA.

How exactly can the RFA have allegiance to a group or groups that started them when no such groups exist? Plus, it's not like the connection to Viking Yachts has been any big secret, the RFA offices used to be right on site at the Viking offices. That was one way they could focus more of the money coming in on the issues, by not having to rent outside offices.

Perhaps some day Ken you'll learn how to actually research the facts, but I don't think I'll be holding my breath waiting.

[Kensdock]

Challenging the MRFSS landing data was a business decision for you and the RFA . Once you made the decision you knew it would be necessary to pay for your own survey so the end result could be manipulated, I surmise. Short term economic gain is usually followed by a bust and this is just what you have ordered.You do this in complete disregard of the condition of flounder and sea bass stocks. Most of recreational anglers agree if there is to be a mistake with the quota/survey they would like it to fall on the conservation side. I would also like to have a longer flounder season,bigger bag limit and a shorter size limit.
I have learned from past mistakes that have been made by regulators pressured by commercial interest. Increasing the flounder quota based on surveys that have been paid for by those that stand to benefit financially is never going to be a good idea.

When I mentioned the RFA I was referring to the law suit over the sea bass season.


Commission’s Interstate Fisheries Management Program Policy Board had unanimously directed the Board to take action prior to September 1. The Board was presented with recreational harvest projections for black sea bass that indicated the harvest target could be exceeded by 86% to 165%.

Obviously, some processionals think the sea bass are over fished!


In the past you laughed at my when I started a thread calling for a moratorium on weakfish.
You also belittled my over a post about a NJ salt water license. If you take a look at the comments sent to the ASMFC calling for a moratorium and the active polls on the NJ salt water license topic, It should become glaringly apparent that I am not the only one that disagrees with you on some topics. Thankfully NJ anglers are big on forming their own opinions!

I see the MRFSS data and the observations of anglers is only good if it fits your argument.

At this point you are just using Semantics Captain!!

I am sure at this point most NJ fishermen know why I urged them to make their own comments to the ASMFC and not rely on the RFA.


It frequently touts its tens of thousands of members in brochures and press releases.

But according to two recent lawsuits against its executive director, there’s only one member that really matters. The suits say that New Gretna-based Viking Yacht Co., one of the nation’s premier luxury yacht manufacturers, tightly controls the non-profit, tax-exempt RFA, and the two operate as a “single integrated enterprise.”

Fishing advocates and environmentalists said they have long believed as much, maintaining that the RFA cares more about Viking’s interests than those of the fishermen it claims to represent.

[CaptTB]

Ken, why do you simply keep quoting yourself over and over?

I guess if you have nothing of value to say, just say it a lot.

Funny how you have never addressed ANY of the points made directly refuting you suppositions and "research."

[Leif]

Capt.TB

Thanks for all your hard work and effort. Tonights meeting was productive and informative.

Thank you as well Kensdock for the entertainment and the reminder why we do what we do.


Leif

[CaptTB]

I've been waiting for an intelligent response to the multitude of questions I have asked you and to the various facts pointed out to you Ken, please hurry up and provide at least some response other than repeating your same post over and over, I'm getting sleepy.